Noguns here, why is Colt Walker called the highest caliber handgun until fairly recently if there were many blackpowder revolvers based on it? What's the difference between it and Colt Dragoon and Colt Navy? Both seem to be just improved versions of it.
Both were smaller versions of it, improving on the fact that the Colt Walker was large as a bull and punched like one too (in that they were more useable instead of being more powerful).
>t. euro noguns
Because people are idiots and blindly repeat fuddlore.
The walker was known for fricking exploding and most of them exploded. The dragoon and so on had updated lower recommended powder loads
>and most of them exploded.
Less than a third.
In service or produced? As memory serves me, issued walkers exploded because rangers actually shot them.
Produced, though the numbers are pretty much the same since 1000 went to the military and there were only 100 on the commercial market. Colt's factory records still exist though.
"Highest caliber" is a misunderstanding on someone's part, perhaps yours. What they meant was that it was the "most powerful", and morons often confuse the two. There were other revolvers based on the Walker, but they shortened the cylinder to use less gunpowder. The Walker used 60 grains of powder, the Dragoons could hold 50 max and were often loaded with less.
Also, they meant "revolver" and not "handgun" as many old-school single or double barrel pistols were more powerful than the Walker.
Never heard it called the "biggest caliber" but Ive heard "the most powerful" but thats because the cylinder was bigger and let you stuff more black powder into it, simple as. It was reportedly a little weaker than a 357 mag, which took its crown, just as the 1858 was about the same power if probably a little weaker than a 38 special
It wasn't even the most powerful. It could only run high grain loads using the smallest ball.
When using bullets it was outpaced by the .45 Colt.
>It wasn't even the most powerful.
What revolver was more powerful at the time?
>When using bullets it was outpaced by the .45 Colt.
Well sure, if you want to fast-forward the clock and talk about cartridge guns they made howdah pistols in .577 Snider....
I have no idea what 'revolver' specifically was more powerful but Im sure any similar caliber single shot would outdo it easily because of the cylinder gap in revolvers letting gas escape. Ill also add that Im thinking of muzzleloader revolvers but since they all mostly used bp and the moment smokeless hits the scene bp doesnt matter beyond logistics of the era.
>but Im sure any similar caliber single shot would outdo it easily because of the cylinder gap in revolvers letting gas escape.
You sound like you're talking about theory but you have very little knowledge of the actual guns of that era. Single shot pistols absolutely were a thing back then, but they were much bigger than .44, and while people online love to talk about muh revolver cylinder gap, in reality the pressure losses are quite small. Check ballisticsbytheinch for data if you are interested.
>Ill also add that Im thinking of muzzleloader revolvers
Cool. Which ones held more powder than the Walker? There were certainly larger bore diameter BP revolvers, like the British revolvers using the .577 Boxer cartridge, but those held a lot less powder than the Walker.
I really dont understand how any of your points are relevent? Your source simply shows theres is a difference because of the cylinder gap meaning if none existed the numbers would simply be higher not even calling you out for providing data on smokless loads with no bp in sight. I also never said another revolver held more powder so frick off. I dont get you dipshits and trying to lord on people everywhere you can grow up.
>I really dont understand how any of your points are relevent?
Let me rephrase: it sounds like I'm talking to someone who isn't really up to speed on what they are talking about.
>Your source simply shows theres is a difference because of the cylinder gap
So you missed how small its effect was?
> I also never said another revolver held more powder so frick off.
You just said "you were thinking of muzzloader revolvers", yet you can't name any more powerful? Just what were you thinking of then?
The claim is always that it was the most powerful handgun until the .357. This is false.
The 40 gr colt load outdoes the walker.
Conical loads could not be loaded with the 60 grain charge and used a heavier bullet.
>This is false.
Totally agreed. I'm just curious if anyone thinks they can name a semi-auto or a revolver that's more powerful. In other words, I'm wondering if people are writing "most powerful handgun" when they really mean "most powerful REPEATING handgun". It's a given that various single-shot or double-barrel guns of the era were more powerful.
As said a few times already. Anything chambered in .45 Colt is more powerful.
The .45 Colt used 40 grains of BP, not the 60 grains the Walker used. Nevermind the fact the cartridge era happend much later. Try again.
The Walker could not use 60 grains with the conical bullets, only the 140 grain balls. With the heavier bullets and corresponding less powder it did not equal the commercial .45 Colt load.
> Nevermind the fact the cartridge era happend much later. Try again.
Try to actually read and understand what is being discussed.
>The Walker could not use 60 grains with the conical bullets, only the 140 grain balls.
Yes, and? It's still 60 grains.
>Try to actually read and understand what is being discussed.
You're moving the goalposts while ignoring single-shot handguns?
Increasing the amount of BP does not lead to a linear increase in the velocity. Using round ball and a full powder charge gets you into the same power range as 1910's auto loaders. Not exactly .357 power levels.
OK then, cite your sources showing a Walker outperforms a 16 bore Dueling pistol.
>the most powerful handgun until the .357. This is false.
It's certainly true it was the most powerful repeating handgun until the development of the 357, as one anon mentioned the 38/44 preceeds the 357.
>It's certainly true it was the most powerful repeating handgun until the development of the 357
No. The Mars was more powerful.
Interesting. But does that really count since it was an experimental firearm and not a production firearm? Well less than 100 were even made.
>But does that really count since it was an experimental firearm and not a production firearm
Well sure, anon didn't limit his claim to widely available commercial firearms, did he?
Anyway, it's one of many examples, many makers made .577 Howdah pistols too...
>When using bullets it was outpaced by the .45 Colt.
No, the Walker was the most powerful blackpowder handgun ever made, and was more powerful that 40 grain FFG 255fp.45 Colt loads by about 50FPE on average.
It wasn't until the .38/44 and later mag version.
It took 60 grains of black powder. That's just 10 grains less than the 45-70 that came way later. If you used the bullet shaped projectiles and put them in backwards (because people weren't taught correctly and they looked less like bullets today and more like a Hershey's kisses) with a full 60 grain load you'd get explosions due to too heavy a weight and too much charge 60 grains is proper for round balls.
>a full 60 grain load you'd get explosions due to too heavy a weight and too much charge 60 grains is proper for round balls.
blackpowder is not the same as smokeless.
That's not the reason for cylinders cracking/"exploding".
The Walker's cylinder chambers could held 60 grains of black powder, roughly a rifle load. The recommendation was to load only 50 grains. The dragoon had the cylinder shortened to hold 50 grains. Both were big and heavy guns, meant to be carried in a saddle holster rather than on a belt.
The 1860 army, while still being a 44 caliber like the Walker and the dragoon, was made on the 1851 navy frame and was usually loaded with a 30 grain black powder charge, being the first big bore belt revolver made by Colt.
Basically a Walker loaded with 60 grains was the most powerful revolver until the arrival of 357 magnum.
>the 45-70 that came way later
That was a rifle cartridge. If you mean the 45 Long Colt, it holds a 40 grain BP load.
>That was a rifle cartridge
I'm sure that was anon's point. The Walker's load was was just shy of a RIFLE cartridge.
It wasn't even close.
I think 45colt Ruger only loads beat the walker.
But those are handloads.
>I think 45colt Ruger only loads beat the walker.
Well duh, that's smokeless powder, not blackpowder. A Cor-Bon 9mm would beat a blackpowder 60+ grain BP load in sheer ME, and maybe momentum as well.
Different comparisons.
>The Walker's cylinder chambers could held 60 grains of black powder, roughly a rifle load. The recommendation was to load only 50 grains. The dragoon had the cylinder shortened to hold 50 grains. Both were big and heavy guns, meant to be carried in a saddle holster rather than on a belt.
>The 1860 army, while still being a 44 caliber like the Walker and the dragoon, was made on the 1851 navy frame and was usually loaded with a 30 grain black powder charge, being the first big bore belt revolver made by Colt.
>Basically a Walker loaded with 60 grains was the most powerful revolver until the arrival of 357 magnum.
This. Even though it looks like copied from somewhere, still factual for those who know BP firearms.
Now if we could just get morons to understand that "revolver" and "handgun" are not the same thing.....
>Now if we could just get morons to understand that "revolver" and "handgun" are not the same thing.....
Revolver is a type of handgun, so true they are not the "same thing".
>Revolver is a type of handgun, so true they are not the "same thing".
Why are we ignoring single-shot or double-barrel pistols?
I
specifically said revolver. I don't know of any other revolver from that era more powerful than the Walker. If it existed, I'd like to know.
>specifically said revolver.
Yes, that was me. I'd like to know if there were more powerful revolvers as well. But there were certainly other guns, not revolvers, that bested the Walker,
>I don't know of any other revolver from that era more powerful than the Walker.
Were none until smokeless powder era though the .45 Colt balloon head case with a .40 grain load and 255grain bullet was basically close enough and right on the tail.
The Walker could hold 55 grains of FFG or FFFG with a 200 grain conical .450 bullet, and over 50 grains of powder with a 220 grain bullet.
Those are round nose projectiles. If they had made Keith style flat meplat bullets back then it would have held even more powder by a couple grains with same weights.
Plus the extra 1.5 inches of barrel of the Walker over the SAA Cavalry model gave it slightly more velocity for any given powder load.
It was the most powerful sidearm ever officially adopted by a military, not the most powerful handgun of all time.
It had ballistic performance similar to 40 s&w which for its time made it a formidable pistol.
>muh Walker
How about muh Dragoon? Nobody ever wants to take about the chadly Dragoon even though it was only marginally less powerful, superior in terms of quality and features, and saw way more action than any of the 1100 Walkers did.
Only 1100 units of the Walker were ever produced in its day, and if I'm not mistaken 400 of those were lost when the ship that transported sank. It was the first powerful revolver and paved the way after the commercial failure of the Patterson.
In a way it's like a mythical creature, what the dragoon has in reliability and spread, loses in iconicity. After all, the Walker is the official gun of Texas.
My guess is that the Dragoon, sandwiched between the iconic Walker, the less powerful but more practical Navy and then later beat by the Army, lacks the sexyness of those three.
>i really think the 1860 is the best of the 44 revolvers
I'd argue that the Remington 1858 was the best of the .44 ball and cap revolvers. By all accounts Colts had the best ergonomics, but the Remington was more reliable and accurate. I'd argue that is also prettier, but aesthetics are subjetive and both the Remington and the Army are beauties to behold.
I have a Remington repro from Pietta and the grips are way to short. I have average size hands but I can't fit my pinky on the grip, especially with gloves. Keep in mind these guns were supposed to be shot with on hand while fighting mounted.
Can't you just file your own?
>Remington 1858 was the best
Debatable. The simple design and closed frame are both objectively better than a Colt, but they don't handle fouling as well without some period incorrect hacks. As for the ergos, I'm undecided. The Colts may be a bit better but there's nothing wrong with the 1858 in that department.
The Remington style closed frame certainly aged better, so there's that.
They were meant to be fired by 5'8" manlets, anon. If you're blessed with a more modern height, it may be a bit small for you. Either carve out some larger stocks or lose the gloves. Also try holding it a bit higher. The hammer spur touches the top of my hand when it's at full wiener.
>t. 1858 shooter with 2xl hands
unrelated to your answer but man the walker is so shit
i have never seen one where the loading rod stays up properly
the dragoon is nice, but i really think the 1860 is the best of the 44 revolvers