I have been following the Cattlemans Carbine thread and I have also been reading about the Colt Walker. In one of the things I read about the Walker they said that some of the Walker sent to Texas were converted to carbines with a 20 inch, I think it was a 20 inch, barrel. I was looking at the exploded view of the Walker and I think I could make a shoulder stock from a converted backstrap. But the big question is does the barrel unscrew? I don't have one on hand to see but does the barrel unscrew from the part that the wedge goes in? The exploded view calls that hole assembly the barrel. If it does I think that would be an interesting project for me and my lathe.
Question for Colt Walker owners.
- Thread starter Misfire99
- Start date
- Status
hildo
Member
Took out my magnifying glass to be certain.
The Uberti is one-piece for sure, but maybe the originals were not?
In my perspective the dimensions of the barrel construction does not leave much room to do any machining or threading for installation of another barrel.
Hildo
The Uberti is one-piece for sure, but maybe the originals were not?
In my perspective the dimensions of the barrel construction does not leave much room to do any machining or threading for installation of another barrel.
Hildo
Roswell 1847
member
I think you misread. We were discussing whether the frame the walker was built on might have been originally meant for a carbine design.
The scalloped appearance of the frame at the front of the grip does look like it might have been suitable for a carbine stock.
Its one piece. The bore is offcenter at the breech because the barrels were intended to be in the larger .53-.54 caliber using a rebated cylinder.
The bore inclines upward from the breech to the muzzle.
I did run across some information which suggested that a two piece barrel might have been tried earlier on.
An oversized barrel lug could be machined from bar stock and threaded for a .44 barrel.
I didn't read about the Walker Carbines on this site. I can't seem to find it again but it was a site that had information about the Pony Express as well as the Texas Rangers.
In that site it said that originally the Walkers were to be issued two per men and hung off of the saddle. But when it came time to issue them they went out one per man. This created a shortage for the support paraphernalia that went along with them. It didn't say this but I suspect that this is the reason that some were converted into carbines. They had more pistols then the stuff to make them work so why not experiment.
Roswell 1847
member
Well no Walker Framed Carbines have shown up, but the Patterson Revoling rifles and Carbines had been in service since the mid 1830's.
I don't know of any references to the Patterson Carbines being issued to Texas Rangers, but Walker and his Rangers had already used the Patterson revoler pistols to great effect in Indian fighting, which is why Walker asked Colt to design a more powerful and user friendly revolver.
PS
I'd heard of the Pony Express using .36 or .38 caliber handguns but not the .44. Weight being an issue they had switched to handguns only after initially being armed with Carbines.
I've even read that the Pony Express issue pistols were somehow made lighter than the standard models.
It is possible that some early express riders carried walkers.
PPS
http://books.google.com/books?id=T9...ts=FrCKiwoGIV&sig=vMBdHvH62MEUG7ekv8Yx9P4OTpQ
This book excerpt has a good image of the first prototype Colt Walker.
Note that its barrel lump has no provision for a loading lever and the lines of the receiver and triggerguard suggest the styling of the Patterson Carbines.
I also found that Colt had supplied Patterson Carbines to Texas starting in 1839, so they would have been available when Walker first suggested his new revolver design to Colt.
I don't know of any references to the Patterson Carbines being issued to Texas Rangers, but Walker and his Rangers had already used the Patterson revoler pistols to great effect in Indian fighting, which is why Walker asked Colt to design a more powerful and user friendly revolver.
PS
I'd heard of the Pony Express using .36 or .38 caliber handguns but not the .44. Weight being an issue they had switched to handguns only after initially being armed with Carbines.
I've even read that the Pony Express issue pistols were somehow made lighter than the standard models.
It is possible that some early express riders carried walkers.
PPS
http://books.google.com/books?id=T9...ts=FrCKiwoGIV&sig=vMBdHvH62MEUG7ekv8Yx9P4OTpQ
This book excerpt has a good image of the first prototype Colt Walker.
Note that its barrel lump has no provision for a loading lever and the lines of the receiver and triggerguard suggest the styling of the Patterson Carbines.
I also found that Colt had supplied Patterson Carbines to Texas starting in 1839, so they would have been available when Walker first suggested his new revolver design to Colt.
Last edited:
One of the surviving Walkers has a paterson barrel installed. No other details:
No indication that any number were converted to rifles but one confederate veteran had on that had been made into a shotgun. Other period modificaitons include barrel mounted rear sights and loading levers with front latches.
No indication that any number were converted to rifles but one confederate veteran had on that had been made into a shotgun. Other period modificaitons include barrel mounted rear sights and loading levers with front latches.
Thank all for the info.
So if I modify a Walker into a carbine does that qualify for a "period modification."
The more I examine the exploded view the more I think it's a possibility. When I first thought of it I was just looking at hanging a shoulder stock on it and installing a longer barrel. That would have probably disintegrated in my arms. But now I think the thing to do is make the back strap, trigger guard and barrel assembly all one piece. Then the frame, and all the stuff attached to the frame, would sit down into this new carbine assembly. I think that is a doable thing. Now we just have to see if I can do it.
So if I modify a Walker into a carbine does that qualify for a "period modification."
The more I examine the exploded view the more I think it's a possibility. When I first thought of it I was just looking at hanging a shoulder stock on it and installing a longer barrel. That would have probably disintegrated in my arms. But now I think the thing to do is make the back strap, trigger guard and barrel assembly all one piece. Then the frame, and all the stuff attached to the frame, would sit down into this new carbine assembly. I think that is a doable thing. Now we just have to see if I can do it.
Roswell 1847
member
I don't really think thats the way to go.
If I were to convert a Walker into a carbine this is how I'd do it.
The back strap can probably be straigtened.
A new trigger guard could be cast with a straight tang.
A new Barrel lump could be milled from a slab of steel with plenty of extra meat left to thread it for a barrel. I could probably make one using only my drill press and hand filing to final shape.
The extra metal at the breech would allow mounting of a fold down ladder sight, or a row of fold down express sight blades for 50, 100, and 200 yards.
The parts could be switched out to return it to pistol form, and a spare smoothbore barrel would allow it to be used as a small gauge shotgun.
Remembering of course that the left hand be kept aft of the cylinder gap when firing.
Keeping the quick release barrel option would allow the gun to be used as a takedown piece easily portable in a fitted case. It would also allow fairly quick reloading using precharged cylinders.
Roswell 1847
member
Many Colt Walkers suffered failures of barrels or cylinders and were rebuilt using parts from other guns.
Those not easily repaired were broken up for spare parts.
Colt soon obtained the rights to a molbydenum Steel Alloy which he named Colt Silver Spring steel for use in his later revolvers. The walker had by this time gotten a bad reputation so no more were built and remaining frames went into the early transitional Dragoon models.
Those not easily repaired were broken up for spare parts.
Colt soon obtained the rights to a molbydenum Steel Alloy which he named Colt Silver Spring steel for use in his later revolvers. The walker had by this time gotten a bad reputation so no more were built and remaining frames went into the early transitional Dragoon models.
What you described was basically my first idea. But after looking closely at the drawings I suspect that with added barrel length you get increased leverage and inertia applied to the two pins that connect the barrel assembly to the frame. With the added leverage and inertia I suspect that those two pins would be torn asunder upon firing a full house load.
But if the trigger guard and the barrel assembly were one piece then there are three screws that would take up most of the force that would normally be applied only to the two pins. And the force on those screws would be in alignment with the direction of the screw. So they wouldn't get sheared off. And the pins would then be left to just locate the barrel assembly to the frame and not in taking up the recoil energy of the longer barrel.
Roswell 1847
member
Those two pins don't take any firing stress at all, thats why they are so small to begin with, they are only there as locator pins. The heavy barrel would in fact dampen recoil forces on the barrel itself.
Any danger of damage to the cylinder arbor or locator pins would more likely come from mechanical forces of the gun being dropped or somehow slamed against something. In such a case the longer barrel would act as a lever to increase forces at the juncture of cylinder arbor and frame.
Now check this out.
Colt made a few experimental revolvers which had top straps as part of the barrel and these extended back far enough to be screwed to the recoil shield by two screws one on each side of the hammer pathway.
This was an attempt to compete with the solid frame Remingtons strength without reverting to the Whitneyville patents which Remington had aquired.
It would have made the basic Colt C&B frame more suitable for cartridge conversions.
Colts Root Revolvers had a solid frame but they used a side hammer and the arbor entered the frame from the rear, which made the design ungainly in the larger sizes.
A Top strap integral with the Barrel lump should solve your problems, or at least reduce concerns and make the weapon more rigid, while maintaining its easy takedown features.
bigbadgun
Member
How Dare You
I think all things said how can you change perfection the Colt Walker is by far the best and there is NO room for mods.:banghead:
I think all things said how can you change perfection the Colt Walker is by far the best and there is NO room for mods.:banghead:
I just don't believe this to be an accurate statement. Personally I would like a revolving carbine with enough knock down power to reliably hunt deer. The 1858 Remington is fine as far as it goes but it is a little on the weak side to reliably drop a deer. But there are five more shots to make up for the lower power if you have the chance to use them. But the power of the Walker in a carbine would allow for more knock down power. Now this doesn't mean that an 1858 Remington will not work it just means it is a little on the weak side.
And by the way if the Walker is perfection why is it now an antique? I personally think it would have made a much better carbine then a pistol. The thing is so big it's very difficult to carry in a holster. Yea I'm sure now there will be a choirs of folks that say it's easy for them but the fact remains that the Walker was designed to be slung over the saddle horn and not worn on the hip. And from what I have learned about Sam Colt if he thought he could make more money with it as a carbine then as a pistol that is what it would have been. But the order was for pistols so that is what he made.
I think something even better then a Walker Carbine is the Root Rifle. http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_92_186_191&products_id=13618
But we are talking money here. $1500 dollars to be exact. But the Root has a some very large advantages. The biggest one is it has a recommended max load of 40 grains of 3f BP. The Uberti Walker only has a recommended charge of 25 grains. I know that there are many people that use much more then that but people die from speeding on the highway all the time.
But something about a homebuilt Walker carbine is I would be the one to have built it. That accounts for a lot.
bigbadgun
Member
I think that a max load of 25grain is very very light for a walker I use 50 grain wad over powder and a .454 round ball and hit what i point at. The size of the chamber dictates that a 25 grain charge is way to light.
As far as my last comment in this thread was nothing more than a joke but as far as how I feel about the walker is that there is nothing better. I feel the same way about the 1956 ford pickup.
As far as my last comment in this thread was nothing more than a joke but as far as how I feel about the walker is that there is nothing better. I feel the same way about the 1956 ford pickup.
I understand that many people use more the 25 grains in the Walker but the Uberti manual says 25 grains max. Here is a link:
http://www.dixiegunworks.com/pdf_datasheet.php?products_id=1022
Now are you going to blow your hand off with a twice that? Probably not. And what do you mean a 56 ford?? It's got to be a power wagon everybody knows that.
bigbadgun
Member
With 25grain you got to use at least 25grains of filler by volume hmmm everybody that I know that has a walker shots 45 grains or better.
I was right when I said '56 ford pickup but the power wagon is a close second lol.
I was right when I said '56 ford pickup but the power wagon is a close second lol.
SAAMI based handloading manuals are the product of careful research by people who know what they are doing. For reloaders of modern cartridges, it is best not to depart from their recommendations.
the load recommendations that accompany percussion revolvers however, are the products of ignorant non-shooters. It seems likely (but may not be) that sometime in the past, a knowledgeable shooter might have told somebody in Italy that 25 grains of fffg or whatever might be a good load for a .44 army type revolver and they just stuck this number on all the .44s. Sam thing with the 36 caliber recommendations. 12 to 15 grains is just fine for a pocket police/navy or a conical bullet in a navy but is extremely puny for a ball loaded navy. Colt said to fill the chambers with powder leaving enough room to seat a ball. This remains the best advice and usually, depending on the density of the black powder used amounts to 28-35 grains in a remington or colt belt sized .44; 21-25 grains in a Navy 40-50 grains in a dragoon and 50-60 grains in a walker
the load recommendations that accompany percussion revolvers however, are the products of ignorant non-shooters. It seems likely (but may not be) that sometime in the past, a knowledgeable shooter might have told somebody in Italy that 25 grains of fffg or whatever might be a good load for a .44 army type revolver and they just stuck this number on all the .44s. Sam thing with the 36 caliber recommendations. 12 to 15 grains is just fine for a pocket police/navy or a conical bullet in a navy but is extremely puny for a ball loaded navy. Colt said to fill the chambers with powder leaving enough room to seat a ball. This remains the best advice and usually, depending on the density of the black powder used amounts to 28-35 grains in a remington or colt belt sized .44; 21-25 grains in a Navy 40-50 grains in a dragoon and 50-60 grains in a walker
SAAMI based handloading manuals are the product of careful research by people who know what they are doing. For reloaders of modern cartridges, it is best not to depart from their recommendations.
the load recommendations that accompany percussion revolvers however, are the products of ignorant non-shooters. It seems likely (but may not be) that sometime in the past, a knowledgeable shooter might have told somebody in Italy that 25 grains of fffg or whatever might be a good load for a .44 army type revolver and they just stuck this number on all the .44s. Sam thing with the 36 caliber recommendations. 12 to 15 grains is just fine for a pocket police/navy or a conical bullet in a navy but is extremely puny for a ball loaded navy. Colt said to fill the chambers with powder leaving enough room to seat a ball. This remains the best advice and usually, depending on the density of the black powder used amounts to 28-35 grains in a remington or colt belt sized .44; 21-25 grains in a Navy 40-50 grains in a dragoon and 50-60 grains in a walker
the load recommendations that accompany percussion revolvers however, are the products of ignorant non-shooters. It seems likely (but may not be) that sometime in the past, a knowledgeable shooter might have told somebody in Italy that 25 grains of fffg or whatever might be a good load for a .44 army type revolver and they just stuck this number on all the .44s. Sam thing with the 36 caliber recommendations. 12 to 15 grains is just fine for a pocket police/navy or a conical bullet in a navy but is extremely puny for a ball loaded navy. Colt said to fill the chambers with powder leaving enough room to seat a ball. This remains the best advice and usually, depending on the density of the black powder used amounts to 28-35 grains in a remington or colt belt sized .44; 21-25 grains in a Navy 40-50 grains in a dragoon and 50-60 grains in a walker
Roswell 1847
member
From the link
The Root Carbine would also probably accept much higher charges. Again the company reccomends what would be a very light load in order to protect themselves from possible lawsuits.
I've heard of people emptying powder from a modern shotgun shell into muzzle lowders because they had no idea that there was any difference between smokeless powders and BP. Results of course would be catastrophic.
A Root rifle or carbine would be a good choice.
Just remember that the wooden fore end is just for carrying, always keep your hands aft of the cylinder gap with any revolving rifle or carbine, that includes cartridge versions.
Thats not a recommended max load at all, just their idea of a minimum target load. They probably only recommend that because of product liability fears.
The Root Carbine would also probably accept much higher charges. Again the company reccomends what would be a very light load in order to protect themselves from possible lawsuits.
I've heard of people emptying powder from a modern shotgun shell into muzzle lowders because they had no idea that there was any difference between smokeless powders and BP. Results of course would be catastrophic.
A Root rifle or carbine would be a good choice.
Just remember that the wooden fore end is just for carrying, always keep your hands aft of the cylinder gap with any revolving rifle or carbine, that includes cartridge versions.
- Status
