Old Firearms -- myArmoury.com

Gordon Frye · Posted: Fri 26 Nov, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject:

Now we're getting into it! Dissin' my favorite Colt, the Walker! I have (well, until the other day, I had) a pair of them, the Colt reissues from the 1980's, and they really do pack a punch. And come on, they're ONLY 4 pounds 9 ounces! Not nearly 9 pounds... though that's sufficient to give your wrist a serious workout just holding it at arms length! ;o) But oddly enough for it's weight, it (to me at least) handles quite well. A tad muzzle heavy, but still it comes up nicely and points naturally, and they are VERY accurate. Old Sam (both Colt and Walker) had a good idea of what was needed, and although they kind of over shot the mark a bit with this one, still, it's a very serviceable piece and well worth the weight on your belt (better yet on the horse...) But you can really see why Colt dropped down to the Dragoons pretty quickly... the Walker is a real handful! But Lord does it pack a punch!

Gordon

Kirk Lee Spencer · Posted: Fri 26 Nov, 2004 8:22 pm Post subject:

Hey Gordon...

Thanks for the correction... now that you mention it 9lbs is a little heavy... Thats the weight of my Kentucky. And the "side of the barn" comment was definitely and exaggeration. But I was never a good shot with a handgun (or a rifle either for that matter). I don't remember the recoil being that bad, just the fire and smoke.

ks

Nathan Bell · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 8:11 am Post subject:

Gordon Frye · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 9:00 am Post subject:

Nathan;

I actually have that article around somewhere, it's from Guns and Ammo, and old Phil Spangenberger did a head-to-head test of the Walker against a .44 Mag. While the Magnum did a lot better on expansion and all that (as would be expected with hollow points!) the Walker REALLY blew the Magnum out of the water on Penetration. I mean SERIOUSLY out did it. But when you consider that the Walker was designed to punch through a Comanche War Shield made of extremely thick bull buffalo hide, it only stands to reason. And for a weapon designed for Mounted Combat there are other factors to consider as well. The Walker wasn't just a Man Killer, it was also a big-time Horse Killer too! "Muerte el Caballo, Perdido el Hombre".

Per accuracy, when Walker received his personal pair from Sam Colt, he immediately tested them and reported that they would "outshoot a rifle at 200 yards" (if I recall that quote correctly). Not bad shooting for a pistol!

And as far as the weight goes, again, a weapon for a mounted warrior. I packed a pair of them for a couple of months straight, six days a week, with no problems or discomfort. But then, I also was riding a horse 90% of the time, so HE had to pack the weight, not me! On foot, give me a pair of Navy's, PLEASE! Wink

I think this is why I really love this forum... great discussions on Armour, Swords AND guns!

Gordon

Patrick Kelly · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 9:50 am Post subject:

While I prefer the Dragoon I've always had a love for the big Walker. I think I've worn out a couple of them over the years, as well as '60 Army's, '51 Navy's, and etc. Big Grin

Phil was right on the money in that article. The Walker compares quite favorably with the .44 mag in the power department. Of course Model 29's don't chain fire or blow up as often but hey, that's part of the fun!

Kirk Lee Spencer · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 9:56 am Post subject:

Hi Nate...

Sounds like a good article, but my Colt Walker days were about 20 years ago. I traded it for a Colt Single Action Army in 45 long colt, which I traded for a Sharpes Buffalo Rifle, which I traded for a PreRevolutionary Kentucky Rifle which I still have over my fireplace.

Here is a picture and little info on the Walker if anyone is interested:

http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/44walker.htm

ks

Michael G. Myers · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 7:08 pm Post subject:

Michael G. Myers · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject:

Michael G. Myers · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 8:08 pm Post subject:

Well, put me in the club who recalls the Phil S. article. There have been a few others in this vain, and also a few by Gary James. Well, I seem to be recalling the article a little differently. I'm willing to be set straight on this, though, since it's more than likely that I'm letting a veritable ton of other factors cloud my memory.

In a discussion of the Walker Colt (Whitneyville, etc) and modern loads, the .357 with plain old factory loads seems a more likely comparison. In fact, the middle step along the road to .357 Mag development--the smokeless .38/44--is even closer, ballistically, to the blackpowder 141-148gr Walker round ball loads at 1050-1150ps or so. Modern FFFg would put you around 1300 fps and land more solidly in .357 territory, battered wedges and all. Modern, heavier conicals (200gr-250gr?) out of the Walker would boost the foot-lbs factor, I guess, and that might be what you guys are refering to here. One of the problems here, I suppose, is that the question of FFg or FFFg--and even which powder you're using--offer variables. Still, comparing even a 250 gr modern conical out of the stuffed Walker at 900-1000 fps (the 140-141 gr bullet with 55-60 gr of blackpowder in the original Walker loading is a non-starter, even at 1200 fps, in every respect compared to the .44 Magnum, though WILDLY SUCCESSFUL and groundbreaking in context) to even a moderatly stout .44 Magnum with a 240 gr bullet exceeding 1400 fps pretty much says it all.

My Uberti replica rarely saw more than 44 gr of FFg with a lubed wad or cream of wheat filler. Granted, I've never been overly fond of the Walker beyond its historical importance, so that might be coloring my overall comments. I think the very most I ever went before trading the Walker was 55 grains of FFg and a really stout load of 30 gr or so FFFg with filler (just once). But then, I've even been guilty of using Cleanshot, now and again. And, yes, I like the ruffles on my underwear just fine! Wink

I've never been the biggest fan of the .44 Mag either (don't shoot silhouette, etc), but I do reload for one and, again, in even factory loadings it would seem to outright defy comparison. With the .357 comparison, well, you get a little closer. Still, the Walker Colt offered a helluva stout, powerful load for the times and was definitely the king of the hill until the advent of the .357 Magnum. If I recall, and either Gordon or Patrick Kelly or Kirk Spencer or someone will correct me, the original 55-60gr charge of the Walker was akin to .58 caliber musket loads? That's mucho impressive, taken alone, from where I'm sitting.

FWIW, one of the reasons I may be nit-picking this is due to an episode of Modern Marvels ("the Magnum") I saw a few months back on the History Channel. There were all sorts of misleading bits offered on this program...guys flatly stating that Walker's fired a .44 caliber ball, the old bit about the .38 Special and Moros, etc.

BTW, Mike Venturino has an article coming out in next month's American Handgunner entitled "Old West Pistol Power". 'Should be worth a look.

Kirk Lee Spencer · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 8:41 pm Post subject:

Great post Michael...

Thanks for the info Happy

ks

Tom Carr · Posted: Sat 27 Nov, 2004 11:47 pm Post subject:

Ahhhh! Cap and Ball revolvers! I used to have a sweet little Lyman made 36 cal. 1851 Colt Navy model with the square back trigger guard. Lovely little shooter. Always threw a ball 3 inchs high and 2 inchs to the left. I got pretty good with it after a while. Nicely balanced as well, but 36 cal is a bit puny so I traded for a Remington cap and ball, 44 cal and a whole lot more accurate. This is making me want another smoke thrower Dang it! Big Grin

Thomas McDonald · myArmoury Alumni

This has turned into a very enlightening thread ..... thank you all, gentlemen !

Some more fun reading, about the guns Clint Eastwood used in his films, at these links:

http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/index.php...readid=864

http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/index.php?action=search2

Josey Wales: "Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."

Thomas McDonald · myArmoury Alumni

Colt 1860 Army

*www.coltparts.com

Thomas McDonald · myArmoury Alumni

Speaking of guns .....

The McDonald boys annual Thanksgiving Day morning hunt -- Wilkins Field,Groton, Massachusetts, 2004 .
Only Bobby (the redhead) managed to bag himself a pheasant (the rest of us ate crow ;-)

* L to R: brothers Bobby, James, Dad (Walter), and yours truely ! ( brothers Butch & Keith chose to sleep in :-)

Mac

Michael G. Myers · Posted: Sun 28 Nov, 2004 12:57 pm Post subject:

Michael G. Myers · Posted: Sun 28 Nov, 2004 1:30 pm Post subject:

Gordon Frye · Posted: Sun 28 Nov, 2004 7:02 pm Post subject:

Mike, your letting out all of my secrets! Ack! Hunted down like a dog, I am... ;o) Thank you for your generous comments on my pontifications, btw. I do appreciate it, but you'll make my hats all too small. (I'm already accused of being all hat and no cattle, what shall I ever do without a decent fitting hat now?)

I was off today shooting Matchlocks and Wheellocks with my Daughter, her Fiance' and some friends (she has her own matchlock that I had made for her, and one for her sister one Christmas: she can buy her own wheellock. Fiance came complete with his own matchlock, how cool is that?). I am always impressed with how efficient both systems are when you finally figure them out. Hot burning match is the key to matchlock reliability, and having sawn crystalized pyrites is one of the keys for a reliable wheellock. Good dry powder helps too! At any rate it's always fun to show off to the guys with flintlocks that they aren't the most antique or arcane folks at the range! Wearing a sword keeps the heckling down, too. ;o)

Oh, Lord, I remember loading for the French 1873 Ordnance Revolver! Yup, .44 Special was the key. Strange that I never did OWN a .44 Special, too pedestrian for me, I guess. I don't think I've ever owned a .357 either, for that matter, LOL! But hordes of weird "load your own" stuff, in fact my compadres and I even evented a few rounds, one being the ".50" Blanchard/Worthington Weird, Long". Don't ask, it was for a couple of Spencers that had needed work.

I do have to say though that one of the best loads I ever came up with was the 20 grain FFFG charge in a .45ACP case with a round ball on it. That one shot quite well under water (I was young and pretty dumb) out of one of those bizarre .455 Spanish S&W copies sold to Britain in WWI, and cut down to .45ACP and sold here in the 1950's. Better yet was the packed load of 25 grains of FFFG with a 230 grain bullet in the .45ACP case, that works just fine out of an M1911, and even better out of a Thompson SMG! Of course after a 20-round stick of that you can't see a DAMN thing around you...

Ah, those were the days. And I actually lived through them. Somehow. Maybe that's why I stick with muzzle loaders and stuff that shoots store-bought ammo these days.

Cheers!

Gordon