Kimber1911_06238
Member
nice job hildo, i really like those grips
A show of Walkers
- Thread starter bigbadgun
- Start date
- Status
Utter hogwash. I've been shooting first 50 grains of Goex and then later 45 grains of 777 in a Uberti 2nd Model for almost 30 years with NO (that's NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, ZIP) ill effects whatsoever.
If you'd like, you are welcome to come and inspect the weapon. If you can find anything (that's ANYTHING) wrong with it, I'll pay your expenses. Coach, of course.
Complete nonsense.
Lord, now I've heard everything.
Capt. Willard
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15
Many original dragoons had the brass backstraps..one will never see any ill effects whatsoever with the brass..I have owned both for decades with no issues.
Roswell 1847
member
I cut and drilled the loading lever of a freind's Walker for a lever latch when the retaining spring broke. I dovetailed the piece it latches into to the barrel as well.
The Walker Lever is pretty easy to drill out since the inner metal is not as hard as the heat treated surface.
I got the latch and all from a broken brass framed Navy replica.
That made it a sort of Transition model.
PS
If you have a Navy revolver whose lever latch won't hold under recoil you can disassemble the latch and put a few BBs down the hole under the spring to add spring tension.
The Walker Lever is pretty easy to drill out since the inner metal is not as hard as the heat treated surface.
I got the latch and all from a broken brass framed Navy replica.
That made it a sort of Transition model.
PS
If you have a Navy revolver whose lever latch won't hold under recoil you can disassemble the latch and put a few BBs down the hole under the spring to add spring tension.
.44walkersabot
member
Damn! Okay! I didn't know. I know that shooting brass framed revolvers can cause the frame to stretch out of shape over a period of time, (or so I'vd heard and read) plus I was going by what the man at Cabela's told me. Well, maybe it won't hurt it . I can't say. The only revolver I'vd ever fired with a brass back strap is my Colt 1849 Pocket .31. But I'm still not buying one of the damned things because I know brass is not as strong as steel. The only blackpowder firearms I know are my Walker, my 1849, my CVA .45, and my Cattleman's Carbine, and I don't know TOO damned much about the carbine, just a good working knowledge of it. I'm sure ya'll know what you're talking about but I think I'll just go ahead and let ya'll shoot them, thank you very much, and I love ya'll to, especially you MyKeal or whatever the hell your name was. I don't travel coach. I alway's expect the best and hope for better...Okay...PS-Plus I have a little 5 shot .22 Magnum blackpowder revolver made out of stainless steel from North American Arms. It's alright. It's pretty accurate to, considering it's size and all of that. I don't doubt ya'll are probably right. I know that back in the 70's (he may still make them for all I know) I'm quite sure (I THINK I'M QUITE SURE) I saw one of Ruger's .44 Mags on a brass frame, or at least with some brass worked into it, maybe the trigger guard or something, I don't remember. I wasn't paying that much attention to it. I know I was always taught that during the War Between The States the South ran low on steel and so they had to make a lot of their revolvers out of brass (parts of the revolvers) and they were inherently weaker than the steel models. I don't give a rat's rectum what Mr. Colt made his revolvers out of. That was back then. This is now, and if I'm going to pay Dixie Gun Works $335.00 plus shipping and all for a handgun I want it made out of steel. So, I just won't buy one. I don't need one of them anyway. The ones I already have (the ones I mentioned) will outlast my tired old ass...But just as an afterthought, how many heavy loads (my heaviest load in the Walker is 48 and that's only when I'm trying to knock down a deer or hog) do ya'll reckon ya'll have put through one of those Dragoons with no problem?...
Last edited:
Roswell 1847
member
Really the only reason they went to a brass backstrap for the Colt grip frame was because of rusting of the iron backstraps. They'd used brass for the trigger guards because it was easy to cast and file into the more intricate shapes.
The 51 Navy had a siverplated brass trigger guard and backstrap.
The 1860 Army went back to Brass trigger guard and steel Backstrap. I think this was because Steel held up better to the detachable shoulder stock.
The Walker had been originally designed as a .53 caliber to use the ammo of the .54 Hall Carbine.
The steel Back Strap might well have been chosen because of the massive recoil this would have geberated. This is also why the breech of the Walker barrel looks odd with the bore set lower than it looks like it should be. They had already developed the procedure for producing the barrel blanks before realizing the .53 caliber was just too darned big.
The .53 Walker was supposed to have a rebated Cylinder as well. It would have been a real beast.
Confederate Brass frame guns were intended to be cast from "Gunmetal" or other alloys of Bronze rather than the cheap recycled brass they ended up using for almost all of them. A good alloy of Bronze would have been fine. Unfortunately Bronze was in short supply and was reserved for trying to cast Cannon barrels.
The 51 Navy had a siverplated brass trigger guard and backstrap.
The 1860 Army went back to Brass trigger guard and steel Backstrap. I think this was because Steel held up better to the detachable shoulder stock.
The Walker had been originally designed as a .53 caliber to use the ammo of the .54 Hall Carbine.
The steel Back Strap might well have been chosen because of the massive recoil this would have geberated. This is also why the breech of the Walker barrel looks odd with the bore set lower than it looks like it should be. They had already developed the procedure for producing the barrel blanks before realizing the .53 caliber was just too darned big.
The .53 Walker was supposed to have a rebated Cylinder as well. It would have been a real beast.
Confederate Brass frame guns were intended to be cast from "Gunmetal" or other alloys of Bronze rather than the cheap recycled brass they ended up using for almost all of them. A good alloy of Bronze would have been fine. Unfortunately Bronze was in short supply and was reserved for trying to cast Cannon barrels.
And Ruger sells brass grip/triggerguard frames on their single action guns - they are highly sought after.
The issue about brass stretching under repeated exposure to heavy loads (I say again, repeated heavy loads) is true, but it's with frames, not backstraps.
It's a shame you are allowing a false impression, or perhaps erroneous information, to deprive you of the experience of a Walker. They are great fun to shoot.
But it's your life, and I'm sure you have earned the right to do as you please.
The issue about brass stretching under repeated exposure to heavy loads (I say again, repeated heavy loads) is true, but it's with frames, not backstraps.
It's a shame you are allowing a false impression, or perhaps erroneous information, to deprive you of the experience of a Walker. They are great fun to shoot.
But it's your life, and I'm sure you have earned the right to do as you please.
Last edited:
Mustanger1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 29
Roswell 1847
member
Mykeal the loads you are using are actually pretty mild for a Colt Walker.
Another consideration in the choice of the iron backstrap was the shear weight of the Walker.
While the grip frame wouldn't stretch or break a brass grip frame might suffer from damage to the two upper screw holes from inertia when drawing the gun rapidly.
Some Modern Quickdraw artists have on occasion snapped those two screws clean off or pulled then through the holes of the grip strap due to the forces exerted by their near superhuman speed. The great weight of the Walker might do the same to a brass grip strap due to the much greater inertia.
Also no matter how well you care for your pistols a military handgun, especially a Calvary pistol, is subject to being dropped, thrown, rolled on by a dying horse, etc.
The lighter weight of the Dragoon meant much less stress on the grips, it was no problem making a suitably durable Brass backstrap.
Who here has shot the much heavier Conical ball from either the Walker or the Dragoon?
I've heard the conical ball is less accurate in C&B revolvers due to difficulty in loading it as precisely.
Another consideration in the choice of the iron backstrap was the shear weight of the Walker.
While the grip frame wouldn't stretch or break a brass grip frame might suffer from damage to the two upper screw holes from inertia when drawing the gun rapidly.
Some Modern Quickdraw artists have on occasion snapped those two screws clean off or pulled then through the holes of the grip strap due to the forces exerted by their near superhuman speed. The great weight of the Walker might do the same to a brass grip strap due to the much greater inertia.
Also no matter how well you care for your pistols a military handgun, especially a Calvary pistol, is subject to being dropped, thrown, rolled on by a dying horse, etc.
The lighter weight of the Dragoon meant much less stress on the grips, it was no problem making a suitably durable Brass backstrap.
Who here has shot the much heavier Conical ball from either the Walker or the Dragoon?
I've heard the conical ball is less accurate in C&B revolvers due to difficulty in loading it as precisely.
Yes, I agree.
My posting was about loads in a Dragoon, although the thread is about Walkers. I was responding to another post in which a gentleman (who owned a Walker, as do I) suggested that the Dragoon was subject to damage due to having a brass backstrap.
.44walkersabot
member
I want to ask a couple of questions here. I have never had a Dragoon in my hands or even in my sight that I know of except in photographs. I'm interested in the Third Model. From the picture and the best I can tell, the only difference between it and my Walker is that they have shortened the barrel to 7 & 1/2 inches, added a loading lever catch (which I don't care about one way or the other) and used a brass back strap. I keep lot's of new, spare parts for my guns. I have 4 brand new grip frames for my Walker that I bought here and there over the years. (of course they are steel, not brass)Are these interchangeable with the Third Model Dragoon? Also, I think I am given to understand that the maximum power charge for the Third Model is 50 grains. (that suit's me fine to because even in my Walker 48 grains is my limit)It would seem to follow that the cylinders are not interchangeable between my Walker 1847 and the Third Model Dragoon, although the Third's cylinder may actually fit into the Walker. (which I figure would leave way too much of a gap between the face of the cylinder and the forcing cone for anyone to even consider seriously)I can't remember for sure exactly how much I paid but I know it was $60 plus dollars or around $80 plus dollars that I paid for each one of my Walker cylinders. I remember that since my Walker was made by Uberti, the cylinder cost a lot more than the other one which had something to do with the name Colt. I don't remember for sure. I just remember that I dismissed it because it didn't have anything to do with me and my Uberti so I didn't give a damn about it. I remember that a Walker cylinder cost enough that I had to get them over a period of time. I figure the Third Model cylinder, while still probably expensive, would be fractionally cheaper than one of the Walker cylinders. I also figure the mainspring, hammer, hand, cams, screws, and what have you SHOULD be interchanageable. So I figure that if one of my steel back straps will fit on there then all the extra parts I would have to worry about is a couple or three extra cylinders and the loading lever and lock nomenclature..I haven't read real close about it yet but I know it uses the same balls as my Walker so I'm good there..IF ANYONE READ'S THIS POST, WILL THEY PLEASE READ IT AGAIN CAREFULLY AND TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF MY QUESTIONS?..THANK YOU MUCH IN ADVANCE...Okay...
Roswell 1847
member
I can't garantee it but I'd say that few parts would interchange between the Walker and the Third model Dragoon. Remember that the Walker was a redisigned .53 caliber gun and by the time the Third Model Dragoon came along it was designed as a .44 from the ground up.
Some earlier Dragoons may be similar enough that parts inter change and the first Transitional Dragoons were cobble together from left over Walker parts.
By the way, I wouldn't worry about the brass backstrap. I've looked over images of a few well worn and used Dragoons and none seem to have had failures of the backstrap.
If you really want a Dragoon go for it.
I've been considering getting one myself.
Some earlier Dragoons may be similar enough that parts inter change and the first Transitional Dragoons were cobble together from left over Walker parts.
By the way, I wouldn't worry about the brass backstrap. I've looked over images of a few well worn and used Dragoons and none seem to have had failures of the backstrap.
If you really want a Dragoon go for it.
I've been considering getting one myself.
.44walkersabot
member
Thank you Mr. Roswell..I didn't know they had that many different Dragoons. All I'd heard of was the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Okay, forget about the parts interchanging. What would you say is the best Dragoon among all of them that will still carry the .457? (maybe all of them do, I don't know-that's what I use exclusively in my '47)Thanks again. You'vd been a big help sir. If you come across this post and you have time please answer it to if you would...Okay...
Dragoon/Walker parts interchangeability
The easiest way to answer the question about what parts will interchange between a Uberti Walker and a Uberti Dragoon is to look at the parts list at VTI Gun Parts:
https://www.vtigunparts.com/ab22400...ducts.asp?id=71&cat=Uberti+1847+Walker+.44cal
Scroll down to the list. You'll see that parts which will fit either gun are labeled (Dragoon, Walker).
The backstrap will not interchange.
As to what Dragoon is the best, well, that's very much personal opinion. I own a Second Model Uberti and a Third Model Colt; other than the better fit and finish on the Colt there really is nothing to set them apart. The physical differences are minor. If one really had to pick you'd have to say the Third Model is better by a tiny margin because it does have the "improvements" Colt designed in.
Keep in mind that the First, Second and Third Model designations are modern terms; Sam Colt didn't distinguish between the various versions of the "Horse Pistol". He just designed in some changes based on feed back from his customers and put them in the next production run.
The easiest way to answer the question about what parts will interchange between a Uberti Walker and a Uberti Dragoon is to look at the parts list at VTI Gun Parts:
https://www.vtigunparts.com/ab22400...ducts.asp?id=71&cat=Uberti+1847+Walker+.44cal
Scroll down to the list. You'll see that parts which will fit either gun are labeled (Dragoon, Walker).
The backstrap will not interchange.
As to what Dragoon is the best, well, that's very much personal opinion. I own a Second Model Uberti and a Third Model Colt; other than the better fit and finish on the Colt there really is nothing to set them apart. The physical differences are minor. If one really had to pick you'd have to say the Third Model is better by a tiny margin because it does have the "improvements" Colt designed in.
Keep in mind that the First, Second and Third Model designations are modern terms; Sam Colt didn't distinguish between the various versions of the "Horse Pistol". He just designed in some changes based on feed back from his customers and put them in the next production run.
.44walkersabot
member
Thank you Mr. MyKeal. I'm going to investigate all three, but I already know I'm going to settle on the Third. Thanks again. I really appreciate it...Okay...
Roswell 1847
member
Walker
Any .44 C&B revolver will handle the .457 ball. When you seat it any excess lead is shaved into a ring. If the chamber is .451 the seated ball will just have a bit more bearing surface, which is in fact a good thing.
I've used both sizes in my .44 brass framed Confederate revolver without any problems. I put a special hand made cylinder pin in that one with a flange turned on the pin/arbor which engages a shoulder inside the cylinder so no stress is placed on the weak brass frame.
I rebuilt that one from a junker with a pulled through arbor. Rethreaded to a larger Diameter and secured with silver solder. Hasn't shot loose yet.
Got the gun for free, it was given to me by the guy who messed it up to begin with.
Lately I've been using .395 bullets in my steel framed .36 since its chambers are a hair loose for the .375 balls my mould throws. They shoot perfectly and are not that hard to seat. I couldn't find any .380 lead balls anywhere.
The Walker was really meant to use the 260 grain Conical bullet. Some folks like to use semi wadcutter .451 bullets made for the .45 ACP.
Any .44 C&B revolver will handle the .457 ball. When you seat it any excess lead is shaved into a ring. If the chamber is .451 the seated ball will just have a bit more bearing surface, which is in fact a good thing.
I've used both sizes in my .44 brass framed Confederate revolver without any problems. I put a special hand made cylinder pin in that one with a flange turned on the pin/arbor which engages a shoulder inside the cylinder so no stress is placed on the weak brass frame.
I rebuilt that one from a junker with a pulled through arbor. Rethreaded to a larger Diameter and secured with silver solder. Hasn't shot loose yet.
Got the gun for free, it was given to me by the guy who messed it up to begin with.
Lately I've been using .395 bullets in my steel framed .36 since its chambers are a hair loose for the .375 balls my mould throws. They shoot perfectly and are not that hard to seat. I couldn't find any .380 lead balls anywhere.
The Walker was really meant to use the 260 grain Conical bullet. Some folks like to use semi wadcutter .451 bullets made for the .45 ACP.
.44walkersabot
member
Yeah, okay. I'll try not to bother ya'll about it any more. Really appreciate your help. I fire .451's out of the Cattleman's Carbine, but my Walker is my mainstay so to speak. Years ago when I first got it (I bought it from Cabela's) they recommended .457's and I have always seemed to have good luck with them. (likewise the .451's in the carbine) I know Dixie suggests a different size. I remember when I first started in blackpowder I was reading the regular add for the Walker in Cabela's catalog. I decided to ask Dixie about it to. I asked them about the powder charge and they told me 22 grains. I asked them if that wasn't kind of weak for a piece that big, and she repeated that was what they recommended. I didn't say another word. I just quietly hung up the phone. I knew right away that even though I didn't know anything I still knew more than she did. I bought that thing, got the Pocket .31 2 weeks later and ain't never looked back. There's all kind's of revolvers in those catalogs, but none of them ever interested me. (Just like cars. I'm a Ford man, nothing against the other makers; I just don't have any interest in them because I like Fords. Just that simple) I think, to be honest, the Remington (Pietta) 1858 New Model Army .44 blued Target Model with adjustable sights is one of the finest looking revolvers I have ever seen in my life, but I won't ever buy one of them. I don't need it at all. I'vd already got something better. I'vd got the Remington (Uberti) .44 Cattleman's Carbine which I consider an upgrade to the revolver. I want a Dragoon, not so much to shoot, but because I feel such a strong sense of loyalty to the Walker that it would be sort of like owning 'The Son of The Gun' so to speak. Me and my Walker have been through some times you just wouldn't believe. It has NEVER let me down and I have called on it many times. It has protected me, it has fed me, it has built my fires, and it is a damn fine revolver. I'm not a collector or anything like that. I never needed many guns but the ones I needed had to work and I don't mean just bang bang bang at a piece of paper. (Although that can be fun) Like cooking a meal. You don't need to cook a lot of different things. You just need what you cook to be good. If you're not a collectot you don't need a lot of guns. You just need a couple that will work real good. Well anyway, I really appreciate ya'll's help. It's nice to have a site to go to where there's lot's of accumulated knowledge to draw on. I'm going to buy the Third Model. Since I'm not a collector buying another gun is a big step to me. I am real damn particular and I won't buy just anything just because it look's good. That Third Model look's almost just like the Walker, both of them as ugly as sin warmed over but I just have the feeling that it is something special in the way of a good working revolver. Thanks again for ya'll's help...Okay...PS. I think I will buy it and my spare parts from VTI. I looked at their site awhile ago...Okay...
J.T. Gerrity
Member
1) If you want us to read your posts "carefully and answer questions", You'd make it a lot easier on us old folks if you would use paragraphs in your posts.
2)First model Dragoon cylinder & barrel will fit the Walker frame, but none of the others will because of the location and configuration of the cylinder bolt stop on the 2nd and 3rd models.
2)First model Dragoon cylinder & barrel will fit the Walker frame, but none of the others will because of the location and configuration of the cylinder bolt stop on the 2nd and 3rd models.
Last edited:
.44walkersabot
member
Sorry, Mr. JT. Guess I do get wound up. I'm retired and back down here in Alabama for awhile and my girlfriend goes over and babysit's for one of her grandchildren by her and her now deceased husband, so all I have to occupy my time right now is to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes and visit on this site, Sorry I get so wound up..Hey, thank's for the info on the 1st Model...Okay...
"2)First model Dragoon cylinder & barrel will fit the Walker frame, but none of the others will because of the location and configuration of the cylinder bolt stop on the 2nd and 3rd models."
I believe this is incorrect. Dragoons have shorter cylinders. The shorter cylinder length was one of the changes that were evident in all Dragoon models, and helped to reduce the weight.
I believe this is incorrect. Dragoons have shorter cylinders. The shorter cylinder length was one of the changes that were evident in all Dragoon models, and helped to reduce the weight.
The First Model Dragoon cylinder will fit only a First Model Dragoon frame. It is too short to fit a Walker frame and the cylinder stop notches are not correct for the other Dragoons.
The Walker cylinder will fit only a Walker frame due to it's length.
Second and Third Model Cylinders will fit either Second or Third Model frames.
The Walker cylinder will fit only a Walker frame due to it's length.
Second and Third Model Cylinders will fit either Second or Third Model frames.
.44walkersabot
member
I ain't much of a photographer. But I just got through cleaning and wiping down the '47 so I thought I would try to get a picture of it on line.
Roswell 1847
member
Transition models of the Dragoon built using Walker parts are sometimes found with Walker sized cylinders. But these guns are experimental and not properly either Walker or dragoon.
From the shape of the forward part of the Walker grip and the scallop in the frame I believe the Walker frame was originally intended for a revolving carbine. This would explain why they had at first intended to use .54 Hall musket bullets and such a heavy charge. Patterson Revolving carbines were already being used by the US Military by then.
That would be an interesting carbine design if carried out logically from the known Walker design anomalies.
From the shape of the forward part of the Walker grip and the scallop in the frame I believe the Walker frame was originally intended for a revolving carbine. This would explain why they had at first intended to use .54 Hall musket bullets and such a heavy charge. Patterson Revolving carbines were already being used by the US Military by then.
That would be an interesting carbine design if carried out logically from the known Walker design anomalies.
.44walkersabot
member
I tried to download a couple of pictures. I had to re-size them as evidently they were too large. I had sent THR an e-mail but I got tired of waiting for an answer. I guess they're real busy. Anyway, the last thing I saw was the part at the top of the page that said 'attachments processing ' or something like that. Maybe they will go in.
I thought I knew about the whole history of the Walker but I guess not. This is the first I'vd ever heard of it originally being designed as possibly a .54 carbine. Colt and Walker must have gotten together and decided to shorten it up so it could be handled more easily in tight quarters and close situations...Okay...
I thought I knew about the whole history of the Walker but I guess not. This is the first I'vd ever heard of it originally being designed as possibly a .54 carbine. Colt and Walker must have gotten together and decided to shorten it up so it could be handled more easily in tight quarters and close situations...Okay...
- Status
