Identify this colt pistol?
- Thread starter Marplot
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,934
- Reaction score
- 3,733
Walker
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 7,493
- Reaction score
- 21,011
- Location
- On the Border in Idaho looking at BC
1847
its a walker . the dragoon had a catch for the loading lever
So. Would it use a 60 grain charge?
Generally speaking, I believe you can put as much powder in the chamber as it will hold while still allowing the ball to seat below the chamber mouth. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.
I would agree that the subject revolver is a reproduction of an 1847 Walker. I don’t know the capacity of its chambers.
Sixty grains is a lot for a handgun. I shoot 55 grains in my .50 caliber rifle. Take a look at the chamber walls of that Walker cylinder and ask yourself if you would shoot a rifle with a barrel wall that thin. Samuel Colt had reasons for discontinuing the Walker.
I’m sure there is a lot of cachet in shooting one of these, especially one loaded to maximum capacity. However, if I were you, I would consult a reliable black powder loading manual and follow the recommendations.
Just my opinion.
Good luck, and be safe.
Notchy Bob
Rumor has it the Walker was the most powerful handgun until the .357 Magnum. But there is a good reason why it was classified as a "Horse Pistol".
Just to qualify this pistol as being a Walker. Not that I would shoot it above 35grains. I just want to have a bp supergun!
I think it was called a "horse pistol" because it was carried on a horse. I think there was a double holster that draped over the saddle with a hole in the middle over the pommel to keep the rig from sliding.
Also, the Walker was made to kill Comanches' horses.
Yes, I also use 50grains in my .54 Cal Jeager.
The early Walkers had fluted cylinders that could blow up when max to overload.
I don't plan to shooting 60grains! Just to just have bp supergun!
Yes, it was carried in pommel holsters - because it tended to pull one pants down.
Actually to kill angry Mexicans. Interestingly, Sam Walker was killed by a lance before the guns arrived.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 7,493
- Reaction score
- 21,011
- Location
- On the Border in Idaho looking at BC
45g fffg will get you to .357 mag levels. i don't think you could seat the ball over 65g. will have to see with my repop.
the reason the early Walkers blew up was the guy's were used to loading nothing but ball in a handgun. many loaded the conical reversed . steering sucked and they let go.
the Walker IS the BP supergun.
the reason the early Walkers blew up was the guy's were used to loading nothing but ball in a handgun. many loaded the conical reversed . steering sucked and they let go.
the Walker IS the BP supergun.
It was the metallurgy of the original Walkers’ cylinders that was the problem.
I would agree, in that the original cylinders were made of iron. The steel cylinders in today's reproductions are almost certainly stronger. However, I don't think the metallurgy changed much between production of the Walker and the Dragoons that followed. Reducing the cylinder length of the Dragoons, as compared to the Walkers, reduced the chamber capacity so they wouldn't hold as much powder as a Walker. I'm sure that helped, with regard to safety.
I had also read the same thing cited by @deerstalkert (post #11), that some of the men seated the conical bullets with the points down, thinking this would make them easier to seat and also allow just a few more grains of powder. As Mr. Deerstalkert said, this proved to be a bad idea.
I looked through some of the references I have, and most reported 55 grains as the maximum recommended load for a Walker reproduction, with 45-50 grains (depending on the author) as optimal. I don't know the minimum load that would work without a filler to take up some of the space. I imagine 45 grains of FFFg would be plenty!
Notchy Bob
I have shot 60 grains of powder in my Uberti Waker, but it is very hard to pack the ball down below flush on a full charge. I use 55 grains now.
The Walker was too big and heavy to be practical. Colt revolver designs got smaller after that.
The Walker was too big and heavy to be practical. Colt revolver designs got smaller after that.
I've fired a 60 gr charge in mine before. It was just mainly for an experiment to see how it shot and because I could. I didn't notice any real difference other than people coming out of the range shack wondering what in the heck I was shooting. Those Walkers aren't very practical in my opinion other than for nostalgia, a hoot to shoot and powerful firearms from the past with a great history behind them. I'm sure you will enjoy yours.
LOL! I forgot about it until your story, but shooting 6 full charges from my short-barreled Walker brought curious members out of the club house wondering what I was shooting!
morehops52
50 Cal.
Please forgive the slight off topic. I only mention this because of the reference to supergun. IIRC the factory manual for a ROA stated that it could safely shoot a load of 40g 4F powder. I couldn't be bothered with using cornmeal filler so I shot full loads of 3F powder at paper plates at 50 yards. My buddy had a Walker and shot full loads and was flipping over cow pattys off the deck. He returned his after a month because the action had loosened up and couldn't be tightened any better. It was a 1970's Italian I believe.
I don't use any filler either, and I am not interested in reduced loads. I don't shoot my Walker reproduction very often, but I do I only shoot heavy loads. There would be no other reason to shoot it. I have plenty of smaller 44 and 36 guns, and one 30 caliber gun if I want to shoot lighter loads.
A replica of a Colt Walker. A horse pistol intended to be carried in a saddle holster.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2018
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 466
As everyone has said, it is a Walker, if you zoom in on the box you will see both in the lower right side and clearly the Walker does not have a catch on the barrel for the loading lever and the Dragoon does.
