Load for Uberti Walker Revolver

[TNGhost]

That's generally true for production guns with the exception of the Ruger Redhawks. I once read a 20K max load torture test with four different shooters going at it in relays. After the 20K of max loads the gun was thoroughly spec'd out and the author said all that occurred was a smoothing of the lock works and trigger pull. I bought one and am impressed with it.
I am curious to see how well my Uberti Walker stands up to full power loads as that's all I ever intend to shoot in it!

The Ruger DA revolvers are definitely beefier than their Smith (or other) counterparts, and I have no doubts they do hold up better. When I was carrying a 686 for a living, half of those that graduated the academy in my class were issued GP100s, and they did seem to have a better maintenance history, not by a lot but definitely a stronger gun. Now to my mind anyway, the Smiths were more svelte, more ergonomic and easier/quicker handling and certainly lighter, also the sights were better and they seemed a bit more accurate.
.
I have a Blackhawk, in .44 mag as well, and it definitely is a sturdily built gun.

As to your intended use of max loads in your Walker, given today's modern metallurgy I don't think the difference in a max load with it is going to be anywhere near as abusive as a max. .44 mag load compared to lighter ones, and while over time you will see some increased wear, it's going to take an awful lot of shooting to be noticeably detrimental.

 

[Dexterado]

Looking into buying a Uberti "Colt" Walker revolver, but can't any consistent loading data for 3F powder charges with .454 round balls.

Any ideas for a "safe" load to make it potent like the originals were? I mean, you buy a Walker because it was the magnum of it's day.

I actually have a Walker listed for trade in the classified section. I’ve shot mine less than 100 rounds. I use 50 grains, lubed wad, and .457 ball. It’s fun, but I’m looking for a Remington.44 with the 5 1/2” barrel.

 

[D Yager]

If the arbor is correct and the pistol is properly set up full house loads won't be a problem. Once again look at Mike's posts on shooting 45 acp loads in his open tops.

 

[Smokerr]

Getting the Short Arbor correct on a Ubertti is a must for higher level loads if you don't want to wreck the gun.

My original intent was to shoot the Walker with a 40 or 50 grain load....NEVER at the 60 grain load of 3F.

That is a doable load but its a heavy one and its not the chamber or the barrel, its the hammering of the frame if the short arbor is not corrected.

You do get into powders and ability to compress and that reporting is all over the map. You do not want to much powder in the chamber that you need leverage to get a ball to seat. A bullet has its issue with length and taking up more space.

I have seen reports of 60 into a chamber and others that say its impossible.

I think I did 40 grains, 1100 fps as I recall. 3F. At some point you get lead plating with soft lead.

I use a LabRadar and that is the Gold Standard for Chronographs (Gamins new unit seems as good).

If the arbor is correct and the pistol is properly set up full house loads won't be a problem. Once again look at Mike's posts on shooting 45 acp loads in his open tops.

And I believe 45 Colt in his Dragoons (+P if I remember right)

Also, 75 gr Pyro P measured in my Brass Unit comes out to 52 grains weight on the scale. That is a chamber filled to flush. So there is a vast difference in those relationships. I do not know if I could compress that with a .454 ball on top.

 

[M. De Land]

Getting the Short Arbor correct on a Ubertti is a must for higher level loads if you don't want to wreck the gun.



That is a doable load but its a heavy one and its not the chamber or the barrel, its the hammering of the frame if the short arbor is not corrected.

You do get into powders and ability to compress and that reporting is all over the map. You do not want to much powder in the chamber that you need leverage to get a ball to seat. A bullet has its issue with length and taking up more space.

I have seen reports of 60 into a chamber and others that say its impossible.

I think I did 40 grains, 1100 fps as I recall. 3F. At some point you get lead plating with soft lead.

I use a LabRadar and that is the Gold Standard for Chronographs (Gamins new unit seems as good).



And I believe 45 Colt in his Dragoons (+P if I remember right)

Also, 75 gr Pyro P measured in my Brass Unit comes out to 52 grains weight on the scale. That is a chamber filled to flush. So there is a vast difference in those relationships. I do not know if I could compress that with a .454 ball on top.

I'm always fascinated as to the reasoning behind the theory of short arbor end fit causing revolver destruction , care to elaborate your speculation as to cause and effect?

 

[Smokerr]

I'm always fascinated as to the reasoning behind the theory of short arbor end fit causing revolver destruction , care to elaborate your speculation as to cause and effect?

For you, not at all. For anyone else, Mike aka 45D has it covered and its been answered in print as to how it should be. Pay an engineer to run all the calcs. Granted you still would not believe it.

I don't know how electrons flow either. I worked Reality Mechanics. If the people that built they machine said, put Crisco on that bolt (or over their balls) and torque it to 55 ft labs, that is what I did. Is Crisco what everyone else uses? Nope -but all sorts of lube from stuff that was called Peanut Butter that was horrid toxic and would get you arrested now, to engine oil and anti seize. But that thar machine mfg used Crisco and they used 55 lbs or Torque so that is what I am going to use. I could waste my whole life figuring out that anti seize would be 50 lbs.

All you do is argue on no basis and when proven flat wrong, then you change directions and argue some more. Go argue with yourself in the mirror. Do a UTube with yourself arguing back. It should be seriously hilarious.

 

[45D]

I'm always fascinated as to the reasoning behind the theory of short arbor end fit causing revolver destruction , care to elaborate your speculation as to cause and effect?

Well, the "theory" of the short arbor was laid to rest when Bad Karma posted the patent concerning it.
(Funny, seems like you agreed it was good to finally know . . . whatever!)


Again, i suggest that you "un-fix" your Walker and shoot max loads with heavy conicals and let us know how it goes. You can "correct" it later and see if the problem/ problems persist ( you know, like some of us did . . . ).

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

For you, not at all. For anyone else, Mike aka 45D has it covered and its been answered in print as to how it should be. Pay an engineer to run all the calcs. Granted you still would not believe it.

I don't know how electrons flow either. I worked Reality Mechanics. If the people that built they machine said, put Crisco on that bolt (or over their balls) and torque it to 55 ft labs, that is what I did. Is Crisco what everyone else uses? Nope -but all sorts of lube from stuff that was called Peanut Butter that was horrid toxic and would get you arrested now, to engine oil and anti seize. But that thar machine mfg used Crisco and they used 55 lbs or Torque so that is what I am going to use. I could waste my whole life figuring out that anti seize would be 50 lbs.

All you do is argue on no basis and when proven flat wrong, then you change directions and argue some more. Go argue with yourself in the mirror. Do a UTube with yourself arguing back. It should be seriously hilarious.

So in other words you can't, it's just fact because some people say it is and you happen to agree with their point of view ! Personally I think there is more involved then just end fit but I like hearing the different ideas !

 

[M. De Land]

Well, the "theory" of the short arbor was laid to rest when Bad Karma posted the patent concerning it.
(Funny, seems like you agreed it was good to finally know . . . whatever!)


Again, i suggest that you "un-fix" your Walker and shoot max loads with heavy conicals and let us know how it goes. You can "correct" it later and see if the problem/ problems persist ( you know, like some of us did . . . ).

Mike

Yes that would be a good test especially with a new tool steel wedge that fits correctly. As I pointed out, the original Walkers apparently were design arbor end fitted and I've read they still used up wedges. If that is so then apparently the end fitting of arbors was not the absolute solution it is purported to be.
I'll shoot mine end fitted with full power loads and see if it loosens up and if so I'll I make a new , properly fitting wedge to correct it. If it does hold up then I'll still want to know why end fitting makes a difference.
I suspect if end fitting it a major factor it is because it keeps the wedge from recoiling back off battery in the arbor slot thus preventing letting it get a run at the end of the arbor slot with each new firing. I think this is why wedge thickness friction plays a part in helping to keep the wedge from slot rebound and deformation.

 

[Dickydalton]

Someday you guys will learn to quit putting pennies in an empty gumball machine...

 

[45D]

Yes that would be a good test especially with a new tool steel wedge that fits correctly. As I pointed out, the original Walkers apparently were design arbor end fitted and I've read they still used up wedges. If that is so then apparently the end fitting of arbors was not the absolute solution it is purported to be.
I'll shoot mine end fitted will full power loads and see if it loosens up and if so I'll I make a new , properly fitting wedge to correct it. If it does hold up then I'll still want to know why end fitting makes a difference.
I suspect if end fitting it a major factor it is because it keeps the wedge from recoiling back off battery in the arbor slot thus preventing letting it get a run at the end of the arbor slot with each new firing. I think this is why wedge thickness friction plays a part in helping to keep the wedge from slot rebound and deformation.

No, it wouldn't be a good test. Originals didn't come with "tool steel" wedges and neither do/did the reproduction Walkers / Dragoons . . . IT'S NOT NEEDED !!!!
They just need to be installed as per instructions!!!! NOT WITH THUMB PRESSURE !!! You CAN'T drive a wedge in a revolver that has a short arbor so all "short arbor" revolvers have loose wedges!!
You must be incapable of understanding the platform so you keep trying to prove the 1840's designers wrong . They've been RIGHT all along !!!! Priceless!!

Mike

 

[45D]

So in other words you can't, it's just fact because some people say it is and you happen to agree with their point of view ! Personally I think there is more involved then just end fit but I like hearing the different ideas !

No, it's not fact because some people say it is, it's FACT because that's what the DESIGNERS said.
What remains "fact" with you is your insistence that Italian reproductions are correct and the originals are wrong!!! It's rather humorous!!!

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

No, it's not fact because some people say it is, it's FACT because that's what the DESIGNERS said.
What remains "fact" with you is your insistence that Italian reproductions are correct and the originals are wrong!!! It's rather humorous!!!

Mike

What are you smoking ?

 

[45D]

What are you smoking ?

Obviously not what you have been!!

Mike

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Asking about cause and effect is a perfectly reasonable question. The fact that Colt's design showed the arbor up against the end of the hole in the barrel doesn't explain why it was done that way or how that would prevent damage to the gun.
A technical, calm, discussion would be good.

 

[Smokerr]

Jim: I would agree but people keep parachuting in and denying facts. If someone decides the Earth is Flat, you have no more basis for discussion with them.

Facts are the ground rules for a technical discussion. I was known as picky about equipment parts names. Not because I am picky but if we do not call a Washer a Washer, then the basis for the discussion goes sideways or is non existent at all.

Bad Karma brought to the table the literal description of how an Open Top Arbor should fit. Uberti violates that. Anyone that has checked one can confirm that and anyone who has actually checked it, does confirm that.

Mike has done the work in the field of capability of the Open Top, if done right. He is shooting high pressure loads in his corrected Open tops.

The only aspect that really is of any tech aspect is the engineering area as to is it a frame or a solid piece of steel (which has to be in affect as clearly in its removed form it is not).

No one can prove it, but then it does not matter either. Its an esoteric aspect. It makes zero difference in how to correct the Uberti to the right configuration. I can speculate Samuel Colt did not know nor care. Its not like they ran cray computers in those days. It was trial and error off an idea. Some worked and some did not.

No engineer is going to take it one because it has no relevance to current nor is it going to change anything. And I have seen engineers totally wrong so you can still get a bad result that is false.

That does not mean there was not a basis for Colt of understanding that loose parts hammer themselves. It just means he did not even have a slide rule let alone the calculus of materials to run it against. And again it does not matter. He worked with the materials he had and refined his work until it did work.

Even with the right fit, an Open Top of that era would not have taken the forces of the +P in 45ACP or 45 Long Colt, the material refinement and quality were not there.

They are now. Uberti or Pietta for that matter build out of modern steels and those are more capable than the materials Colt had to work with.

Done right an Open Top was a reliable weapon for the loads of its time and would not break.

Done right an Open Top is reliable for higher pressure loads of our time Unmentionable Cylinders.

What Mike has done is open up a higher pressure area you can shoot in with no downside.

 

[45D]

Asking about cause and effect is a perfectly reasonable question. The fact that Colt's design showed the arbor up against the end of the hole in the barrel doesn't explain why it was done that way or how that would prevent damage to the gun.
A technical, calm, discussion would be good.

- Battered wedge slots in the barrel assy.
- Battered wedge slots in the arbor.
- Battered wedge.
- loose arbors get pounded from the frame because of excess endshake.

Any and or all of these lead to a loose wedge as well as a wedge that can be bent to a point that it has to be hammered out.
All of this means the wedge isn't tight in the revolver which is why the battering takes place.

The ultimate damage is loss of the end of the arbor.

Obviously all of this is done over a period of time with enough round counts.

All this has been repeated several times over the last couple of years. Sadly, the same questions get asked by the same folks.

Bottom line is, fix the arbor if it is short and none of this will happen (whether you understand the WHY or not) unless you think "thumb pressure" is all ya need.

Mike

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

That picture would look good in an advertisement for Remington.

 

[Bad Karma]

Asking about cause and effect is a perfectly reasonable question. The fact that Colt's design showed the arbor up against the end of the hole in the barrel doesn't explain why it was done that way or how that would prevent damage to the gun.
A technical, calm, discussion would be good.

Colt said it controlled the cylinder/forcing cone gap. He also said it prevented the wedge from being driven in too far and tying up the gun…

 

[Bad Karma]

That picture would look good in an advertisement for Remington.

Let’s not go back down that hole just yet hmmmm?