Wow! I've never had a walker ( not an original, nor a replica) BUT everybody knows that the original Walker was the most powerful gun in the world! The cylinder was twice as big than the italian replicas! The bullets were much shorter back then. The powder was much hotter. All in all there's no difference between the performance of a Walker and a 50 BMG, it's just common knowledge! Your problem is you've got the Italian Pocket version of the Walker!😁

I am 72 years young. Got my first cap and ball I was 14 years old. Found it in a old fellows up stairs room. A original 1851 36 colt. His father took it off a union officer. I never had good luck with the conical bullets. Round balls shot better. I have all of the reproductions even a revolving rifle. I shoot black powder all the time. Rifles and pistols.

I was always told if your balls don't fit, don't bend your rod trying to seat them.......😂😂😂😂

The mythos surrounding any firearm detracts from the fact it's just plain cool

One of the first lessons I learned at the hunt camp was never let the truth get in thue way of a good story.

I think the correct statement is that with a round ball at a 60 grain charge the Colt Walker was the highest velocity in a repeating handgun until the advent of the 357 mag

Somebody: "The Colt walker was the most powerful handgun until the 357 Magnum!" Me laughing in French 1777 .69 caliber pistol loaded with 64 caliber round ball and 110 grains of powder 😂

It would definitely be interesting to document the chamber size differences between the various brands of reproductions and the originals.

I have a reproduction Walker (Uberti) purchased in the white from Cabela's in 2004. I nornally load it with .454 round ball and 45 grains of 777 and have nearly enough room for a second ball.

I had an early Walker repro in 1975. I had to ream the cylinders slightly to get the right size ball loaded. It was poorly made. I was able to load 55 grains behind a round ball. Recently picked a new one but havent fussed with it yet. Your well done video has motivated me to test it.

I agree with you on this (overall) as the original charge for the Walkers (as we are told) had to be reduced because of the metallurgy at the time had cylinders blow apart. Again… this is word of mouth issues so “who knows”… no way on 90 grains of 3F Swiss and a conical… I do not have an original Walker to verify this… but you can’t do 90 grains of 3F and seat a 200 grain LEE 90234 in a 45-70 BFR cylinder… just for reference.

I absolutely love BP guns but I'm not in the USA. Here the only option for propellant is pretty-homemade pretty-irregular but true black powder and it compresses very well. I shoot my Uberti Colt Army 1860 with .45ACP casings full of 3F (28-30 grains in theory), filler on top and .454 round balls. It leaves good space in the chambers and the shots are powerful and accurate. Awesome channel, greetings from Argentina!

Fabulous and informative. Thanks for all your good work. The BP 45 Colt sure is a barn burner. Very few smokeless loads can match it.

Very informative, reasonably, and fairly discussed and demonstrated concerning the claims of others. Especially liked you added the next most consistent platform, the 1873, even with reduced strength powder. I am still working on getting around to black powder and realize I am missing out on another era of historical firearm platforms. Needed to follow up on this video after it was brought up on the 11BangBang channel gathering. Thank You sir.

I love that dragoon conical. Hits like a freight train. Was glad to see you use it. You were very fair in your assessment of the walkers power. Thanks for this video. As far as 50 grains of powder goes maybe with a round ball but never with that massive conical you were using. Thanks for showing that part as well.

I recently come across your channel and subscribed! I used to be into black powder shooting and really want to get back into it. I never had a Walker so I don’t have experience with one, but I used to have a new model army 58 Remington, and I remember loading 45 grains of goex into it. The catch being I’d load 30 grain, ram it, load 15 more, ram that, then load a .451 round ball over the top. It was a fight to get it seated, and some times I remember shaving the balls to clear the forcing cone. I didn’t have a chronograph so I dunno how fast they were, but it sure felt powerful lol Great channel!

If 1840s iron could safely run 44 mag power we would still be useing it.

I have an Uberti replica of the Walker that I've had since the mid-1980s and it's a cool pistol. It gets a lot of attention at the range, because most of the folks there with their 9m plastic playthings have absolutely no idea what it is, they just know it's HUGE and makes a lot of smoke. I like it, a lot. But let's face it, the pistols that came out after it, the Dragoons, are just much better pistols from a shooting perspective. The automatic flop-down lever on a Walker is a PITA. And Gus McRae aside, if I tried to wear a pair of them on a gunbelt, I'd constantly be tripping over said belt, 'cause it would never stay anywhere near my waist, the belt would have to have its own suspenders. That's why they hung them from the saddle horn. But I like it anyway.

Great video. Open on the method of testing and researched history was sourced. I found it entertaining and informative. Thank you.

I’m glad you brought up Dustin’s video. His walker paper cartridge kit for the eras gone conicals call for 40gr of 3f. I’ve had no problem loading those. 45gr of loose powder barely fits in my walker like yours. It’s so close you sometimes have too much. I have only tried schuetzen and goex. I usually save swiss for cartridge guns or ‘precision’ shooting. Great demonstration. I never thought of the different powders compressing different.

I like your numbers, Jake. And your assessment of the power available in the Walker. And as a fan of the .45 Colt, I'll be working up some Holy Black loads for CAS in my clones. Most of my shooting is with that newfangled "smoke less" junk, which is easier to clean and I'm lazy, but I do love the fireball and smoke of a nice powerful BP round! Thanks for the video! 👍

Great video. Love my Walker and my 3rd Model Dragoon. Very fun to shoot. I make my own paper cartridges which is very relaxing.

always a fair review from Jake!

I wonder if there is a difference in the depth of the cylinders. I can see modern manufacturers doing shallower depths for liability purposes. I'm going to have to dig my CVA brander Walker, that I bought in the mid '80's, and see what it can hold

Hey Jake, I really appreciate you doing the math on this! I've always suspected this was the case but never did any studies.

Most of the repos have smaller chambers, check the general john pitman notes. Original Walkers were 1.761" x .445. Uburti 1.629" x .447" . A scale should be used to more accurately measure the powder.

Something to note is that some people take the cylinder out and load on a stand with a ramrod and hammer, even on these colts. Karls powder looks just like the pyrodex p I use.

I have 2 Walkers an Uberti and a ASM. Both use about 35 grains (Goex). I have never pushed it. But If I wished to, I would take the cylinder out and put it on an external cylinder press; I built one using a old Beer Capper. It can compress considerable more then a Colt loading lever.

Subbed a man who talks sense. from Australia

Excellent video. Really laid out all the business is a good well explained way.

Great video, I also have the same conicals and I use Schuetzen fffg black powder and for me to load 45 grains with the Dragoon conicals I had to take the cylinder off and actually use a hammer to seat them. Now with .451 round balls no problem. Me and my wife really enjoy your channel, thank you.

Good work. Excellent speaking voice!

Great video. I have wondered about this for a long time. I didn't believe the hype. Glad for your work. Thx.

I really enjoy your channel , you don't just accept the old ' dogma ' alot of us old dudes were taught . Dad built his 1st muzzleloading rifle in 1966 thanks and I was 3rd grade soaking up every word of wisdom from his friends and mentors .60 or so years later some still stands some doesnt . Never stop learning ! Thanks M.B.

Nice piece of investigative reporting. I don't have a Colt Walker nor do I intend to get one. But I admire the work that you've done.

Subscribed. I really liked your honesty and testing just to see what was what. I had to laugh! I had just mentioned to the Mate about how some of the first Walkers had the cylinders blown up by the pickett conicals being loaded backwards in them...and you came out and said the same thing not a second later. I have a Walker with an action job ( to repair the hair trigger that the revolver had when I bought it ) by a fellow named 'Goon'. I love to shoot it and use 50 grains of Pyrodex ( don't hold it against me ;0) and a round ball. That's plenty enough Boom and Smoke for me.

Love your style

I'd read in a book exactly your opening statement and had killing range of up to 40 yards and was as powerful as a rifle. The model of the rifle was not mentioned. The book, however, is "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S.C. Gwynne, a fantastic book whether the author is accurate or not in his assessment of the Walker-Colt/Colt-Walker.

I read that the army used 230 grain bullets in the 45 colt cartridge then later 230 grain bullet in the 45 schofield cartridge. Id like to know how that compares to a 230 grain bullet in the 44 walker. Also, some original cartridges from the 1800 have been cut open and found they were loaded with 4F powder. ... so many variables, it will be difficult to explore all the possibilities. As always, i liked the video.

Well done!

I know you are a dedicated researcher, because you bent the loading lever on your walker to get to the bottom of the question. 👍🤠

All of your videos are good but this is the best one (IMHO) I’ve seen so far. This one got me to subscribe. Thanks for putting in the work on this one. Well done.

What I would like to see is a Remington 1858 New Army in a Walker Colt powered loading; that would be awesome. Another thing I would like to see is a quick change swing out cylinder double action black powder revolver of similar power as well. The frame of the Taurus Judge comes to mind for that

Yeah, that loading lever got bent alright. It was both bent and really f@#$ed up! 😮 Time to either bend it back or get the parts replaced. Hope that you didn't crack those grips when giving it a pounding. Love the videos, keep them coming!

Your on the right track. But you flogging g the difference between “then” and “now”. As you know from your journey making black powder there is a world of difference in power, burn rate etc between your first batch and you process today which rivals commercial products. Back in 1847 powder was like your first batch. Slow burn and less power than today. There was no “Fg” grade system. That was introduced in 1881 when DuPont formalized the A, B, C grades of blasting and cannon powders and the formerly “fine” sporting powder was screened to the “F” series we use today. The “g” designation was added sometime in the mid-1880’s to indicate powder tumbled and glazed with graphite. Still there are references as early as 1842 specifying the procurement of “fine” powder for military small arms. Today we associate this with the grades we are accustomed to. But then “Fine” was a quality descriptor used in general sales. Something on the order of quality. Good-better-best-fine. Fine being the top of the heap and quite subjective. So. In your store you might say “this I’d best brown paper”. I might say “I want fine brown paper”. You’d say “ ok it’s fine”. And so it was. If we both agree. Very very subjective. Add this to the metallurgy of the time. Radical improvements were made in iron and steel between 1847 and 1861. The walkers illustrate this. Those guns are iron. Not steel. And iron so…..variable in quality as to be scary today. This is the root of the many blown cylinders. I’m collections today walkers are like hens teeth. Of the original 1100 made about 300 survive. Minimal cost for one today is $100k and up. Up a lot! Of the surviving 300 it’s estimated that 200 had blown cylinders and had replacement cylinders installed by colt in the early 1850’s. By that point colt had acquired a better grade of iron thus improving those cylinders materially. A point to remember. Powder quality was also improving as metallurgy improved at the colt works. The walker replica you have today is not exactly like the originals. The most glaring detail is the lack of a forcing cone. The original walker cylinder was about 5/16 inch longer than the average reproduction of today. Lacking a barrel extension aka forcing cone within the frame. I believe Ian pointed this out in a video years ago. This is what added to the difficulty seating conicals in the original gun. The first reproductions from Italy and Spain were made by reverse engineering original 1851’s for the most part. Not so with the walker. No one was going to ship a walker to Spain in the late 1950’s ….not with them being worth close to $100k even then. So. The first reproductions were based upon dimensions provided. “ like that 1851 we sent you, except the cylinder is this long. The barrel that long. See the picture. And in providing those dimensions people like Val Forget were very aware of the ….explosive… history of that gun. And the common assumption that it was the extra large capacity of the chambers that was the cause. Not the poor quality of the metal, despite the poor quality of the powder. So steel was of course specified on the reproductions. But in addition a forcing cone was added, just as colt added a forcing cone to the “dragoon” to adapt a shorter cycle set to the frame, which was also shortened to become the “first model dragoon” as it’s called today. So. In short, the reproductions we have access to today have noticeably shorter cylinders and frames than the originals. This also complicated the fabrication of “faked” originals. I believe the NRA museum did a video illustrating such fakes built on Italian parts. The tip-off being a forcing cone among other detail. So the originals could digest a 50-60 grain charge and seat a conical only with great difficulty, the upside down seating being one work around as you point out. The dragoon represents the evolution of the walker. The first step being a shorter cylinder limiting powder to 45 grains at most. By 1861 this evolution was down to 30 grains. And through this all iron segued into steel, and finally “better” steel in the 1861. And powder evolved such that the “good” powder of 1847 became the “fine” powder of 1861. One must ask how many original 1847’s ruptured a cylinder when some lad stuffed it full of “fine” powder in 1862? The fire at Colts destroyed many of those records. So you bit off a complicated chew. But you gnawed upon it quite well! I hope this explains why you could not quite close the loop on contemporary accounts with what we glean today from our reproductions. Fox out

I have a Walker and several Colts and clones 1873. I have always suspected that the Walker was overrated as far as it being the "44 Magnum of its day". Just observing penetration results with similar charges and bullet weights. Thanks for the chronographical data and other info. Interesting about the difference in compresibility of different powder manufacturers. Makes sense but never thought about it. I subscribed and glad I found your channel.

Nice video! I always questioned the the power factor but never tested it my self. Looks plan as day to me, if it don't fit it doesn't ship lol

Thank you.

My dreams have been shattered! Shattered I say!! haha, I don't know much about the Walker except it still looks cool on the big screen! So does the Model 29 for that matter. I haven't shot any "Black Powder Loads" yet but I sure am learning a lot, keep the videos rollin' Jake!

What I can also say is the ASP NMA gets 100 fps more velocity for the same charge vs the Pietta NMA. So barrel specs (bore) and or wear factor in as well.

I make my bullets with the Lee 200 grain cap and ball mold - it fits in the Remingtons easily, no alteration of the gun is necessary. It fits in my 1851 Colt if I struggle enough, there is barely enough room if you press the bullet's shoulders into the chamber, then the bullet can be rotated under the loading lever. If I used them in the 1851 a lot I would dremel the frame open a bit to ease loading. For max loads there is room for slightly less powder under the bullet compared to the ball, but the bullet, even with a bit less powder, will yield a few more ftlbs energy in my 1851 than the ball will at max load. This is the sort of thing that varies from gun to gun, from load to load, and from powder to powder. There is less energy available as there is a bit less powder, but the powder transfers it's energy to the bullet in a more efficient manner than it transfers it's energy to a round ball. This is the sort of thing that makes working with Black powder interesting.

Thanks dude🤘

That was fascinating, thank you. I knew substitutes (for those so lost to decency and humanity as to use them) were more compactable, but I had no idea how different Goex and Swiss were in that regard. As to the M1873 cartridge, you got that a bit wrong (although I think this might be what you meant to say). Colt’s revolver cartridge, Caliber .45, 1873, had only 30 grains of 2Fg powder. The *commercial* .45 Colt cartridge that came out in that same year did, in fact, have 40 grains (the specs actually say 37-38 grains), but that was never the military cartridge. (Kuhnhausen, Jerry. “The Colt Single Action Revolvers,” p. 23.)

Great video thank you

This pretty much sums it up. I think you covered all the bases on the subject. I was even suckered into believing the myth. What I will say of the Colt Walker is it came along at the right time and it was for all intended purposes, the model for which all other Colt cap and ball revolvers were designed after, with a few changes considered.

Very interesting results and a most excellent video! I greatly appreciate you doing the work and providing the science. This is how we learn. I am left with a few thoughts. There is a possibility of inaccurate measuring devices, inconsistent manufacturing and a human flaw of assumption. Using a custom milled brass measuring device rated 60grains and my throw nozzle at 30 grains I almost instantly discovered that the so called throw spout is likely closer to 27 or 28, or my 60g milled measuring device is more than 60. Loading the powder loosely into a cylinder chamber I was left with about 3mm of space. After tapping the cylinder to allow the powder to settle I then had about 6mm of space. In the past I have been able to load a ball with no wad atop this charge. While watching the video I noticed something different about the "Walker" being used. The proof marks are in different locations than on both of mine. Not an issue, but curious none the less. The one I loaded was marked with 2013 on the frame under the brass trigger bar, if that helps. Mine is an Uberti purchased from Cabelas around 2017 and it came requiring a LOT of clean up. the greatest takeaway I have from this is I need to verify each of my loading and or measuring apparatuses are providing accurate and consistent results. Side note, I have spoken to someone a while back who was selling aluminum jigs to form paper cartridges for the "walker" who essentially expressed the exact same statements in terms of capable charges as you detail in this video. Think there was an Italian youtuber who posted results from their "walker" which would also be "anomalous".

OK that is really interesting Jake. Now to me that is interesting as I have been pushing 35 grains of black powder through my Pietta 1860 Army Colt Replica, with a .450 200 grain conical by Lee bullet mold and I do not have the trouble seating the bullet that you do with that Walker and the 217 grain Erasgone bullet. Now I will give you two caveats with my load for my gun, the black powder I am using is a home made black powder, and my gun is basically stock and has not been slicked up like some guys have done to their guns. Meaning I have (not) c hampered the cylinder's nor bored out the cylinder's to a .450 bore, like how some go to a .358 on their .36 caliber gun's. So that makes me wonder if they made any modifications to the cylinder on their gun's for ease of load and to increase the load.

Wow! That advertisement at 29:29 is so cool!

It is nice to see a level headed and logical conclusion the the Walker debate, I also think that the various comments made by "so called experts" who have probably never even fired a Walker less than helpful on this subject, to put yourself on a pedestal and state these ridiculous "facts" is not helpful, people are going to be quoting these pseudo facts as if they have some base in reality, your tests here prove the real situation, as did your tests getting 40 Grn in a Colt 45 case (even though it was not a folded head case), people are very quick to quote these "facts" that suit their own theories, but you test things for yourself. Well done! Chris B.

I hear people say that you can't put 40 grains in a .45 Colt, either. I load black powder loads in my .45 Colt. I use 3f goex. I put a 40 grain spout on a bulk style, round brass powder flask. I put a standard 250 grain flat point bullet. The powder charge is definitely compacted. People say it can't be done; but I do it all the time. When I load .45-70 I use the same powder flask; but with a 70 grain spout. Once again, with 3x goex. It works great. I used goex because that was the only real black powder that I could find locally.

Interesting stuff, I haven’t tried conicals yet, I do know I can get 40 grains triple 7 in my 58 Remington and my 1873 Colt, again that’s round ball only, honestly I don’t think they need more than 30-35 grains at the most to do the trick in terms of stopping power for what they are designed for, thanks for sharing 👍🇺🇸

Maybe they cut the lead ball in half or something I have a replica that my son gave me but I just fill the cylinder almost full and seat the ball I got two cans of caps when Walmart stopped selling black powder stuff it was on sale and all they had left great videos 👍🏻🤘🏻

My question is about possible variations in chamber capacities from one replica to another. I would want to see both guns tested by the same person using powder out the same container and the same bullets manufactured by the same equipment on the same day. I do not have dog in this fight and would not have a walker. If I buy a cap and ball pistol it would be one of the 5-shot 36 cal police models built on the 31 caliber frame. that seems like a practical gun that might even still have utility into days world You are a good presenter and kept my interest up for the full 30 plus minutes.

it is possible Uberti did slightly change some dimensions to avoid having their guns used to make a fake copy. I had a Uberti Walker for a while but sold it,because it was too expensive to use. Not the gun it was the horse needed to carry it. Interesting gun from an historical aspect but about as useful as carbonated buttermilk.

1) Having met karl of Forgotten Weapons in person, I can safely say I wouldn't trust his opinion on if the sky is blue. 2) Not all conical bullets are the same shape; the ones you're using have a pretty sharp ogive angle and are therefore leaving a lot of air space to the front of the cylinder. While yours may be the correct bullet for the period, it is entirely plausible that there are people out there using modern cast bullets of the same bullet weight, but with a blunter ogive (or even a flat-point spitzer) that leaves less room "to the side of the nose" at the front of the chamber, therefore allowing more space to the rear- I can easily see how that could account for an extra 5 or maybe even 10 grains beyond what you're able to load.

I'm late to the party here, so I hope you read my comment. Great channel. I own a Uberti Walker, and I run it with FF Goex and .457 round balls cast from Lee molds. I can say without a doubt that the maximum charge in the thing is 60 grains of FF. 60 grains pretty well fills the chamber all the way up. I typically run a 40 grain charge of FF in it. I suspect that running max charge in the Walker doesn't yield enough benefit to warrant the additional use of powder. All that being said, I'd take a Colt single action chambered in 32-20 over the Walker any day.

What would be great is to see a weighed charge along with a Chrono (LabRadar is really good with this) and see what the various volumes look like as well as velocity they get for different powders (we do not have abscess to Black Powder and its all substitutes). First load in the ASP that was throttled back was pushing 1000 FPS (yes that is a faster barrel). Clearly 777 has more boom for the weight (and the loading list for that reflects it).

My repro walker has 2 egg shaped chambers from cramming as much powder as I could get behind a conical. Happened a long time ago probably in my pyrodex days.

I've found this with swiss as well, the most I can get under a conical in my .36 is 20gr but goex, 777, etc. I can get 25 under the same conical.

I liked the historical tour and science together.

Quite a few of the walkers blew up for a number of reasons and putting way too much powder in them along with poorer quality steel and iron of time I doubt they were able to get close to .44mag stats very many times before bad 💩 started happening. I agree with you, while the .44mag of it’s day it’s not even in the running when compared to the 44mag of today I have loaded up to 45grns of 3f Goex with 220grn Kaido bullet for mine but I load off the gun

That's why I watch you buddy. You dont repeat bs you say something then you show and prove it. Good video buddy

My analogy is that maybe by weight and not volume of black powder back in the day the powder just weighed more by volume!

That's very interesting. You can get 40gn of FFFg into a Ruger Old Army (although I shoot 30) & the Walker cylinder looks much larger but I suspect wall thickness and other factors will come into play

Very, very well done man. Burst my bubble and made my day at the same time🤙

with pryojunk you can compress the powder with the ram rod add more then seat the ball like uncorned homemade. You can get more than 60 grains in it and seat a ball. I think I could smash over 65 and seat a ball with homemade and got up to 1375 in FPS. Love your videos

Have you tried a different black powder measure? Different brands can measure different amounts. Also spouts can be off also.

Awesome insightful topic! When, I made my trip to the Museum of Connecticut History, I saw Sam Colt's prototype pre Paterson which is a 52 caliber percussion revolver made by Gunsmith Anson Chase in 1835. The 52 caliber Colt Chase prototype revolver was probably more powerful than the later Colt Walker. One can be see Colt's Chase 52 caliber revolver in my video link bellow. I am the inventor of a specialty bullet series for mainly percussion cap&ball revolvers for Hunting and Wilderness Defense purposes. One of my Customers in Maine used my 255 grain Kaido Ojamaa-VKJV Universal Bullet in a replica Walker percussion revolver that was loaded with Triple Seven 3F powder, while my Customer was working on a farm he had the Walker in his car as it was Hunting season. A dangerous incident erupted with a 2.200 pound Bovine, big Bull started to attack the farm labors my Customer retrieved his Walker and shot the 2.200 attacking Bovine Bull in the upper body. The Bull dropped dead right there. It took one shot with using my 255 grain RFN Universal Bullet loaded with a stout charge of Triple Seven 3F powder. The British made a Beaumont Adams Dragoon percussion revolver in 50 caliber. Arsa a known black powder pistol maker in Spain is going to replicate the 50 caliber Beaumont Adams. Arsa's chief engineer told me that he calculated that the 50 caliber Beaumont Adams is more powerful than the Colt Walker. Arsa has discussed with me the possibilities of making a copy of the Austrian Josef Schneigg model 1860 in the whopping 55 caliber. Finally, Arsa is contemplating a 577 caliber percussion revolver bullet. The English revolver company Tranter produced 577 caliber percussion revolvers. The Norwegian Konsberg Arsenal made a 577 caliber prototype percussion revolver. No doubt that these 50/55/57 caliber cap&ball percussion revolvers are more powerful than the Colt Walker. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l8plgMeKsNawZaM.html&feature=share

And here we go......

BRILLIANT !

If you use a drop tube the powder packs tighter, in a non- field situation.....

You make some very good arguments and present good evidence. My sticking point is that the Walker was designed to shoot a conical with 60 grains using a conical. I think the conical was probably a non-starter. I’ve loaded my Walker with 60 grains of Triple7 using a round ball without issue, other than the loading rod. Although your testing was very thorough, I’d like to see tests using 60 grains before I write the Walker off as not being the most powerful until 1935.

Great video. I have a reproduction colt Walker. It’s brutal. You are not going to do conceal carry with a colt Walker. At pistol range, it can open you up like a melon. It’s size, appearance and presence is great for deterrence in open carry. I have heard that there was a conversion kit used by the colt Walker. Don’t know much about it or the shells it used. I also have a colt single action in 45 colt. It’s also a powerful gun. At the end of the day, I love these guns. Both in open carry are intimidating which leads to deterrence. My last hand gun is an older 1911. It’s also a handful. I love my hand guns. Does it matter what the stopping energy is? How fast the slug flys? At a certain point, it doesn’t matter. Each of these is going to do a massive amount of trauma against your perpetrator. You can’t go wrong with these guns. I am not a fan of glocks. It’s an appearance thing. Glocks work great, just not my cup of tea. I use the same 458 ball in my Walker as I do in my 50 cal hawkin. Same double measure of 3F GOex. Never figured out how many grains my measure has. I think your empirical work was excellent and I may look into it as now I am curious. In short, the colt Walker is an extremely intimidating hand gun in open carry. Is it the purported cannon it’s been hyped up to? I don’t think so nor do I think it’s relevant. Just it’s presence is enough and the best case of self defense is when you don’t need to pull the trigger.

Maybe among other factors there is a wide variation in powder measures. Also a variation in granulations might make a difference in charge weight for similar volumes. Unlike smokeless, small variations in charge weight wouldn't be a safety issue for bp.

Carl was using a finger tip measure. The pad of his finger would reduce the powder charge to a minor degree. What if they were using a hollow base conical? (Which I doubt) They also may have been loading the cylinder outside the pistol in a loading tool ( I am thinking of the screw down type that loads all six at once). I am a Cult Walker person. I love the things, but DO NOT practice nor recommend cramming max powder into it. I ultimately ended up using a reduced charge that would not blow down the load lever, enough of a filler to seat the ball at the very top of the cylinder, and enjoy much more accuracy and fun. Great content on your site!!

Interesting well conducted presentation. I would suggest the swiss is denser the goex and weighs more for a given volume. I dont have any swiss to compare with. Of no consequence anyway as clearly that Walker doesn't seem to have the chamber capacity.

Hey kid, hope all is alright! Look forward to seeing your videos and haven't seen anything for 3 weeks. Again, hope all is alright!

Your colt rep. is right in there with my original 2nd gen. Colt. Now I have never run my great grandfathers walker thru the box and I checked with my brother and he said the same. Now far as I'm concerned their is not a better man stopper than a 45LC. MY opinion only. And if I am not supposed to say that (Damn). I can tell you this I am not bending the loading lever on that Walker.... By the way great video.

Great video! I think you did a very accurate job of testing the big Walker. When I first heard the Walker vs 357 Magnum story I was suitably impressed because I really like the Walker for its historical value, but was never really concerned about the revolvers power as I'm not a "cult" Walker guy. One thing that seriously disturbed me on your video, however, was the "lecture" given by the NRA museum curator stating 90 grains of powder will fit in the Walker. You couldn't put 90 grains in the cylinder hole even if you used no ball. For a museum curator to make that statement is outrageous! and does not inspire confidence in his creditability. If I want pistol power I'll use my S&W model 29. When I want to shoot for smoke, noise and historical fun I'll shoot the Walker.

Very cool. Still gotta get me one of these..... one day.

Good Video

Thought I was going crazy. Stuck in NY for a job, so no real BP but loaded 45 Colt with appx 35gr of Pyrodex P, noted the excessive recoil and went to a 24gr (to replicate the eventual 28gr service charge) and found it much nicer and not lacking a n any real way. Got a Walker by Uberti, loaded some “normal” 50gr charges with Pyrodex P and couldn’t seat a round ball…. Shot a “reduced” 40gr charge and was surprised at the recoil. Pyrodex, Triple Seven and the others are awful.

I’d love to watch a follow up video with the cylinder loaded with one of those loading stand things. I reckon you would get a stack more leverage.

A french BP-afficionado came to the same conclusion with the Walker (FYI, he was able to cram 60grains Vectan PNF2 behind the roundball for his max test). And with his .44 'accuracy' load of 21.6 grains + filler his Remington 58 8" proved 25% more powerful energywise than the similarly loaded Walker, which has a 9" barrel! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bainYJaUup_PXZ8.html Greetings from France, love your content!

Loved it. Hate you bent the loading lever to do such a great test. Have you seen where they bored out a 45 colt conversion cylinder to take what is called i think a 45 super black powder. Think its a 460s&w case filled with black powder. Again great video for someone that has heard the hype. You do real good test.

That's what my loading lever looks like also, trying to do what some of.the gun rags said you could do. BTW, it is still bent a little too, harder then he'll to straighten back out, without heat. I read later.that they actually loaded the bullets backwards in order to get those heavy loads.

May want to look at the c96, over 1800 fps. Yes, I know late in the centur, but still a very early firearm, and long before any magnums.

Interesting!

When I first saw and shot a Walker reproduction sometime in the early 1970s, when my grandkids say dinosaurs roamed, the friend who owned it said it shor like a heavy .38 special or light .357 load. Seemed pretty accurate then and now.

Not much to say on this one other than, this is why I designed the Mukwa bullets the way I did. The Dragoon bullet measures over .800, were my 270 grain measures .655. My 260 grain measures .650. Now this isn't over whelming cylinder capacity, but does gain some. Now when Jeremy over at leverguns50 got just shy of 1000 fps. Not sure his charge. Though I think he tested both goex and 777. That's if my memory serves me. He also tested the same 270 grain bullet in the 45-55 walker cartridge for about the same results.