- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 2
If you like Walkers, here are almost of the remaining.
http://www.tgca.net/Parade_of_Walkers_2003.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Capt: I wonder if that is why they referred to that bullet as a picket bullet. We have another thread going here about the maximum charge a Remington Army can handle with a 180 grain bullet- that's why I was interested in what the weight was on the Walker bullet. I've wondered why the conical bullets of yesteryear were so pointed- why not make them more squat? They would hit harder and they would be able to be rammed into the chamber without the tendency to twist out of alignment. The only thing I can think of is this: Sam Colt must have figured that folks would load the conical with a maximum powder charge, by making a bullet with a long tapered point the amount of powder would be limited, otherwise you would not be able to push the bullet all the way down the chamber so that the cylinder could rotate. In any event, if you have a reloading scale it would be great to know the weight of the bullet you are using. That and the charge you use with that bullet will help the fellow on the other thread know what ought to be a safe charge in his Remington. The Remington with its top strap ought the be a stronger frame.
Capt: In the Parade of Walkers- the cased set with some bullets showing- it that what the picket bullets looked like? If so then the regular conicals used in most of the 44 percussion guns would be about the same.
Capt: In the Parade of Walkers- the cased set with some bullets showing- it that what the picket bullets looked like? If so then the regular conicals used in most of the 44 percussion guns would be about the same.
fyrfyter43
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 4
I "borrowed" this pic from another forum, but the bullets in the pic are picket bullets. Below that is a pic of an original picket bullet.
fyrfyter43 : Thanks- I think the fellow on the other thread will now have his answer. That picket bullet looks to me to likely have the same mass as the buffalo bullet, the buffalo bullet is more blunt but it has a grease groove around the middle. That one charge of 45 gr. fffg- I can't see how that much powder could be put into a Remington Army, usually it is pretty hard to get 40 grains using a ball, let alone a bullet. And, as I said the Remington ought to be stronger than the Colt Frame.
Next Question. I have always liked the Walker but I didn't like the dropped ramrod aspect. I see some Walkers have a sort of retainer. How common was it and were there different types?
Next Question. I have always liked the Walker but I didn't like the dropped ramrod aspect. I see some Walkers have a sort of retainer. How common was it and were there different types?
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
The Walker frame is plenty strong and is likely stronger than the Remington. It is only modern shooters who are infected with "magnumitis" that try to stuff massive loads into these little guns. The Remington was meant to take '60 Colt loads, not Dragoon or Walker level charges.
All Walkers have a rammer retainer and as has been often mentioned and described this is easily modified to prevent dropping the rammer lever under recoil.
All Walkers have a rammer retainer and as has been often mentioned and described this is easily modified to prevent dropping the rammer lever under recoil.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 2
The Rapine mould I have throws a 215 grain bullet. It has a rebated base for starting. Looking at the originals, it's hard to see how they ever loaded one straight. From what I've read, they would load them upside down, which might have caused some of them to explode.
Maverick3855
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't want to hijack this thread but I'm curious.Capt Augustus said:
What brand did you have to return after a couple of cylinders of 60 grain loads?
I have one Walker made by Richland Arms that I bought in about 1983 or 84 and I probably have 700 to 800 or more 60 grain loads ran through it with no problems.
I want to buy another to have a pair.
I'd like to know which brand gave you the trouble so I can avoid it.You didn't specify which maufacturer had the soft metal that peened.
Just said "it went back"
Thanks,
Couple of questions here...
1. By slot in the barrel assembly- do you mean where the wedge goes through? How could that get damaged? I have read that on the Walker the bolt notches were in the thinnest part of the cylinder and heavy charges would deform the area and on later model Colts the notch was slightly moved so it would be stronger.
2.Now I am going to admit to not knowing much about the Walker but, how is it stronger than the Remington? It seems to me the cylinder pin is staked to the frame the same as other Colts and then the barrel assembly is retained by the pins at the base and the wedge at the top. This staked cylinder pin, I am told that if a Colt "goes bad" it is often this pin becoming loose in the frame. It seems to me the Remington frame with the screwed in barrel and top strap to the frame has to be stronger- where am I going wrong? I know some Walkers blew up or broke- how common was it for the Remington to do the same?
If the strength is in the cylinder, then is the overall bulk of the cylinder on the Walker thicker and stronger than the Remington? Is that why the Walker can take a heavier charge? In other words if a cylinder fails, some times there is a blow out along the thinnest part.
On another thread a couple of folks both posted that the Walkers which did blow up often did so because the picket bullet was loaded back wards- that would obviously create more pressure as the bullet entered to barrel and it may have also allowed someone to put more powder into the chamber.
3. On the Walker retaining latch/spring for the lever. I looked at a parts diagram and it looks as if there is a rebate or recess in the linkage for the ram/lever that this spring fits into. As I understand what you said, if you file the top part of the latch it will hold the lever okay. Is that with 40- 50 grain powder loads or lighter loads? Thanks.
1. By slot in the barrel assembly- do you mean where the wedge goes through? How could that get damaged? I have read that on the Walker the bolt notches were in the thinnest part of the cylinder and heavy charges would deform the area and on later model Colts the notch was slightly moved so it would be stronger.
2.Now I am going to admit to not knowing much about the Walker but, how is it stronger than the Remington? It seems to me the cylinder pin is staked to the frame the same as other Colts and then the barrel assembly is retained by the pins at the base and the wedge at the top. This staked cylinder pin, I am told that if a Colt "goes bad" it is often this pin becoming loose in the frame. It seems to me the Remington frame with the screwed in barrel and top strap to the frame has to be stronger- where am I going wrong? I know some Walkers blew up or broke- how common was it for the Remington to do the same?
If the strength is in the cylinder, then is the overall bulk of the cylinder on the Walker thicker and stronger than the Remington? Is that why the Walker can take a heavier charge? In other words if a cylinder fails, some times there is a blow out along the thinnest part.
On another thread a couple of folks both posted that the Walkers which did blow up often did so because the picket bullet was loaded back wards- that would obviously create more pressure as the bullet entered to barrel and it may have also allowed someone to put more powder into the chamber.
3. On the Walker retaining latch/spring for the lever. I looked at a parts diagram and it looks as if there is a rebate or recess in the linkage for the ram/lever that this spring fits into. As I understand what you said, if you file the top part of the latch it will hold the lever okay. Is that with 40- 50 grain powder loads or lighter loads? Thanks.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
Have you actually handled a Walker? The parts--all of them--are by far more robust than the parts on a Remington. The Remington's cylinder arbor is a skimpy little pin the size of a nail. The rammer contains a thin, stamped link held in place with pins no bigger than hat-pins.
If the Walker is a quality piece and fitted together properly, the wedge will be of hardened steel and won't be a problem. The cheaper ones may not be hardened--I haven't used one and so can't speak to this. Most of the time the cause of problems in this area is inexperienced users driving the wedge in too far or beating on it with inappropriate tools.
The springy retainer that hangs down from the barrel has a knob like end on it that the rammer lever catches on. Some are too round on top. A few easy strokes with a small file will flatten the top of this small projection just enough to keep the lever from dropping. If the retainer is too thin, it will whip under recoil and release the lever. In this case, a new retainer may be required, or you can try stiffening the retainer shaft with a thin piece of wire or light barrel pin stock soldered to it. The other thing that can be done is more complicated, but is guaranteed to work. Buy the parts from a Colt's Dragoon--complete rammer lever and retainer and fit them to the Walker. Most folks won't even notice!
If the Walker is a quality piece and fitted together properly, the wedge will be of hardened steel and won't be a problem. The cheaper ones may not be hardened--I haven't used one and so can't speak to this. Most of the time the cause of problems in this area is inexperienced users driving the wedge in too far or beating on it with inappropriate tools.
The springy retainer that hangs down from the barrel has a knob like end on it that the rammer lever catches on. Some are too round on top. A few easy strokes with a small file will flatten the top of this small projection just enough to keep the lever from dropping. If the retainer is too thin, it will whip under recoil and release the lever. In this case, a new retainer may be required, or you can try stiffening the retainer shaft with a thin piece of wire or light barrel pin stock soldered to it. The other thing that can be done is more complicated, but is guaranteed to work. Buy the parts from a Colt's Dragoon--complete rammer lever and retainer and fit them to the Walker. Most folks won't even notice!
Well, I hope I'm not thinking the Remington is stronger just because everyone else says that it is. That's happened before, everyone just repeating what they've already heard. What I am thinking about is how the barrel is fixed to the frame. On the Colt there is the arbor held with the wedge plus the two small pins at the bottom. If one tried to move the barrel up or down it would seem to me that how the arbor is fit into the frame in the recoil shield area is critical. If that fit works loose you could twist the barrel side ways or maybe up or down. Now that may be a moot question- both revolvers may be perfectly strong in that area.
Regarding the Remington, I admit the pin is small but it is not much smaller than the pin on the 1873 Colt Peacemaker and on modern revolvers like the S & W model 29 44 Magnum the swing out cylinder is linked up at the front and back by what seems to me pretty small diameter pins. In any event on the Remington style or any revolver with the frame having a top strap- I'm not sure how critical the cylinder pin is. The barrel is screwed into the frame and the frame takes the stress- or at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Now the gun could fail in other areas as well. There is the issue of the strength of the cylinder. Obviously the cylinder on the Walker is wider than the cylinder on the Remington. From the face of it, it would seem that makes the Walker the stronger but what I don't know is how thick the metal is at the thinnest point between the walls of the chambers and the outside of the cylinder. I know this sounds stupid but what I am trying to say is if both the Walker and the Remington have the chambers drilled dead center between the hole for the pin/arbor and the outside of the cylinder, then the Walker has a greater thickness and is stronger- I am pretty sure that's the case BUT if the chamber in the Walker was not dead center, if it was drilled closer to the outside of the cylinder- then the thinness of the metal between the chamber wall and the outside of the cylinder may be the same as the Remington. Why would I think such a crazy thing??? Probably because I'm nuts
:grin: :grin: but seriously the reason has to do with stories I've heard about the Walker's bolt notch being pushed up or distorted- it gave me the impression that the walls were very thin.
On the powder charge- obviously the consensus at the time was the 60 grain/round ball was too much so it was cut back to around 50 in the later Dragoons but why was it cut back? Because the 60 grain charge would blow out the side of the cylinder and destroy the gun? If that was true then how can some folks today claim they have used the 60 grain charge for extended periods of time without ill effects? Was the 60 cut back because the recoil was too great for a lot of shooters? Or was it decided as a military weapon a 50 grain charge was just as effective on the enemy which meant the 60 grain wasted powder.
And....I know it sounds like I'm a Remington fan but actually that's not the case- sorry Remmy owners- I just think the Colt revolvers with that open top look better.
One other point that seldom gets discussed, the Remington has the reputation of a fast cylinder change. Well for me at least that's not the case, the small pin in the Remington fits to such a close tolerance that you have to get everything lined up just right the get the pin back into the frame in putting on a new cylinder. I can do it a lot faster on a Colt (maybe because I like Colts) but I leave the wedge screw loose and quickly knock out the wedge, pull off the barrel, slap in the new cylinder and back goes the barrel.
Now that I know you can get the Walker to shoot without the ramrod dropping- well that puts getting a Walker at the top of my "next gun list". Now I gotta have one.
Regarding the Remington, I admit the pin is small but it is not much smaller than the pin on the 1873 Colt Peacemaker and on modern revolvers like the S & W model 29 44 Magnum the swing out cylinder is linked up at the front and back by what seems to me pretty small diameter pins. In any event on the Remington style or any revolver with the frame having a top strap- I'm not sure how critical the cylinder pin is. The barrel is screwed into the frame and the frame takes the stress- or at least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Now the gun could fail in other areas as well. There is the issue of the strength of the cylinder. Obviously the cylinder on the Walker is wider than the cylinder on the Remington. From the face of it, it would seem that makes the Walker the stronger but what I don't know is how thick the metal is at the thinnest point between the walls of the chambers and the outside of the cylinder. I know this sounds stupid but what I am trying to say is if both the Walker and the Remington have the chambers drilled dead center between the hole for the pin/arbor and the outside of the cylinder, then the Walker has a greater thickness and is stronger- I am pretty sure that's the case BUT if the chamber in the Walker was not dead center, if it was drilled closer to the outside of the cylinder- then the thinness of the metal between the chamber wall and the outside of the cylinder may be the same as the Remington. Why would I think such a crazy thing??? Probably because I'm nuts
:grin: :grin: but seriously the reason has to do with stories I've heard about the Walker's bolt notch being pushed up or distorted- it gave me the impression that the walls were very thin.
On the powder charge- obviously the consensus at the time was the 60 grain/round ball was too much so it was cut back to around 50 in the later Dragoons but why was it cut back? Because the 60 grain charge would blow out the side of the cylinder and destroy the gun? If that was true then how can some folks today claim they have used the 60 grain charge for extended periods of time without ill effects? Was the 60 cut back because the recoil was too great for a lot of shooters? Or was it decided as a military weapon a 50 grain charge was just as effective on the enemy which meant the 60 grain wasted powder.
And....I know it sounds like I'm a Remington fan but actually that's not the case- sorry Remmy owners- I just think the Colt revolvers with that open top look better.
One other point that seldom gets discussed, the Remington has the reputation of a fast cylinder change. Well for me at least that's not the case, the small pin in the Remington fits to such a close tolerance that you have to get everything lined up just right the get the pin back into the frame in putting on a new cylinder. I can do it a lot faster on a Colt (maybe because I like Colts) but I leave the wedge screw loose and quickly knock out the wedge, pull off the barrel, slap in the new cylinder and back goes the barrel.
Now that I know you can get the Walker to shoot without the ramrod dropping- well that puts getting a Walker at the top of my "next gun list". Now I gotta have one.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 2
The Walker that had the slot preen from full loads was a Uberti, sold by Cabelas. I used the other two for several years in cowboy shooting and found another problem with preening. If you cock them with to much vigor, the bolt will preen the notch, and eventually it will not lock up correctly. Like anything else mechanical, there is wear and tear.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 2
That is my opinion, 60 gr. loads with 3f will damage the Uberti Walker in a short length of time. I used 40 gr. loads of 2f and got more bang than most of the counters wanted to witness.In a confined space it was a real blaster. This Fall I plan to bring them back into the cowboy matches so the younger folks can see what they missed. There is no mistaking the thunder of the Walker.
Last edited by a moderator:
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
The Walker is massively built and I've never had a problem with mine. The originals may have suffered from the poorer metallurgy of the time, but the new ones don't--at least the Ubertis and 2nd generation Colts don't. These are the ones that I'm familiar with. The original cylinders sometimes burst, maybe from weak metal and perhaps from soldiers loading picket balls backwards as is sometimes claimed. Since they didn't all blow up, there may be truth in this story.
I generally use a 55 grain load these days in all three of my Walkers and I use a .457 ball. I do lube over the balls but I don't use wads since I have never found that they serve any purpose. None of these revolvers has shot loose or even shows any wear despite many hundreds of rounds having been fired from them.
The Remington's claim of being super strong is based on its top strap design. This is a good feature and it does make for a strong revolver. But its skinny arbor is not a good feature and neither is the lack of grooves on the arbor to hold lube. But the skinny arbor can't spare the metal for grooves. And you don't see many steel framed Colts that have shot loose--at least I haven't--and that includes originals as well as mew ones. I have a nice little Uberti Remington, but I don't shoot it much because it fouls much faster than any of my Colts and its ergonomics are poor compared to a Colt. There are very sound reasons why Bill Hickok used Colts instead of Remingtons and his life depended on this choice.
I generally use a 55 grain load these days in all three of my Walkers and I use a .457 ball. I do lube over the balls but I don't use wads since I have never found that they serve any purpose. None of these revolvers has shot loose or even shows any wear despite many hundreds of rounds having been fired from them.
The Remington's claim of being super strong is based on its top strap design. This is a good feature and it does make for a strong revolver. But its skinny arbor is not a good feature and neither is the lack of grooves on the arbor to hold lube. But the skinny arbor can't spare the metal for grooves. And you don't see many steel framed Colts that have shot loose--at least I haven't--and that includes originals as well as mew ones. I have a nice little Uberti Remington, but I don't shoot it much because it fouls much faster than any of my Colts and its ergonomics are poor compared to a Colt. There are very sound reasons why Bill Hickok used Colts instead of Remingtons and his life depended on this choice.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,144
- Reaction score
- 5,453
Russ T Frizzen said:
You can also use a small elastic band.
Like I do.
tac
Colt Walker #1816
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,144
- Reaction score
- 5,453
Russ T Frizzen said:
Well, Sir, what got me on this forum in the fust place, about six years ago or so, was the fact that my second series Colt Walker, part-made by Uberti and assembled in the USA, was the indecent softness of the barrel wedge. After just six shots with 45gr of FFg and RB, it became impossible to rotate the cylinder, and examination showed that the wedge [serial-numbered to match the rest of the gun] was bent like a banana. It took some very careful Dremel-ing to remove it without touching the finish of the gun, but I did it.
A replacement from DGW has performed faultlessly since then, but then I don't feel the need to go above 45gr of FFFg for a load - especially with BP costing almost $50 a pound here in Europe where we make it. Bulk buying, like you all seem to do, is not permitted to the ordinary joe.
As for cheap, please don't go down that route -YOU might get your Uberti products for pennies, but back in 1987 mine cost me almost $1500 here in Europe where they make them.
tac
Colt Walker #1816
Maverick3855
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
Capt Augustus said:
Thank you for responding to my question.
I will certainly steer clear of the Uberti.
I believe my Richland arms is a Pietta subcontracted gun and it handles a steady diet of 60 grain loads without a hiccup.
I'll just buy another Pietta or San Marco. I generally carry the Walker with full loads as I live in Grizzly country and actually do run into them several times a year.
I don't want to shoot one with a Walker but if I am backed into a corner I would rather have the 60 grain load than a 40 grain 45 colt load.
Thanks for the heads up.
It saves me an extra $100 as well :grin:
Thanks Russ T Frizzen on that steady diet of 55 grains, that's the kind of information I think some of us want. I do use wads on some of my guns because I think it improves the accuracy. The wonder lube wads are pretty thick and take up chamber space that otherwise could hold powder so if I am carrying a revolver while hunting I'll usually switch to lube over the ball unless it is a really hot day- where the lube may run or get into the holster.
On these maximum powder charges, I think there are a couple of ways to look at matters. One is that someone is going to use maximum charges all the time. I just want to say I'm not advocating that but if a gun is going to be carried for hunting or self defense it is worthwhile to know "how far can I go and still be within safe boundaries?" It's like shooting plus p 38 specials in a small frame,subnose revolver- okay a few times on some models- but not all the time.
When you think about it, the manufacturers could probably save folks a lot of time if they classified their products that way- so many grains for target shooting, and so many grains for hunting, the hunting loads being used on a very limited basis. That's pretty much what S & W and some other folks say "an occasional chamber full of Plus p will not harm the gun but a steady diet may cause premature wear." Most of us don't want to wear out our guns so that goes a long way to solving the problem of what load for what situation.
On these maximum powder charges, I think there are a couple of ways to look at matters. One is that someone is going to use maximum charges all the time. I just want to say I'm not advocating that but if a gun is going to be carried for hunting or self defense it is worthwhile to know "how far can I go and still be within safe boundaries?" It's like shooting plus p 38 specials in a small frame,subnose revolver- okay a few times on some models- but not all the time.
When you think about it, the manufacturers could probably save folks a lot of time if they classified their products that way- so many grains for target shooting, and so many grains for hunting, the hunting loads being used on a very limited basis. That's pretty much what S & W and some other folks say "an occasional chamber full of Plus p will not harm the gun but a steady diet may cause premature wear." Most of us don't want to wear out our guns so that goes a long way to solving the problem of what load for what situation.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
Both of my 2nd generation Walkers came with hardened wedges as did my Uberti. The 2nd generation Colts were built here using rough forgings from Uberti--Uberti had no other part in building them. Full loads do not harm either my Colts or my Uberti.
Cheap really doesn't refer to price but to build quality and I believe that I specifically excluded Uberti from that category. There were a few makers who turned out some pretty sad stuff back in the early days.
$1500 for a Uberti and $50.00 a pound for powder are outrageous prices, tac. Does that include VAT or is that pre tax? Dan
Cheap really doesn't refer to price but to build quality and I believe that I specifically excluded Uberti from that category. There were a few makers who turned out some pretty sad stuff back in the early days.
$1500 for a Uberti and $50.00 a pound for powder are outrageous prices, tac. Does that include VAT or is that pre tax? Dan
Similar threads
- Locked
