Good for you sir.
Load for Uberti Walker Revolver
- Thread starter nightwolf1974
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
also the security six is one of the weakest 357 and it is still bull strong
Funny, I've said the same thing .
You know, this is actually the only section of this forum that I read and only certain things within it. That's mainly because i don't care a whit about any of the "other" stuff.
I would suggest skipping over the stuff you get tired of . . . You know, I get tired sometimes of folks saying that I say things that I didn't. So, I'll keep on defending what I ACTUALLY said and have done so, if your tired, take a break.
Mike
Pietta doesn't make a copy of the '73 in 45C that can handle 44K PSI. You're dreaming!!!! I've got one!!! It can't handle 23K!!!!
I am scratching my head over that one. For a given frame, smaller the Caliber the more pressure it can handle, at least the barrel and cylinder. The rest of the frame, depends on how overbuilt it is. As Mike has proven, modern steels and an old design can take quite a bit more pressure than originals.
There is also a correction, Mike as far as I recall shoots 47 Walker and Colt Dragoons in the higher pressure 45ACP and 45LC. How a 1860 Colt compares to those, not a clue, I am not really a Colt guy, I just have one 47 Walker Replica. That said we need to keep the facts correct and what is being compared to what.
Anyone setup a Pietta SAA for 44 mag and have the gonads to test it?
Wow. Can you settle on a comparison?
Actually it would survive. Its called test pressures. Now it may not survive for long, its a lighter frame gun than a 47 Walker or a Dragoon.
note: What I can tell you won't survive is a 300 Win Mag upper end intended re-loads that got pistol powder put into the case (at least one, probably the batch). Even with a modern gas path and covered rear case it does not.
Last edited:
Hey Smokerr,
Well, the 45acp+p shooter is a pair of 1860 Armys (Uberti).
The 45C +p shooter is a Whitneyville and 1st Mod. Dragoon.
Mike
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,510
- Reaction score
- 4,669
I don't expect you to go full throttle all at once but to work up and see if the gun can stand full magnum pressure without failure, same work up as you did with Plus P loads. The loads I devloped in my Bisley .45 Colt are in the 30 K area with no issues and they are two grains short of Max.That would only be "logical" to you!! You don't do "ladder testing " by starting at the top of the ladder.
Again, I never said anything about "equal strength" that's YOUR drivel.
Btw, isn't calling someone a "flat earther" projecting?
As far as me going over max cylinder capabilities, I haven't done so yet
Where do you come up with this ?
Mike
I assumed a hand loader would have brains enough to know that work up is necessary without explanation.
I don't believe the open frames will stand 30 K as a regular diet.............. prove me wrong !
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,248
- Reaction score
- 7,612
I tried out the #45266 in a Walker and a Dragoon, both Uberti. With soft lead the as-cast bullets were big enough to shear on the chambers. Don't know off hand what that particular mold from the early 80's drops out at. I no longer have that Dragoon and don't have notes on it. Notes on the Walker say the chambers run .454. About the Ruger, I have no idea what it might run.
By the way, for you fellas that want to bicker at each other about cartridge revolver and semi-auto pistol loads, why are you doing that here ?
Personally, I don't understand your "magnumitis"! I never claimed they could be Magnums. There's a lot of revolvers that can't handle mag pressures.
I started my testing long before I came to this forum. I never dreamed that GOOD news about the revolvers we all like to shoot would be met with such HATE! Finding out that the revolvers we have today- set up correctly- are far better than we ever knew is "BAD NEWS"?? Wow!!!
As far as "proving you wrong" M DeLand, what makes you think YOU are the arbiter of what is any kind of a "proof point"?!! If my info isn't good enough, do your own testing!!! I was already doing what you said (to me) couldn't be done. My revolvers have already surpassed many but you see that as a "bad thing" . . . I don’t understand that. Some folks just don't like "success" i guess. Rush was right, the pioneers take all the arrows . . .
Mike
Mike. you seem to have changed your tune. for awhile there you insisted that the open top was stronger and the only reason the industry went with the closed top was because it was cheaper to manufacture... most of us thought that was pretty darn silly and thats how this thing got dragged down the rabbit hole.
Nope, you have a selective reading problem. Never said they were Magnums. Definitely said they were better than Remingtons and it turned out they were better than even i thought.
Said I knew what the cylinder capabilities are and it gives me the ability to test the platform.
What is so hard about that? Where did "Magnum" ever show up? (You know where that comes from).
Haters gonna hate . . .
If you've learned anything from my efforts, you're welcome.
Mike
Stronger than what? Any top strap? Now you're making things up.
I even listed the revolvers that aren't up to what my '60's can do ( guess those "top strap" revolvers don't count either?). I'm fairly specific in what i say.
Then some said if your '60 can't shoot magnum loads ( mag 45C rounds?) It doesn't count. Talk about silly??
I've explained that too. The open-top platform calls for a larger diameter cylinder because of the arbor. So, the arbor is the limiting factor as far as size is concerned.
A top strap allows use of a smaller diameter base pin which allows for a more compact revolver. AND, you'd have to be an idiot to think "economics" doesn't play into the "why" the top strap design is with us today!! You can think it's "silly" all you want . . .
Mike
Last edited:
you absolutely way back at the beginning of this discussion , not necessarily in this exact thread but in the ongoing discussion said that the reason manufacturers went with the top strap over the open top was not because the top strap was a superior design but because it was cheaper to manufacture. so yes we want to see you eat crow and come out and admit the top strap is in fact a superior design 
its the nature of the internet. someone has to be wrong.
its the nature of the internet. someone has to be wrong.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,630
- Reaction score
- 8,367
SASS114019
Pilgrim
Easy way to resolve this is to say show my any smokeless powder revolver that is open top. At least as far as I know, none ever existed.
Walkers are great for people who make their own screened black powder, as opposed to pucked/corned. Because of the lack of compression, screened is usually only about 70% as dense as pucked/corned or commercial powder. Fill a Walker cylinder with that and you actually have about 35 grains.
Yes, the MAIN reason is economics!!you absolutely way back at the beginning of this discussion , not necessarily in this exact thread but in the ongoing discussion said that the reason manufacturers went with the top strap over the open top was not because the top strap was a superior design but because it was cheaper to manufacture. so yes we want to see you eat crow and come out and admit the top strap is in fact a superior design
I still stand by that.
Economics is pretty much THE deciding factor if a product will be produced or not.
I pretty much "recounted" the conversation you're talking about in the previous post.
You forgot to mention i also SAID that the arbor size was the "limiting factor". (Selective reading again)
Mike
Last edited:
Also selective thinking/speaking on your part. The top strap is a better design that allows for all sorts of advantages over the open top not the least of which is much more powerful revolvers. Either build an open top 50 S&W that stands up to 30 thousand rounds of testing or admit that the top strap is a stronger and better design.. and while you are at it make it so the cylinder swings out so that you can eject all the empties in one push..
You really are misquoting Mike and inferences not justified.
His statements are that the Open Top was a lot more capable than it has been given credit for. Stronger, no matter what era. He has not claimed it was the end all and be all.
He has also stated mfg was easier for a Flat Top. Roll that into other advantages and its a natural progression. So no, no one is going to do a Flat Top.
What he is stating is a correctly setup Open Top was a lot stronger design than people gave or give it credit for. Setup right with unmentionable cylinders and you can shoot some impressive loads in a MODERN Open Top, as the steel and quality control are vastly better now than original
His statements are that the Open Top was a lot more capable than it has been given credit for. Stronger, no matter what era. He has not claimed it was the end all and be all.
He has also stated mfg was easier for a Flat Top. Roll that into other advantages and its a natural progression. So no, no one is going to do a Flat Top.
What he is stating is a correctly setup Open Top was a lot stronger design than people gave or give it credit for. Setup right with unmentionable cylinders and you can shoot some impressive loads in a MODERN Open Top, as the steel and quality control are vastly better now than original
