2ndAmendmentNut
Member
We are all getting trolled.
.45-70 Colt Walker
- Thread starter jmar
- Start date
- Status
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
This is hopeless. A revolver with no top strap chambered in .45-70 will self destruct. It's obvious. This guy is completely and totally clueless and likely to get himself or someone else hurt.
2ndAmendmentNut
Member
Uberti recommends a powder charge of 50grs. That is what I shoot through my Walker with no ill effects. A 60gr charge with a round ball even in modern replicas is known to loosen the wedge and effect timing. A 70gr charge with a round ball (typically around 150grs) is likely not a grenade, but will wear the gun out prematurely. A 70gr charge with a 300gr-500gr bullet (typical weight range for 45-70 ammo) will far exceed the limits of the Walker design.
The wedges and screws on the Italian repros are very soft i think any Uberti owner can attest to that, i was going to replace the wedge with a bigger wedge that can take more of a kick anyways.
A lot of guys shoot heavy projectiles in fact have you seen the conicals that are supposed to be shot out of the walker? They are pretty hefty, the cased walker even comes with a mold for them. What i'm saying and have said many times already is that larger projectile doesn't effect the pressure on the cylinder just the kick of the gun. This is because it has more friction in the barrel on its way out. Newtons 3rd law
I'm going to be the odd man out in one regard. Its not impossible to build an open top revolver that will take rifle cartridges. Its been done. a gunsmith in AZ named Clarence Bates built a small number of look-a-like Colt type guns built for 30-30 and a couple other rifle cartridges and sold them. He inlaid the head of a cartridge case into the side flat of the barrel shank for a caliber designator. They functioned. I have no idea how long they would last. Just saying, its been done successfully.
OK, now to the other parts. If anyone can measure the diameter of a Walker cylinder, and the wall thickness at the thinnest point, it will give numbers to calculate what the resulting wall thickness would be if chambered for 45-70. My first thoughts are the wall will be too thin, and the rims will be way too large to fit. The existing cylinder cant simply be bored through and used in any event and maintain full length. The recesses that the nipples are in aren't going to play nicely with being an open sided chamber. The locking bolt cut in the side of the cylinder also has to be accounted for. In a six shot cylinder, they lie right over the chamber at the thinnest point. That also happens to be the point all known cylinder or overall revolver blowups start from. Its the weakest point, and the cylinder has to be thick enough there for the intended cartridge.
Breech face. The linked picture isn't an actual conversion, despite its title. The frame was built to be compatible with cartridge use. It would take welding and machining to adapt a percussion frame to not have a back plate on the frame or a back piece on the cylinder. It could be done, but it adds to the work. Its not just a drop in deal with a new cylinder.
Making a larger cylinder for the Walker frame will require machining the frame window where the cylinder sets. Its a curved surface. The cylinder arbor would probably have to be removed to do it, then reinstalled and peened to lock it in place again. Keep in mind the machining for the cylinder may get into the internal workings where the cylinder locking bolt is, and the locking bolt and trigger spring are. It could be measured after figuring out the required cylinder diameter and machining needed to make it fit in the frame. Going to a 5 shot would gain some on major cylinder diameter and the locking bolt cuts.
Price a custom cylinder. Call John Linebaugh, Hamilton Bowen, or one of the people qualified to build them from scratch. They likely will have to charge to do the math to figure out the setup, as well as machine time. That takes away from their main work for a project they otherwise aren't really involved in or interested in. They may just decline to do it. Other machinists could do it, but the work time, designing it and machining it are not going to be cheap. It may approach what one of those BFR revolvers would cost, just for the cylinder.
The understanding of the difference between black powder pressure and smokeless is incorrect. Smokeless pressure isn't 5x black powder pressure. Black powder 45-70 runs in the mid teens I believe. Heavy 45-70 loads run about 30,000 lbs for Marlin level loads. Recoil is also misunderstood. In old ballistics charts that Winchester put out in the early 1900's, they had recoil of all the loads, and those with black and smokeless were both shown for similar loads. Black recoils more in all their data for similar velocity/bullet weight loads. Make of that what you will. Its Winchesters data. Perhaps they didn't know what they were talking about.
I think its entirely possible to build a functional and basically successful Walker TYPE gun for 45-70, but trying to do a work-around of the size limitations is going to be expensive and difficult, if even possible in its entirety. It may just be more practical to have a gun made from scratch to match the length and size of the 45-70 cylinder. If you could locate a retried or talented hobby type gunsmith that doesn't mind working cheap, it may be financially realistic. Like anything, its possible if one is wiling to spend enough money. If you find some one capable of doing the work for less than average gunsmithing work costs or talented machine work, you may be able to pull it off.
OK, now to the other parts. If anyone can measure the diameter of a Walker cylinder, and the wall thickness at the thinnest point, it will give numbers to calculate what the resulting wall thickness would be if chambered for 45-70. My first thoughts are the wall will be too thin, and the rims will be way too large to fit. The existing cylinder cant simply be bored through and used in any event and maintain full length. The recesses that the nipples are in aren't going to play nicely with being an open sided chamber. The locking bolt cut in the side of the cylinder also has to be accounted for. In a six shot cylinder, they lie right over the chamber at the thinnest point. That also happens to be the point all known cylinder or overall revolver blowups start from. Its the weakest point, and the cylinder has to be thick enough there for the intended cartridge.
Breech face. The linked picture isn't an actual conversion, despite its title. The frame was built to be compatible with cartridge use. It would take welding and machining to adapt a percussion frame to not have a back plate on the frame or a back piece on the cylinder. It could be done, but it adds to the work. Its not just a drop in deal with a new cylinder.
Making a larger cylinder for the Walker frame will require machining the frame window where the cylinder sets. Its a curved surface. The cylinder arbor would probably have to be removed to do it, then reinstalled and peened to lock it in place again. Keep in mind the machining for the cylinder may get into the internal workings where the cylinder locking bolt is, and the locking bolt and trigger spring are. It could be measured after figuring out the required cylinder diameter and machining needed to make it fit in the frame. Going to a 5 shot would gain some on major cylinder diameter and the locking bolt cuts.
Price a custom cylinder. Call John Linebaugh, Hamilton Bowen, or one of the people qualified to build them from scratch. They likely will have to charge to do the math to figure out the setup, as well as machine time. That takes away from their main work for a project they otherwise aren't really involved in or interested in. They may just decline to do it. Other machinists could do it, but the work time, designing it and machining it are not going to be cheap. It may approach what one of those BFR revolvers would cost, just for the cylinder.
The understanding of the difference between black powder pressure and smokeless is incorrect. Smokeless pressure isn't 5x black powder pressure. Black powder 45-70 runs in the mid teens I believe. Heavy 45-70 loads run about 30,000 lbs for Marlin level loads. Recoil is also misunderstood. In old ballistics charts that Winchester put out in the early 1900's, they had recoil of all the loads, and those with black and smokeless were both shown for similar loads. Black recoils more in all their data for similar velocity/bullet weight loads. Make of that what you will. Its Winchesters data. Perhaps they didn't know what they were talking about.
I think its entirely possible to build a functional and basically successful Walker TYPE gun for 45-70, but trying to do a work-around of the size limitations is going to be expensive and difficult, if even possible in its entirety. It may just be more practical to have a gun made from scratch to match the length and size of the 45-70 cylinder. If you could locate a retried or talented hobby type gunsmith that doesn't mind working cheap, it may be financially realistic. Like anything, its possible if one is wiling to spend enough money. If you find some one capable of doing the work for less than average gunsmithing work costs or talented machine work, you may be able to pull it off.
What makes you think that increased recoil doesn't relate to increased stress on the frame? You're talking a lot about physics and then conveniently ignoring it when it suits you.
Also, quit speculating and do some actual math. You don't design guns based on how big they look in a woman's hand. The walker cylinder is 1.875 inches in diameter, the arbor is .625 inches in diameter, and the case of a .45/70 is .505 inches in diameter. 1.875-.625-.505-.505= .24 inches, which has to be divided into 4 cross sections leaving your cylinder walls at .06" thick between the arbor and the chamber, and between the chamber and the outside of the cylinder. That is paper thin.
Add in the rim diameter of the 45/70 which is .608, and you're starting to have issues with the rim clearing the arbor. 1.875-.6250-.608-.608= .034. The rim of the cartridge is gong to overlap the teeth on the back of the cylinder.
The cylinder length on a walker is 2.4375 inches. The OAL of a .45/70 cartridge is typically 2.505 so that dimensions doesn't work either.
If you try to scale everything up by an even ratio you will have to build a custom frame for the cylinder to fit in it. .608/.452=1.35. 1.35 x 1.875 =2.52. No way you can keep a standard frame and fit a cylinder in that is 2.5 inches in diameter.
Go ahead and prove us all wrong.
Also, quit speculating and do some actual math. You don't design guns based on how big they look in a woman's hand. The walker cylinder is 1.875 inches in diameter, the arbor is .625 inches in diameter, and the case of a .45/70 is .505 inches in diameter. 1.875-.625-.505-.505= .24 inches, which has to be divided into 4 cross sections leaving your cylinder walls at .06" thick between the arbor and the chamber, and between the chamber and the outside of the cylinder. That is paper thin.
Add in the rim diameter of the 45/70 which is .608, and you're starting to have issues with the rim clearing the arbor. 1.875-.6250-.608-.608= .034. The rim of the cartridge is gong to overlap the teeth on the back of the cylinder.
The cylinder length on a walker is 2.4375 inches. The OAL of a .45/70 cartridge is typically 2.505 so that dimensions doesn't work either.
If you try to scale everything up by an even ratio you will have to build a custom frame for the cylinder to fit in it. .608/.452=1.35. 1.35 x 1.875 =2.52. No way you can keep a standard frame and fit a cylinder in that is 2.5 inches in diameter.
Go ahead and prove us all wrong.
The 475 Linebaugh is based on the 45-70 case cut down. Its a 5 shot. The cylinder is larger than the original Ruger cylinder, but I don't recall by how much. Its workable as a 5 shot regarding cylinder wall thickness and rim size,....except, the Walker type cylinder arbor is much larger than the Ruger base pin,...so, it probably has to be larger still.
I don't know if it needs to be 2 1/2" diameter, but he may not be far off.
I don't know if it needs to be 2 1/2" diameter, but he may not be far off.
Thanks for the advice really helpful stuff! Not sure that early 1900s data can equate to todays power loads, did you watch those two videos i posted comparing a 60 grain walker charge to a BFR? Really worth a watch the guy with the BFR comes close to whacking himself in the face a few times. I emailed a few gunsmiths, all said this would be possible but i haven't found one to go with yet. Some make guns from scratch doing the math and machining on this project should be a walk in the park for them. I think it's quite interesting too and they probably agree, especially since they're the ones getting payed.
This isn't meant to be a modern sporterized tactical red dot zombie killer. I want it to look period correct, i'm even going to age it after i spend my 1k or whatever it may be. After visiting The Buffalo Bill Museum yesterday made me realize that some of our most talented gunsmiths are long gone now, some of the work on those guns is just astounding. Seems this gun isn't the unicorn people say it is.
Never did i say that there wont be stress on the frame, just not on the cylinder. I completely concur with that which is why i said id have all the parts Heat treated and trued, also modify the wedge.
This entire project is speculation until it's complete, didn't order the walker yet so i can't take measurements nor do i have a period correct 45-70 round.
I do appreciate all your advice ill be sure to use it to do more planning and engineering and forward it to my gunsmith! Thanks
Last edited:
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
One more time.
You are still not considering the effect of the difference in weight / inertia between a round lead ball and a 45-70 rifle bullet..
It has nothing to do with pressure.
It has all to do with the leverage applied to the open-top frame.
Consider Free recoil:
Colt Walker 60 grains BP + 156 grain round ball at 1,170 FPS.
= 14.14 Ft/Lbs.
1870's BP 45-70-405.
70 grains BP + 405 grain bullet at 1,300 FPS.
= 51.53 Ft/Lbs
The percussion Walkers recoil is centered halfway down the recoil shield centered on the cylinder arbor.
The cartridge firing conversion is centered on the free to move backward cartridge case head near the top of the recoil shield.
Giving it 3.64 times more recoil and 150% more leverage to spring the frame open.
To do it, you need a top strap!!
And it's still going to kick like a stud mule on crack!!
rc
You are still not considering the effect of the difference in weight / inertia between a round lead ball and a 45-70 rifle bullet..
It has nothing to do with pressure.
It has all to do with the leverage applied to the open-top frame.
Consider Free recoil:
Colt Walker 60 grains BP + 156 grain round ball at 1,170 FPS.
= 14.14 Ft/Lbs.
1870's BP 45-70-405.
70 grains BP + 405 grain bullet at 1,300 FPS.
= 51.53 Ft/Lbs
The percussion Walkers recoil is centered halfway down the recoil shield centered on the cylinder arbor.
The cartridge firing conversion is centered on the free to move backward cartridge case head near the top of the recoil shield.
Giving it 3.64 times more recoil and 150% more leverage to spring the frame open.
To do it, you need a top strap!!
And it's still going to kick like a stud mule on crack!!
rc
Last edited:
RE the videos, the actual performance of a Walker with full load is more like the power range of a 357 magnum with modern loads. The original 357 loads were a bit hotter, a 158 gr @ 1500+ fps with 8 3/8" barrel. The Walker runs around 1200 fps with a 147 gr round ball I believe.
The smokeless loads fired in the BFR are 300 and 440 gr, compared to the 147 gr 45 round ball. Both are hotter than black powder equivalent loads. The old percussion revolver conicals were around 200-ish grains. Neither 45-70 load are all that spectacular compared to what Marlin 1895 or Winchester 1886 rifles will shoot, but are fairly substantial in a handgun. The 440 gr load was just a little more than the 500 Linebaugh Maximum (440 @ 1550 fps). I don't know why the gun in the video recoils so much in the BFR, but the 500 maximum didn't recoil that much when I shot it. A black powder equivalent smokeless load will recoil close to what a black powder load will, a little less from Winchesters data. The Walker load isnt anywhere near what the 45-70 will do for recoil with full weight bullets.
The recoil difference is the bullet weight and velocity. The bore resistance isn't a major factor.
If wanting maximum practical power in a conversion Walker type, the 460 black powder conversion is probably the most cost effective, and can be done on the store bought gun. If you find out what it costs, let us know, I'm curious. I'm also curious about the cost estimates from the gunsmiths you contacted. I don't know what the current cost of a Linebaugh conversion is, but its well over $1000, more like $1500 or $2000, and that's on a current gun, not building a gun from scratch.
The smokeless loads fired in the BFR are 300 and 440 gr, compared to the 147 gr 45 round ball. Both are hotter than black powder equivalent loads. The old percussion revolver conicals were around 200-ish grains. Neither 45-70 load are all that spectacular compared to what Marlin 1895 or Winchester 1886 rifles will shoot, but are fairly substantial in a handgun. The 440 gr load was just a little more than the 500 Linebaugh Maximum (440 @ 1550 fps). I don't know why the gun in the video recoils so much in the BFR, but the 500 maximum didn't recoil that much when I shot it. A black powder equivalent smokeless load will recoil close to what a black powder load will, a little less from Winchesters data. The Walker load isnt anywhere near what the 45-70 will do for recoil with full weight bullets.
The recoil difference is the bullet weight and velocity. The bore resistance isn't a major factor.
If wanting maximum practical power in a conversion Walker type, the 460 black powder conversion is probably the most cost effective, and can be done on the store bought gun. If you find out what it costs, let us know, I'm curious. I'm also curious about the cost estimates from the gunsmiths you contacted. I don't know what the current cost of a Linebaugh conversion is, but its well over $1000, more like $1500 or $2000, and that's on a current gun, not building a gun from scratch.
Last edited:
The only reason i'm going with 45-70 is it's period correct, trust me if there was a more logical cartridge to go with id use it instead, but 45-70 seems like the natural solution as its 45 and only 10 more grains of BP. The 45 blackpowder magnum is basically a 45-60 and the fellows that do that conversion aren't getting any hate at all. Maybe its just because the 45bpm is a made up cartridge and 45-70 has president as a insane power round todays times.
But really they are the same minus 10 grains of powder and a slightly thinner cartridge diameter. I decided to give the BPM thread another read and he says he has no issues with anything at all. Frame arbor nothing. He even says he shot hundreds of rounds including many 60 grain and 250 grain bullets. And he isn't the only one who's done that conversion its been done plenty. There's no evidence of anyone having problems yet across the board.
The reason they even went for 45BPM vs 45-70 is because you can just buy a pre made cylinder and you're good to go. Simply its more cost effect and requires no modifications. So to ease everyones mind how about i start out with 200 grain or less rounds and see how the gun takes it.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Have you considered .45 Colt??
It was also a black powder cartridge introduced in 1873, the same year as the .45-70 Gov.
Except it 'might be' short enough to fit.
But it is also as powerful as a Walker.
40 grains BP + 255 grain lead bullet at 900 FPS.
Free recoil as compared above = 12.02 ft/lb.
A modern steel Walker might withstand that, for a while.
rc
It was also a black powder cartridge introduced in 1873, the same year as the .45-70 Gov.
Except it 'might be' short enough to fit.
But it is also as powerful as a Walker.
40 grains BP + 255 grain lead bullet at 900 FPS.
Free recoil as compared above = 12.02 ft/lb.
A modern steel Walker might withstand that, for a while.
rc
The 45 colt is very common in walkers, that's what cylinders the 45bpm guys use. But there's to much space in between the forcing cone and bullet. Especially if it's a bored through cylinder not a backplate cylinder like the kirst. Its also weaker than shooting the recommended round of 50 grains and a conical. Wheres the fun in that.
"But really they are the same minus 10 grains of powder and a slightly thinner cartridge diameter " Im doubtful the 45-70 can be fitted into the cylinder. The rim of the 45 Colt and the 460 are quite a bit smaller than the 45-70, its not an insignificant amount. The chamber ID/chamber wall is also a question.
The actual conversion cartridges of the day were based on other guns, and included 38 Short Colt and 44 Colt. I guess period correct is open to interpretation. No known examples of large cartridges done as conversions on Walkers and Dragoons. There were actually comparatively few Walkers made or that survived battle in Mexico. The Dragoons were more prolific and common.
Not to say it wouldn't be a fun project, but I don't believe the 45-70 can be physically shoehorned into a conversion cylinder or modified Walker cylinder. The 45 Colt, and 44 Colt had very small rims compared to cartridges intended for rifles. All the rim had to do on the revolver was keep the shell in place when fired, it wasn't used in their original form for extraction as rifle cartridges used the rim. Much later, with solid head cases, and the case undercut for more extractor purchase, the 45 Colt can be used in rifles. In the early forms of the cartridge, there wasn't enough rim.
Too much for what? I think this line of thought is more theoretical than a real issue. In this case, it may even be rationalization. Many guns have a fairly long jump from the case to the forcing cone. Nobodies explained why its truly a problem, only that "its a long jump". I haven't measured, but 22 long rifle in revolvers have a fairly long jump, and are some of the most accurate guns Ive shot (S&W K-22 for example) or the S&W model 25 1955 Target in 45 ACP cal. Once again, theoretically bad idea, but also one of the most accurate guns I've ever shot. 38 specials also tend to shoot very well in 357 chambers in revolvers. The guys shooting 38 Short Colt in 357s also say they work very well.
I wasn't saying 45-70 loads will fit in the conversion cylinders, i also understand now that the original cylinder probably wont work. My solution is to simply make the cylinder a safer thickness it's not like it will need a 1/4 added on, just a small amount adds a lot of strength. If there's not enough wall in the center where the arbor is i'll simply have the arbor lathed down a little.
I'm not sure why that is but many people go by it, my guess is that since the bullet is smaller than the inner diameter of the cylinder it has time to start tumbling and when it makes contact with the rifling it doesn't hit as straight and loses momentum.
I am not sure how you figure the 45-70 cartridge is period correct? The Walker was used in the first part of the C&B revolver era and less than 1200 were produced. Realistically, a commercial failure for Colt. The next revolver, the 1848 Dragoons were a little better sellers and again, the early part of the C&B revolver era. The 45-70 was designed in 1872 and introduced in 1873 during the early-middle part of cartridge design. A
As has been mentioned, Walkers were not converted back when they were used. The conversion cylinders are a modern phenomena, based on "...wow, wouldn't this be neat..." If you are going to try for period correct, convert a Colt 1860 to handle the 44 Colt cartridge. Or an 1861 Springfield Musket to handle either the 58 RF cartridge or the 50-70 cartridge.
Kevin
As has been mentioned, Walkers were not converted back when they were used. The conversion cylinders are a modern phenomena, based on "...wow, wouldn't this be neat..." If you are going to try for period correct, convert a Colt 1860 to handle the 44 Colt cartridge. Or an 1861 Springfield Musket to handle either the 58 RF cartridge or the 50-70 cartridge.
Kevin
entropy
Member
jmar, when you get this thing built, and are about to fire it, tell your buddies, "Hold my beer and watch this!" so they'll have a great story to tell at your funeral, and thereafter.
Study gunsmithing, ballistics, and metallugy until you know them as well as rcmodel and others here who have weighed in on this, then get back to us. I think you will concur with us. My .02
Study gunsmithing, ballistics, and metallugy until you know them as well as rcmodel and others here who have weighed in on this, then get back to us. I think you will concur with us. My .02
No offense but rcomdel has been proven false and said blatant exaggerated posts to many times to have any validity. Go ahead and agree with him, but neither your or his opinion matter to me. I have actually studied all three things your telling me to, have you? I used to forge knives and heat treat myself, during that time i studied alot on metallurgy. As if it has even relevance to building this gun... I study astrophysics which is premised around ballistics. So again what do you base your opinion on? Or are you just guessing.
entropy
Member
I am a gunsmith, and have studied metallugy. While I am not an astrophysicist, I reload, and have studied ballistics. To withstand the forces of even issue ammo for the Model 1873 , say the .45-70-300 which has 1700 ft/lbs at the muzzle, you need steel that can withstand 3½ times the ME of the hot 66gr of 3F that has stretched frames on Walkers. It sure as hell won't be the pre-Bessemer steel available to Colt in 1847.
Which is what a "period correct" (which has already been debunked) .45-70 cartridge conversion Walker would have been made of, though the cylinder (and possibly the arbor) might have been replaced with Bessemer process steel post 1856. The frame wouldn't have though; (even though it would in reality have to, which has also already been explained to you) why not just replace the whole gun then?
Because it wouldn't be period correct!
This guy has some interesting thoughts on hot loads in a Walker. And they are way less powerful than you are contemplating:
http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
.44 Walker, 1847 9 inc 66 grains 3F Pyrodex 143 grain, .457 ball 1238 ft/s 486 ft-lbs
.44 Walker, 1847 9 inc 60 grains 3F Pyrodex 210 gr, .458 Conical 1014 ft/s 479 ft-lbs
"It is interesting to note that my walker has started to show mild stretching in the metal behind the pin that holds the two halves together. This has resulted in slightly increased barrel/cylinder gap. The gap is still thinner then a razor."
My advice: Contact this firm in Austria: http://www.pfeifer-waffen.at/en/home.html , and present your idea to them. If it can be done, they should be able to do it.
But it wouldn't be period correct, because it won't be made from pre-Bessemer steel, it will be a tungsten steel alloy.
And, now I will take my own advice I've given here before. DFTT. Out.
Which is what a "period correct" (which has already been debunked) .45-70 cartridge conversion Walker would have been made of, though the cylinder (and possibly the arbor) might have been replaced with Bessemer process steel post 1856. The frame wouldn't have though; (even though it would in reality have to, which has also already been explained to you) why not just replace the whole gun then?
Because it wouldn't be period correct!
This guy has some interesting thoughts on hot loads in a Walker. And they are way less powerful than you are contemplating:
http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
.44 Walker, 1847 9 inc 66 grains 3F Pyrodex 143 grain, .457 ball 1238 ft/s 486 ft-lbs
.44 Walker, 1847 9 inc 60 grains 3F Pyrodex 210 gr, .458 Conical 1014 ft/s 479 ft-lbs
"It is interesting to note that my walker has started to show mild stretching in the metal behind the pin that holds the two halves together. This has resulted in slightly increased barrel/cylinder gap. The gap is still thinner then a razor."
My advice: Contact this firm in Austria: http://www.pfeifer-waffen.at/en/home.html , and present your idea to them. If it can be done, they should be able to do it.
But it wouldn't be period correct, because it won't be made from pre-Bessemer steel, it will be a tungsten steel alloy.
And, now I will take my own advice I've given here before. DFTT. Out.
Where do you get your magic "3½ times" figure from? Even if it's true that the 45-70-300 has a muzzle energy of 1700ft/lbs "it's not true, i know you got that info from the wikipedia page and is referencing modern powder" it plays no part in the pressure on the cylinder which would cause the failure.I am a gunsmith, and have studied metallugy. While I am not an astrophysicist, I reload, and have studied ballistics. To withstand the forces of even issue ammo for the Model 1873 , say the .45-70-300 which has 1700 ft/lbs at the muzzle, you need steel that can withstand 3½ times the ME of the hot 66gr of 3F that has stretched frames on Walkers. It sure as hell won't be the pre-Bessemer steel available to Colt in 1847.
Which is what a "period correct" (which has already been debunked) .45-70 cartridge conversion Walker would have been made of, though the cylinder (and possibly the arbor) might have been replaced with Bessemer process steel post 1856. The frame wouldn't have though; (even though it would in reality have to, which has also already been explained to you) why not just replace the whole gun then?
Because it wouldn't be period correct!
This guy has some interesting thoughts on hot loads in a Walker. And they are way less powerful than you are contemplating:
http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
.44 Walker, 1847 9 inc 66 grains 3F Pyrodex 143 grain, .457 ball 1238 ft/s 486 ft-lbs
.44 Walker, 1847 9 inc 60 grains 3F Pyrodex 210 gr, .458 Conical 1014 ft/s 479 ft-lbs
"It is interesting to note that my walker has started to show mild stretching in the metal behind the pin that holds the two halves together. This has resulted in slightly increased barrel/cylinder gap. The gap is still thinner then a razor."
My advice: Contact this firm in Austria: http://www.pfeifer-waffen.at/en/home.html , and present your idea to them. If it can be done, they should be able to do it.
But it wouldn't be period correct, because it won't be made from pre-Bessemer steel, it will be a tungsten steel alloy.
And, now I will take my own advice I've given here before. DFTT. Out.
Here are some actual blackpowder loads not smokeless ballistics.
.45-70 Government, Bullet Weight 405 Grains, Loaded With 50 Grains Fg Black Powder, Velocity 1,040 Feet Per Second.
.45-70 Government, Bullet Weight 405 Grains, Loaded With 60 Grains Fg Black Powder, Velocity 1,180 Feet Per Second.
.45-70 Government, Bullet Weight 405 Grains, Loaded With 70 Grains Fg Black Powder, Velocity 1,280 Feet Per Second.
.45-70 Government, Bullet Weight 500 Grains, Loaded With 50 Grains Fg Black Powder, Velocity 910 Feet Per Second.
.45-70 Government, Bullet Weight 500 Grains, Loaded With 60 Grains Fg Black Powder, Velocity 1,060 Feet Per Second.
.45-70 Government, Bullet Weight 500 Grains, Loaded With 70 Grains Fg Black Powder, Velocity 1,130 Feet Per Second.
I imagine these can be trusted as they were probably measured with a chronograph and aren't estimates. No Energy or pressure ballistics but as you can see they are similar to walker loads.
Starting to think im the one being trolled with these responses.
Last edited:
45 Dragoon
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,772
The ballistics guy making his "interesting note" about "frame stretching" behind the "pin" holding the two halves together, makes me smile a little. He says it is affecting bbl/cyl gap, but the gap is still razor thin. Wonder what the numbers might be if the Walker he was using had been set up to be structurally correct ( not having a short arbor) and maintaining a true bbl/cyl clearance?
This comment leads one to believe the Walker is so weak with Max B.P. loads that going "cartridge" with it would be insane! Nothing could be further from the truth!! It's not the weakness of material or design, it's totally about being set up correctly to begin with!! I understand "if you don't know, you don't know", but, I'm saying your numbers are flawed if your test equipment is flawed, known or not known.
Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks
This comment leads one to believe the Walker is so weak with Max B.P. loads that going "cartridge" with it would be insane! Nothing could be further from the truth!! It's not the weakness of material or design, it's totally about being set up correctly to begin with!! I understand "if you don't know, you don't know", but, I'm saying your numbers are flawed if your test equipment is flawed, known or not known.
Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks
Last edited:
- Status
