Status
Not open for further replies.

jmar

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2016
Messages
262
Hello everyone, i have an ambitious project i want to start. I've been doing lots of searching trying to find a 45 70 cartridge converted walker to no avail. However this website did come up a lot in the searches so i figured this is a good place as any to post this.

What i want to do is get a Uberti Walker and convert it to fire 45 70 gov rounds. The walker is a big gun and holds 60 grains of powder, it isn't 70 but if you bore all the way through the nipple area i think it may be possible.

I'm very inexperienced but at this point i just want to know if everything will fit before i take things further. So can any of you smiths or tinkerers out there help me out? Maybe its even been done before but i cant find it.

I think it would make a beastly gun! Also as a side note there are two Uberti Walkers on the market, one is finished and one is a kit. This is the only kit gun Uberti makes to my knowledge and i'm wondering if the frame on the kit gun is going to be weaker since it isn't color case hardened, any thoughts?
http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?products_id=2033
http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?products_id=1022

Thanks!
 
Do you mean an actual .45-70 Gov't CARTRIDGE?
Not going to happen.
The .45-70 is a 2.55" round on a 2.1" case.
The Walker cylinder is 1.56" long.
Or do you plan to extend the frame and arbor by an inch?
 
Do you mean an actual .45-70 Gov't CARTRIDGE?
Not going to happen.
The .45-70 is a 2.55" round on a 2.1" case.
The Walker cylinder is 1.56" long.
Or do you plan to extend the frame and arbor by an inch?
I didn't know there was an inch difference.. Here's a picture of a walker and a .45-70 "not my guns", it appears that there's less than a 1/2 inch difference. Why is this, is there a special 45 70 for hand guns? And yes i think i'm willing to extend the gun, but i was hoping to keep it stock and just boring through the cylinder.
MVC-016F_zpspafjybyf.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone, i have an ambitious project i want to start. I've been doing lots of searching trying to find a 45 70 cartridge converted walker to no avail. However this website did come up a lot in the searches so i figured this is a good place as any to post this.

What i want to do is get a Uberti Walker and convert it to fire 45 70 gov rounds. The walker is a big gun and holds 60 grains of powder, it isn't 70 but if you bore all the way through the nipple area i think it may be possible.

I'm very inexperienced but at this point i just want to know if everything will fit before i take things further. So can any of you smiths or tinkerers out there help me out? Maybe its even been done before but i cant find it.

Thanks!

The bolded quote from your post concerns me. I mean no disrespect, but are you inexperienced in metal work, gunsmithing, or firearms in general? To me, your plan sounds like a recipe for disaster. The link by cheatin charlie has some good info for options that may be safe to consider.
 
You need to read this post if you want a 45 magnum Walker

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-548783.html
The bolded quote from your post concerns me. I mean no disrespect, but are you inexperienced in metal work, gunsmithing, or firearms in general? To me, your plan sounds like a recipe for disaster. The link by cheatin charlie has some good info for options that may be safe to consider.
Thanks for both your replies. I don't have any gunsmithing or machinist skills but i figure that i'll have a gunsmith take care of the hard parts. I have some firearms experience i built a pepperbox kit gun, and i guess that i have shot around 500 rounds through guns in my life.

I don't see how 45-70 rounds will be anymore dangerous then those 45 magnum rounds, it's only 10 more grains of powder and if you look at his gun there's a backing plate on the cylinder. I don't want this on mine so it would allow for more powder and a larger bullet. Walkers can load 60 grains and are recommended for 50, i don't see how going up 10 is dangerous. Iv'e seen people load entire musket barrels full of powder "basically a cannon charge" and not even damage the barrel. Is there something i'm missing on why this could go wrong? Or is it just that i'm a newbie? I understand that trust me but i'm not stupid my first shots would be from behind a tree with a string around the trigger. :D

The reason i'm so dead set on 45-70 is i want a period correct gun. Iv'e never heard of a 45-70 converted walker in the old west but not all walkers are accounted for. So for all we know it may have happened, and more importantly could have happened.
 
Thanks for both your replies. I don't have any gunsmithing or machinist skills but i figure that i'll have a gunsmith take care of the hard parts. I have some firearms experience i built a pepperbox kit gun, and i guess that i have shot around 500 rounds through guns in my life.

I don't see how 45-70 rounds will be anymore dangerous then those 45 magnum rounds, it's only 10 more grains of powder and if you look at his gun there's a backing plate on the cylinder. I don't want this on mine so it would allow for more powder and a larger bullet. Walkers can load 60 grains and are recommended for 50, i don't see how going up 10 is dangerous. Iv'e seen people load entire musket barrels full of powder "basically a cannon charge" and not even damage the barrel. Is there something i'm missing on why this could go wrong? Or is it just that i'm a newbie? I understand that trust me but i'm not stupid my first shots would be from behind a tree with a string around the trigger. :D

The reason i'm so dead set on 45-70 is i want a period correct gun. Iv'e never heard of a 45-70 converted walker in the old west but not all walkers are accounted for. So for all we know it may have happened, and more importantly could have happened.

Yup. There used to be unicorns too. :rolleyes:
 
I doubt if any Walker was converted to 45-70. Cartridge length is one thing and you need a new cylinder. You also need to make a new frame extension for the barrel and a new cylinder pin.

I have seen a Walker that was converted to a shotgun with a new, smoothbore barrel.

Suggest you take CNC machining if you want to pursue this project. It would be much easier that setting up a milling machine.
 
O.k., let's see if we can explain this in simple enough terms.

1. A Walker cylinder is too short for a 45/70 cartridge.
2. The Walker is a cap & ball revolver.
3. The 45-70 cartridge is a center-fire cartridge, meaning you have to have a centrally located firing pin in the breech face. (The 'backing plate on conversions contain 5 or 6 separate firings pins. One for each chamber.) There is no getting around it on a percussion conversion.
4. The Walker doesn't have one, because it doesn't need one.
5. The Walker uses a 156 grain round ball at 1,170 FPS, producing 474 FT/LB of energy.
6. The 45-70 rifle cartridge uses a 405 grain conical bullet at 1,300 FPS, producing 1,519 FT/LB of energy. (Or, 3.2 times more energy / power / recoil energy.)
7. The Walker transfers recoil energy to the frame about 1/2 way between the top & the bottom of the recoil shield in the center of the cylinder, so bending forces are only 1/2 what they would be with a same weight bullet in a centerfire cartridge exerting all the energy near the top of the recoil shield.
8. Even if a 45-70 could fit in a Walker cylinder, which it can't. The frame would bend like a pretzel above the trigger guard and the revolver would explode.
9. What you are proposing is impossible, and unsafe in the extreme.
10. No knowledgable gunsmith capable of doing such a conversion would even think of doing it, for any amount of money.

Fogadaboutit!!!

It simply will not work.

rc
 
There are period reports of Colt Walkers failing proof... the cylinder split.
Apart from making a handier weapon, one reason for the Dragoon series' shorter cylinder is less room for powder to cause an overload.
And you want to stretch the gun to put in MORE powder?

I am sure 21st century Italian steel is better than 19th century American, but I would still not want to push my luck.
 
O.k., let's see if we can explain this in simple enough terms.

1. A Walker cylinder is too short for a 45/70 cartridge.
2. The Walker is a cap & ball revolver.
3. The 45-70 cartridge is a center-fire cartridge, meaning you have to have a centrally located firing pin in the breech face. (The 'backing plate on conversions contain 5 or 6 separate firings pins. One for each chamber.) There is no getting around it on a percussion conversion.
4. The Walker doesn't have one, because it doesn't need one.
5. The Walker uses a 156 grain round ball at 1,170 FPS, producing 474 FT/LB of energy.
6. The 45-70 rifle cartridge uses a 405 grain conical bullet at 1,300 FPS, producing 1,519 FT/LB of energy. (Or, 3.2 times more energy / power / recoil energy.)
7. The Walker transfers recoil energy to the frame about 1/2 way between the top & the bottom of the recoil shield in the center of the cylinder, so bending forces are only 1/2 what they would be with a same weight bullet in a centerfire cartridge exerting all the energy near the top of the recoil shield.
8. Even if a 45-70 could fit in a Walker cylinder, which it can't. The frame would bend like a pretzel above the trigger guard and the revolver would explode.
9. What you are proposing is impossible, and unsafe in the extreme.
10. No knowledgable gunsmith capable of doing such a conversion would even think of doing it, for any amount of money.

Fogadaboutit!!!

It simply will not work.

rc
Maybe the first picture i posted didn't do it justice so i did this in photoshop.
MVC-016F_zpsldylh6we.jpg
So as you can see the difference is very minimal, the 45-70 revolver admittedly does have a fatter cylinder but that's because it's made for smokeless powder. I understand a full length cartridge wont fit but using a 1/4 shorter projectile could solve that.

And you also say there's no getting around the backing plate, but ive seen hundreds without them including conversions done in the old west.
Here's one for example.
http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/products/revolvers/conversion-revolvers/conversion-revolvers-1851-conversions/man-with-no-name-1/man-with-no-name-conversion-38-colt-s-w-special-7-1-2-no-inlay.html

I see no reason why this is impossible or dangerous.
 
There are period reports of Colt Walkers failing proof... the cylinder split.
Apart from making a handier weapon, one reason for the Dragoon series' shorter cylinder is less room for powder to cause an overload.
And you want to stretch the gun to put in MORE powder?

I am sure 21st century Italian steel is better than 19th century American, but I would still not want to push my luck.
The difference in steel now and then is astronomical even our average steel is better than their best. If i recall correctly Uberti proofs their guns at 3 times the maximum load, so that'd be the equivalent of 180 grains, or 150 if they proof using their recommended load. Bumping it up 10 grains would do nothing to the gun imo.
 
I think this is a Class 4 Internet Gunsmithing Project, not physically possible.

You may photoshop if you like, but you will find bending metal to be harder.
The Walker cylinder is 1 9/16" long, the .45-70 case alone is 2.1".
Not even with a full wadcutter.

I am starting to suspect the posting of an Internet Troll just making stuff up.
 
Well, O.K. Then.

Good luck!!

Troll or not.
He obviously has no comprehension of firearms design, pressure, or common sense.

If you could make a 45-70 Colt Walker?

Someone would have done it over the last 100 years.
But, they haven't.

rc
 
I think this is a Class 4 Internet Gunsmithing Project, not physically possible.

You may photoshop if you like, but you will find bending metal to be harder.
The Walker cylinder is 1 9/16" long, the .45-70 case alone is 2.1".
Not even with a full wadcutter.

I am starting to suspect the posting of an Internet Troll just making stuff up.
Sorry you feel that way Jim.
As i have said multiple times i am willing to modify the frame. arbor. and cylinder, as well as the cartridges. I do not get what you mean by "making stuff up" but i find it slightly disrespectful.

Here is the gentleman's thread where i got the picture from if that's what you're talking about. In-fact in that thread he talks about a 45-70 dragoon, which is part of my inspiration for this project.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347963
 
Well, O.K. Then.

Good luck!!

Troll or not.
He obviously has no comprehension of firearms design, pressure, or common sense.

If you could make a 45-70 Colt Walker?

Someone would have done it over the last 100 years.
But, they haven't.

rc
Sorry have i offended you in any way? Have some courtesy please, i'm actually trying to get help, not pessimistic people throwing insults. I'll pretend as if i didn't read that. Please have some respect i don't want to have this post closed for banter.:)
 
The center gun in your photo is NOT a Colt Dragoon.

It is a modern, massive, heat treated stainless steel single-action, with a massively thick top strap to handle the pressure and recoil.

Calling that gun a Walker is about like calling a 1969 Ford Pinto a 2016 Corvette.

rc
 
The center gun in your photo is NOT a Colt Dragoon.

It is a modern, massive, heat treated stainless steel single-action, with a massively thick top strap to handle the pressure and recoil.

Calling that gun a Walker is about like calling a 1969 Ford Pinto a 2016 Corvette.

rc
Yes i understand that.. The first sentence of that thread states that the same people that made that revolver also made a 45-70 dragoon. Maybe he was even confusing it with a walker as it would be more likely.
 
This is what i want my walker to look like, notice the "impossible" void of a backplate.
1155404274_1755336042_GA08-MovieGuns3-still-440x270_zpskchsq8t0.jpg
 
All any of use are trying to tell you is a Colt Walker percussion revolver does not have a top strap.

And cannot possibly hold the pressure and recoil of a 45-70 rifle cartridge.

No need to get your panties in a wad!

rc
 
The bottom gun in the picture is a Walker repro. The center gun is one of those monster revolvers that were even too clumsy for Elmer Keith; I think the Golden Bison Bull.
The photoshop purports to show the Walker cylinder as comparable to the Bull's. I don't think it does. Scaling off the second picture in that THR thread, I find the Bison cylinder to be 12% longer and 23% larger diameter than the Walker.

Oh, I did turn up a wrong figure for the Walker cylinder length. Somebody put up the diameter as the length. Actual Walker cylinder length is 2.57" so you won't have to lengthen the frame and arbor.
That moves it to a Class 3 Internet Gunsmithing Project. Nobody likely to take on the job even at high cost.
 
All any of use are trying to tell you is a Colt Walker percussion revolver does not have a top strap.

And cannot possibly hold the pressure and recoil of a 45-70 rifle cartridge.

No need to get your panties in a wad!

rc
You are aware i'm talking about 45-70 blackpowder rounds. Not modern 45-70 smokeless cartridges? You should watch this video if you already haven't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en384qVqrug
Blackpowder is a very slow moving propelent which is why they can fill the gun completely full of powder without it grenading. I have 0 doubts from researching this subject extensilvely that there would be no harm to the gun with 10 grains extra of black powder. The reason walker cylinders originally exploded is because they were made with bad iron not steel, and the users loaded their conical bullets backwards which trapped air between the powder and bullet.
 
The bottom gun in the picture is a Walker repro. The center gun is one of those monster revolvers that were even too clumsy for Elmer Keith; I think the Golden Bison Bull.
The photoshop purports to show the Walker cylinder as comparable to the Bull's. I don't think it does. Scaling off the second picture in that THR thread, I find the Bison cylinder to be 12% longer and 23% larger diameter than the Walker.

Oh, I did turn up a wrong figure for the Walker cylinder length. Somebody put up the diameter as the length. Actual Walker cylinder length is 2.57" so you won't have to lengthen the frame and arbor.
That moves it to a Class 3 Internet Gunsmithing Project. Nobody likely to take on the job even at high cost.
Jim with all respect due, humans landed a probe on a comet going 100,000 mph. Any gunsmith that can't add a firing pin and bore through a cylinder isn't a gunsmith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top