Confused

[Misfire99]

One of my favorite bathroom books is the "Lyman Black Powder Handbook and Loading Manual." I was having a extended reading of the second edition the other day and saw on pages 286 and 287 something that got my attention. In the cap and ball pistol load section they have listings for the 44 cal Walker revolver and the 45 caliber Ruger revolver. The Walker has a nine inch barrel and the Ruger has a seven and one half inch barrel. For a forty grain charge the Walker pushes a one hundred and eighty grain conical out the pipe at nine hundred and twenty nine FPS. The Ruger, with a forty grain charge, pushes a one hundred and ninty grain conical out the pipe at one thousand thirty five FPS.

The Ruger has a shorter barrel and a heaver bullet but it's over a hundred feet per second faster then the Walker for the same powder charge. What is going on here??? Is the cylinder gap so big on the Walker that pressure is being lost compared to the Ruger?

I don't have a Walker or a Ruger so I can't compare the cylinder gaps or the bore size but something is making the Ruger more efficient then the Walker. And that means the your average Walker could be tuned to get more bang for the buck.

 

[Niner]

Have no idea but to add coal to the fire

If you look in another book, Gun Digest Loading Manuel, by Sam Fadala you see this.

Ruger Old Army 44 cal. 7 and 1/2 barrel. 40FFFg BP, .457 ball 143 gr. produces a muzzle velocity of 984 fps.

Navy Arms Walker 9 inch barrel. .454 and 141 gr. ball and 55 FFFg of BP produces a muzzle velocity of 1205 fps.

According to this book, in the Navy Arms version of the Walker....this is an old book....55FFFg is the Maximum recommended load in the pistol for BP, or a max of 57P for Pyrodex. For the Ruger he shows a Maximum recommended load of 40 FFFg BP or Pyrodex. His note is maximum loads should be used with caution.

 

[mykeal]

The 'Expanded Fourth Edition' of the Gun Digest book (copyright 2004) lists the same data. Unfortunately, Fadala's data includes no comparable loadings for the Walker and the Ruger (he only published one load for the Walker, 55 gr), so it's of no value to this discussion.

Fadala's Ruger data is not comparable to Lyman's because he shot a 143 gr round ball, much lighter than the conical Lyman tested.

In the Lyman data there are a couple of possible reasons the Ruger data is faster. First of all, I'd caution that reading any chronograph data as absolute is risky. You need to take into account the spread in the data and look at the statistical results. The only absolute you can count on is to take the data spread value for the Ruger and subtract it from the Ruger average, then take the data spread value for the Walker and add it to the average for that gun, and then comparing those numbers; you can then say the Ruger is X fps OR MORE faster than the Walker.

Another variable to consider, and one we have no data for, is bore size. Yes, both guns are '.44 caliber', but it's pretty well known that bore sizes between manufacturers and indeed between countries can vary considerably. The same goes for projectile diameter; since they were not the same weight they could have varied a couple thousandths in diameter. You well know what effect having a 'looser' ball in one gun could have.

The data is interesting, but the test doesn't have enough controls to attach significance to a ten percent difference in muzzle velocities.

 

[Wildfire]

Mykeal Has it right.

Hey there:
you can only trust what YOU see at the time YOU chrono a gun. Different weather , Temps. You name it lots of things come it to play when testing the speed of a bullet. Many reloaders do not totally understand that . As was stated in the post before mine barrel sizes can make a lot of difference also.
Numbers are just numbers. There have been some threads on this and other parts of this forum that at times can even create arguments over numbers. They are reference points only, and not always chiseled in stone.
Other books or ballistic programs will give different numbers again. Nothing to be concerned about at all. And I am pretty sure the older Walker copy likely has a differenent sized barrel then the Ruger.
This is also why we average the numbers from the chronographs. Most have that feature built right in.

 

[arcticap]

It's not to difficult though to speculate that the Ruger has a chamber diameter that's closer to the bore diameter, the barrel to cylinder gap is smaller and the Ruger forcing cone is probably narrower too. If the projectile is getting squeezed down a narrower bore, better efficiency and velocity should result if everything else between both guns are relatively equal.

So what if the Walker requires more powder to compensate and in order to catch up and exceed the Ruger's performance? That's why it has the larger chamber capacity.

 

[Misfire99]

The loads listed are not both 44s. The Walker is 44 and the Ruger is 45. The conical fired from the Walker is 180grains and the conical fired from the Ruger is 190 grains. One could make the point that the surface area of the base for the 45 is larger giving it an advantage over the 44 but it's not that much bigger.

The difference of 100 FPS is more then ten percent increase over the Walker. That's why it caught my eye. Ten percent is a lot. How would you feel if your pay checks just got ten percent bugger? This is the deal between the Rugar and the Walker. It's ten percent more efficient. I wish my car was ten percent more efficient.

For those that have either a Ruger or a Walker could you post the cylinder gap. And if you want to take the time maybe even slug the bore. Thanks

 

[mykeal]

Ten percent is not a lot when talking about error in chronograph measurements. That's why we do them statistically.

The nomenclature .44 cal and .45 cal is name only. Both the Ruger and the Walker shoot a .457 round ball. They are the same caliber guns. They do not have exactly the same bore size but the difference is not very large.

I really don't see cylinder gap being much of an issue. If it is, then it should have been specified by Lyman as a test variable. The Colt wedge design makes cylinder gap a variable; it can be darn near anything, depending on how firmly one inserts the wedge, so measuring it is not terribly meaningful.

I do agree that an overly large cylinder gap does result in loss of pressure, but it would have to be awfully big, more a factor of poor maintenance or assembly than design. I have the feeling that Articap's point about chamber diameter matching the bore size is more important.

 

[Misfire99]

Supposedly the FPS listed is an average of a string. I don't have the book with me right now so I can't tell you how many shots per string. But the number given is an average. I agree that ten percent between shots is not a great thing. It just makes the standard deviation larger. But these values are the averages. So I would suspect that a ten percent increase in the average velocity to be worth looking at. Right now this is all academic and has nothing to do with the price of yak butter in Tibet. But if I had a Ruger and a Walker I would be going over them with a fine tooth comb to find out why. But maybe that's just me.

 

[GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL]

//////////////////

 

[Shawnee]

I have an absolute World of respect for Mr. Chrono, the inventor of the chronograph, but my position on the "Walker vs ROA" scheutzenfest has never changed since Day 1, and it is this:

I want to be not shot first with the Walker and then not shot with the ROA second. I probably could abide being not shot in the reverse of that order, I suppose, but I am just stating my druthers.

 

[Misfire99]

Still trying to tear that church down, huh?
Well, it can't be done. The .44 Walker will outshoot the living hell out of that Ruger...Okay...

I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. And no it's not OKAY . I am the kind of guy that likes proof not opinion. And I don't really care what is the better pistol. I want to know why one guns average FPS is over ten percent greater then an other gun for the same powder charge. This kind of knowledge is what allows one to pick a better firearm based on facts. But hey if you think the sun rises and sets on a Walker that's fine with me. I am not spending your money, you are.

I find this thread to be very fascinating. I posted a question as to why one gun is so much more powerful then another for the same powder charge. And it turns into some kind of holy war over nothing and the question wasn't even close to being answered. A little bit of speculation but no data to back it up. But lots of opinion and attitude. Maybe it's the lack of data that provide the vacuum for the opinion and attitude to fill it's place.

 

[.38 Special]

"Why Ballisticians Get Gray".

 

[John C]

Pure speculation here, but I would guess that the Walker, especially an older one, might've had a smaller chamber diameter than bore diameter, causing gas blow-by. This condition was (is?) common in Italian guns, until they recently improved their quality control. Ruger generally has better QC than the various Italian makers.

-John

 

[mykeal]

Misfire99 - you got answers. Go back and read posts 4, 5 &7.

 

[arcticap]

Maybe it's possible that the bigger bullet does make a contributory difference in this case too.
If a person had 2 cylinders for the same gun to chronograph, one that was original and one that had improved chamber tolerances, then comparing the velocity readings between the two cylinders could lead to answering your question and the telltale proof that you are seeking.

I thought about searching for a thread where chrony results might have been published in the past. But lacking time I came across these about chamber diameter and reaming, and how they relate to bore diameter & accuracy improvement in various models.
Some guns can also have cylinder alignment issues too, but who knows what impact the bullet hitting the forcing cone might have on velocity?


http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=281460&highlight=chamber+diameter

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=244774&highlight=chamber+diameter

rifle - Post #8
A cap&ball revolver thus reamed in the chambers to be equal to the barrels grooves or .001-.003 larger makes the danged things shoot as good or better than any cartridge gun I've ever fired. The pressure does rise fir sure. I can tell by the crack when the gun is fired. Never had any problem though even with heavy loads. I believe the chambers can be reamed even bigger than .003 over compared to the barrels grooves. Like .005-.006. You know when using just round balls.....
....The Ruger Ols Army is sized to be .003 bigger in the chambers than the barrels grooves. Well, anywhooo...

 

[GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL]

///////////////////////////

 

[dwave]

Oh, and just as an aside, yes, the .44 Walker will outshoot the living hell out of the ROA

Proof?

 

[Wildfire]

Hey Misfire.

Hey there:
See post #4 and you'll notice what I said can happen. I'm not sure how or why this happens but somehow it seems to sneak in there at times.
I don't shoot either. But I would have to assume that a larger bullet moving faster would be the stronger of the two.
sorry about all the flack you got. I'm not sure but I would guess that it is not an argumentive thing, but more a matter of different oppinions on subjects like these. either way they are both very strong shooters and that should remain a fact. hope you get some sort of answer from all this.

 

[Misfire99]

I double checked the posts you said Mykeal and they are opinions. They may very well be correct but I was hoping for some number to back it up.

This is from Arcticap;

rifle - Post #8
A cap&ball revolver thus reamed in the chambers to be equal to the barrels grooves or .001-.003 larger makes the danged things shoot as good or better than any cartridge gun I've ever fired. The pressure does rise fir sure. I can tell by the crack when the gun is fired. Never had any problem though even with heavy loads. I believe the chambers can be reamed even bigger than .003 over compared to the barrels grooves. Like .005-.006. You know when using just round balls.....
....The Ruger Ols Army is sized to be .003 bigger in the chambers than the barrels grooves. Well, anywhooo...

Now I consider this to be good data. This is more of what I was hoping to get, hard facts. Now does anybody have a Walker that is willing to measure the chambers and the throat diameter? If what Arcticap post is correct this is a small thing that can be applied to all C&B revolvers to get more FPS from the same powder charge. This is what I was hoping to find out. I guess it come from my bad old days of a Hot Rodder trying to squeeze out every drop of horse power from my motor. Now is just from my guns.

Arcticap the links you posted are excellent information. I will be ordering my reamer soon.

I'm sorry if I was overly abrasive on this thread. I guess it comes from my wayward youth. Or maybe I was just born an A__hole. It seems to be getting worse as I get older. I guess when I get real old they will put me in a locked facility because I cuss, spit and bite. At one point in my life I worked in a place like that. It's amazing how many old men are like that. But hopefully I will have enough mental power left to check out on my own before it comes to that.

 

[John C]

Misfire; Measure twice and cut once, especially with Italian guns. There are no rules with those pistols, the QC and measurements vary so much between makes and models and even within makes and models. Therefore, I don't think you can extrapolate other peoples' measurements onto your own pistol.

You are definitely on the right track, though, in working to get your chambers .001-.003 inches larger than groove diameter so your projectile gets swaged down to groove diameter for the best bullet fit possible.

Good luck,

-John