Got a Uberti Walker - like the others have stated, the 55 grain load works best in mine. When you figure out she is shooting about a foot high @ 25 yrds., (most of them will do this) if you don't know what to do check back with us. There are some old posts in this forum showing exactly what to do with that problem.
...and another 1847 Walker question
- Thread starter willtill
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
This was posted about a yeatr back by Buddy C, I haven't tried it myself yet:
I have a Uberti Walker and I came up with a simple solution to the "Dropping Lever" problem. On the front of the loading lever spring there is a little "knob" that slips under the rear of the loading lever to hold it in place. I filed the upper portion if the "knob" flat so that it slips a little farther under the rear of the lever and locks it in place. Be careful and file just enough off to barely slip under the lever or the lever will be loose. The good thing is that the spring can be replaced if necessary. The only problem with this is that you will no longer be able to just pull the lever down. You will have to use something to push on the little knob, where it has slipped under the lever, to release the lever for loading. I use the screwdriver tip of my Walker nipple wrench.
I have a Uberti Walker and I came up with a simple solution to the "Dropping Lever" problem. On the front of the loading lever spring there is a little "knob" that slips under the rear of the loading lever to hold it in place. I filed the upper portion if the "knob" flat so that it slips a little farther under the rear of the lever and locks it in place. Be careful and file just enough off to barely slip under the lever or the lever will be loose. The good thing is that the spring can be replaced if necessary. The only problem with this is that you will no longer be able to just pull the lever down. You will have to use something to push on the little knob, where it has slipped under the lever, to release the lever for loading. I use the screwdriver tip of my Walker nipple wrench.
RedFeather
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,306
- Reaction score
- 43
Two questions regarding these Walkers:
1) Anyone think a max load of something like 777 is too much? I'm seeing posts here that 60 grains is OK, but these new powders are saying to reduce by 30%. That would make a 60 grain (poured, not weighed) load of 777 equivalent to 85 grains.
2) There was an old post I saw that these were inaccurate at 25 yards, but suprisingly so at longer ranges. Any experience with this?
Those are still might nice heavy duty guns. Are the later dragoon models equivalent in power? I would think they share the same basic parts to cut costs.
RedFeather
1) Anyone think a max load of something like 777 is too much? I'm seeing posts here that 60 grains is OK, but these new powders are saying to reduce by 30%. That would make a 60 grain (poured, not weighed) load of 777 equivalent to 85 grains.
2) There was an old post I saw that these were inaccurate at 25 yards, but suprisingly so at longer ranges. Any experience with this?
Those are still might nice heavy duty guns. Are the later dragoon models equivalent in power? I would think they share the same basic parts to cut costs.
RedFeather
RedFeather
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,306
- Reaction score
- 43
paulvallandigham said:
I had exactly the opposite experience. A clerk at a local Sports Authority told me he had sold a customer a cheap CVA in-line (the Apollo?) which the customer returned as defective as it wouldn't handle three pellets. The clerk handed over a brand new rifle in exchange for the old one, this time reminding him that the max load was two 50 grain pellets. Back comes the customer, all mad as hell because the second rifle failed and demanding a third. The clerk told his it was obvious he was overloading the gun and, in the interest of the customer's personal safety, refused to make another exchange. Told him to take it up with CVA (who would refuse a return due to voiding the warranty). Nice to meet someone ethical these days.
BTW, how does Green Mountain, for instance, proof their barrel blanks? Guess we have to take them on faith?
RedFeather said:
The Dragoon was introduced to rectify a number of defects found in the even larger Colt Walker revolver which were discovered in active service during the Mexican War. For example, the Walker was so large at four and a half pounds that it was quite unwieldy. Additionally, a number of Walkers exploded when they were fired, no doubt causing much grief to their users. Features introduced in the Dragoon model include a slightly shorter cylinder, holding up to 50 grains of powder and a round ball (compared with 60 grains in the Walker), a slightly shorter barrel (7.5 inches versus 9 inches for the Walker), and a somewhat more positive loading lever latch designed to keep the lever from dropping down during recoil and jamming the piece. The shorter barrel and cylinder brought weight down to 4 pounds two ounces and thus made the arm slightly easier to handle. The lower powder capacity lowered chamber pressures and made the gun inherently less likely to blow up when shot. Improvements in Colt's metallurgy also helped in this regard. As far as accuracy on the copies I can't say but Walker himself said of the originals that they were as effective as a common rifle at one hundred yards, and superior to a musket even at two hundred."
RedFeather said:
Your first question regarding 777, I would be reluctant to use the full load of 777. However, I believe the quality of these modern replica weapons is such that they would handle it. I don't use 777 as I find it too erratict in its velocities, I stick to regular Goex and put up the the fouling.
Regarding accuracy on the Walker. After substantial filing and adjustment of the rear sight in the hammer nose, my Walker (Uberti) is very accurate. It is on par with any other cap 'n ball that I own and maybe a little better due to the extra barrel length and longer sight radius. I can get 2" groups at 25 yrds. and have danced a coffee can around at 100 yrds. with it off the bench.
One problem that I have had from time to time is the loading piston suctioning the ball out of the chamber mouth after seating it it. As you retract the piston after pushing to ball in atop the felt wad, the piston sticks to the ball and begins to pull it out. It doesn't seem to matter what size ball I use .451, .454 or even .457, they will all do this occassionally. Seems part of the problem is bore butter stuck in the cup of the piston helping to glue it to the ball. Another problem seems to be the edge of the piston itself is rather sharp and seems to be digging into the face of the ball slightly when you compress it into the chamber, just enough to grab the ball sufficiently to pull it out on retraction. If anyone has any suggestions about this little problem I am all ears!
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 94
Since I don't work for Green Mountain, you might call them and ask them about proofing. I suspect that they, like other barrel makers, submit standard samples to a private lab, where the testing is done. Most smaller companies cannot afford to have their own testing facilities on site. Green Mountain has been making barrels for so long it may be big enough to do it itself, however.
I am glad you know a store clerk who refuses to continue to sell guns to an idiot, and a dangerous one at that. Wish that was always the case. If yo stop by the local wallyworld some evening and visit the sports department, take a look at who is behind the counter. Odds are it will be some part time high school kid, who doesn't even know where the key is to the gun rack! That is why I said, " Sometimes, it is the clerk....." Now, if I had been working in a gun store at 16, I would have known more than most the adults hired to work in the gunshops I visited as a kid!
I am glad you know a store clerk who refuses to continue to sell guns to an idiot, and a dangerous one at that. Wish that was always the case. If yo stop by the local wallyworld some evening and visit the sports department, take a look at who is behind the counter. Odds are it will be some part time high school kid, who doesn't even know where the key is to the gun rack! That is why I said, " Sometimes, it is the clerk....." Now, if I had been working in a gun store at 16, I would have known more than most the adults hired to work in the gunshops I visited as a kid!
John S. (RIP)Ford, the medical officer and adjutant of the Texas Mounted Volunteers got two of the Walkers in the Mexican War. He attributed the blow-ups chiefly to a practice of the troops who were not at all familiar with conical bullets. Many were loading them into the chambers point first believing that the point was there to make loading easier. According to Walker, this almost invariably caused the cylinders to let go.
Looking at the shape of the original bullet, it is very evident that there is little bearing surface in contact with the chamber. The shape of the bullet also allowed a good repository for sloped over powder. An undersized or poorly loaded bullet could provide a direct path for flame to reach the powder in adjacent chambers
Picture:
These bullets will develop 1158 fps on the average when loaded over 45 grains of Swiss FFFG. This is the maximum charge weight for this particular bullet that will allow seating below the chamber mouth. The group in the picture was fired one-handed at 40 yards. This group and others shot at 25 yards were just as good as the ones fired with round balls. There are no fliers. Straight seating was possible because I coned the loading ram to fit the bullet nose without distortion and direct it straight into the chamber. A bullet shaped like a cone should not shoot this well.But it does
Looking at the shape of the original bullet, it is very evident that there is little bearing surface in contact with the chamber. The shape of the bullet also allowed a good repository for sloped over powder. An undersized or poorly loaded bullet could provide a direct path for flame to reach the powder in adjacent chambers
Picture:
These bullets will develop 1158 fps on the average when loaded over 45 grains of Swiss FFFG. This is the maximum charge weight for this particular bullet that will allow seating below the chamber mouth. The group in the picture was fired one-handed at 40 yards. This group and others shot at 25 yards were just as good as the ones fired with round balls. There are no fliers. Straight seating was possible because I coned the loading ram to fit the bullet nose without distortion and direct it straight into the chamber. A bullet shaped like a cone should not shoot this well.But it does
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 94
The design of conicals was changed after this experience, giving a longer shank for contact with the chamber, or rifling, than those early ones designed for the Walker. Nice target for one hand shooting with a revolver that weighs that much. It would be fun to see how tight a group it will shoot at 50 yds, and 100 yds, using two hands, and a rest, or any of the creedmore shooting positions. While this gun was used primarily in the War with Mexico, it did see limited use on the Texas frontier against Indians, and the round could certainly kill at longer distances than the 40 yds shown here. This was THE Magnum revolver, until the .357 magnum revolver came out in 1935 or so, as no other gun sent a bullet out of a handgun faster until then.
I did basically the same shooting at 50 yards using ball loads. The early post-war texas expeditions seem to confirm the use of round ball loads as early as 1848. One captain J.E. Johnston reported to the US congress that he didn't like the bullet loads because they made the cylinders (and guns) overly bulky in order to get enough powder in the chambers. He said the round ball loads were more effective in the same guns and voiced a desire to return to the five shooters
[url] http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32066&d=1133484141[/url]
These pistols are pretty easy to shoot with the long sighting radius and the extra weight. They hold steady even with the wind blowing.
[url] http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32066&d=1133484141[/url]
These pistols are pretty easy to shoot with the long sighting radius and the extra weight. They hold steady even with the wind blowing.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,139
- Reaction score
- 5,450
Quote - 'BTW, how does Green Mountain, for instance, proof their barrel blanks? Guess we have to take them on faith?'
Well, according to Mr PaulVallandigham above, yes, you do.
At least over here in poor old Yoorup we KNOW that our weapons have been proofed. Each and every one of them.
And BTW, Mr PaulVallandigham, the reason why softer steels are used in the production of Black Powder firearms is not becasue of penny pinching, as a look at the price-list for any weapon made by Hege will easily demonstrate, but because they are both suitable and appropriate materials.
If you had to pay $2000 for a replica Walker, would you have one? Or $700 for a Remington, and so on, made of exactly the same material as a nitro-firing weapon?
Anyway, I don't intend to get into a p******g match with you about the rights and wrongs of proofing in the USA - I have never seen a US-made weapon blow up either, but then, not being privy to the internal workings of the British Proof house, I would not expect to. I simply made the point that all our weapons bear visible proof that they are acceptable firearms. Nothing on earth can prevent some lame-brain from either overloading a BP weapon, or using Nitro-based propellant if he or she chooses to do so. All the proof marks in the world would not save you then. Like the high-quality Remington Mod 1858 in our gun-store - loaded with 40gr of 2400...
tac
Well, according to Mr PaulVallandigham above, yes, you do.
At least over here in poor old Yoorup we KNOW that our weapons have been proofed. Each and every one of them.
And BTW, Mr PaulVallandigham, the reason why softer steels are used in the production of Black Powder firearms is not becasue of penny pinching, as a look at the price-list for any weapon made by Hege will easily demonstrate, but because they are both suitable and appropriate materials.
If you had to pay $2000 for a replica Walker, would you have one? Or $700 for a Remington, and so on, made of exactly the same material as a nitro-firing weapon?
Anyway, I don't intend to get into a p******g match with you about the rights and wrongs of proofing in the USA - I have never seen a US-made weapon blow up either, but then, not being privy to the internal workings of the British Proof house, I would not expect to. I simply made the point that all our weapons bear visible proof that they are acceptable firearms. Nothing on earth can prevent some lame-brain from either overloading a BP weapon, or using Nitro-based propellant if he or she chooses to do so. All the proof marks in the world would not save you then. Like the high-quality Remington Mod 1858 in our gun-store - loaded with 40gr of 2400...
tac
Charley Hart
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 0
Don't have a walker... Some day I will, but for now no. 60 is listed as the max load. I would go below that unless you have a reason 45-50 sounds right. IMO no sense in wasting powder or tearing up your gun with excessive recoil. Especially just for plinking.
Peter M. Eick
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 1
But then why own a Walker and deal with the lever drop issue and other realities of the gun if not to use the power it is capable of?
I run mine pretty much near 55 to 60 grns. It seems to handle it well and that is what I bought it for. Maybe I should worry about wearing it out, but frankly I just don't think it is likely.
I run mine pretty much near 55 to 60 grns. It seems to handle it well and that is what I bought it for. Maybe I should worry about wearing it out, but frankly I just don't think it is likely.
Risking attack from all of you Walker fans, you know if you buy a 1st, 2nd or 3rd model Dragoon you will have a gun that's a little lighter (4 pounds vs 4 1/2 pounds), can take almost as much powder (40 grains) and has a ramrod that doesn't fall down when the thing is fired. :grin:
Yah, they are not a Walker but they are the redesigned gun the Walker evolved into to solve its problems.
Yah, they are not a Walker but they are the redesigned gun the Walker evolved into to solve its problems.
Charley Hart
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 0
Good question why not go to the highest load. I did not say you could not feel free. Just doesn't make sense to me. The max load on my hawken is 120 grains . But I only need about 75 to hit dead on at 50 yards.
Well, I am not usually one to contradict the instructions in the manual, but this sounds like a generic revolver instruction sheet that got translated into English from Italian and never looked at again. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to address a letter to Mr. Uberti asking for clarification? I've shot sixty grain charges from my old Armi San Marco Walker with no issues, other than having to get over the flinch it left me with. Forty to fifty grains is much more manageable. I wouldn't hesitate to use the same volumetric measure of Triple 7 or Pyrodex. Just remember that you still gotta clean it, despite what the manufacturers may say.
NEVER mind ...I just saw that this was a necro thread revived from 2006. post deleted
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,497
- Reaction score
- 5,651
I just got back from shooting my pair of Walkers, I put 50 rounds through each with 50 grain charges of 1F.
30 grains in a Walker is a Mouse fart load, and I do believe the ball will still reach the powder in the chamber , especially with a wad but I've never tried it
Similar threads
