Walker Colt vs Ruger Old Army

[ALJS]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Colt Walker was the "most powerful" handgun until the 357 magnum came out. If so is it more powerful than the Ruger Old Army? Has anyone done a test to find out which one has the most "umph"? Just curious.

 

[BSA1]

The 45 Colt cartridge with a 255 gr. bullet and 40 gr. of black powder was the most powerful handgun round until the advent of the .357 Magnum.

 

[dickydalton]

And then...... the fight started!

 

[Willie Sutton]

The Ruger Old Army and the Walker are the same caliber, with the Walker having substantially longer chambers. It's pretty simple deduction to know which one you can stuff more black powder into. Powder = Power. About 40 v/s 60 grains. Do the math...

The difference is that the Ruger will accept full chamber loads all day and night for decades, and the Italian Walkers will not.


Willie

.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

DD
2nd that.
How about the M1847 Whitneyville Walker being the most powerful revolver ever officially issued to US troops or volunteers in active combat since 1847 to present day...just sayin

 

[rodwha]

ClassicBallistix offers an aftermarket cylinder for the Ruger that adds about 10 grns of volume. Still short of the Walker's capacity, but certainly gives a Ruger more oomph.

With a more energetic powder (Swiss, Olde Eynsford, or Triple 7) you can easily reach or surpass 500 ft/lbs of energy with a conical from a Ruger. Mike Beliveau did some testing with T7 vs Goex and RB's and 2 conicals, and though he reduced the loads ~15% and lightly compressed the T7, was able to achieve near 500 ft/lbs of energy, though the reduction of T7 is stated such not for safety but to achieve similar results as standard BP loadings, and a Ruger has no need of reducing anyway as it isn't built with mild steel.

Supposedly people report roughly 700 ft/lbs with the ClassicBallistic cylinders, though I'd think that a little on the high side.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Willie,
While I agree with you as far as the strength of the Ruger (I have an ROA as well) , the Walker can be made to "go the distance". My Walker is waiting for it's Kirst Konversion but my Dragoons have the ability to go to the range day after day and come home with everything in spec. I don't doubt the Walker will be the same way. I'll be making my ROA a 45 Colt shooter as well.

 

[MCgunner]

I don't have a Walker replica, but do have an ROA and had a stainless one until it got ripped off. What I do know is the Ruger is SUPERBLY accurate, the most accurate cap and ball gun I've ever fired and with decent sights to boot. Now, you might be able to smith a replica to be as accurate, but I haven't seen it. Add to this that with a full compressed load of 777 3F, the thing shoots SO hard that by the forth shot, the 220 grain conicals I load are pulling far enough to interfere with cylinder rotation. I've clocked over 1300 fps with a 220 grain conical over a full compressed charge of 777 which the gun will handle and then some. I mean, if I ever DO hunt with a cap and ball, it'll be with the ROA just because of the accuracy and the fact that I don't need no more power than that.

Now, I'm not knocking the walker replicas, historically significant guns where the ROA isn't. Just I don't see why you'd ever need more horsepower. Hell, I download mine with cornmeal filler when I shoot mine. I don't really care about getting a conversion for it, already have a Blackhawk in .45 Colt that's a friggin' tack driver. The one conversion I did finally get was a Howell conversion in .45ACP for my '58 Remmy. They are fun to shoot with cartridge conversions, I'll attest.

 

[rodwha]

MC: Did you have a ClassicBallistix cylinder? That's some racey speed!

I've often thought that my 30-35 grn loads of 3F T7 or Olde E with a bullet felt similar to my old .44 mag I traded for the Ruger. But I'm not familiar with BP type recoil in comparison as I read it's different than smokeless.

 

[MCgunner]

MC: Did you have a ClassicBallistix cylinder? That's some racey speed!

I've often thought that my 30-35 grn loads of 3F T7 or Olde E with a bullet felt similar to my old .44 mag I traded for the Ruger. But I'm not familiar with BP type recoil in comparison as I read it's different than smokeless.

Standard Ruger cylinder loaded to near the top and compressed with effort, every grain I could stuff under that 220 conical. IIRC, I calculated around 800 ft lbs, but not for sure, have to go back and look it up in my notes. I really have little use for such power in a cap and ball gun, frankly, just did it because.

Yep, quick calculations shows 825 ft lbs for 1300 fps velocity. That's shootin' harder than my .357 Magnum Blackhawk 6.5" with its hottest load and close, within 100 ft lbs, to my .45 Colt (4 5/8") with a hot 2400/300XTP/JHP load.

Now, I have no idea what a Walker could do with a full compressed 777 charge, but I'd think it might be a little tough on the gun and probably have to load as a single shot because I'm thinkin' the bullets would pull badly under recoil.

 

[rodwha]

I've compressed mine fairly stout as well as I don't now how else to be consistent. It has a stout recoil for sure! I obviously need a chronograph to see for myself, and I do want one, but it's low on my long list...

 

[rodwha]

I do know there's a fellow who loads 66 grns of 2F T7 behind a ball for hog hunting in his Walker.

 

[rodwha]

I also noticed the 240 grn Kaido bullets pulling out a bit after about the 4th shot loading up with (IIRC) 30 grns of 3F T7.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Back in the day, 1847, every military Walker was test fired with as much powder as could be compressed under the 220 grain (ie 32 bullets/#) Walker conical bullet. As near as my references show they were not tested with round balls. Also, the civilian Walkers were not test fired, as they were completed prior to the military Walkers. The shipments of the Walkers to Mexico included "rifle" powder specifically for use with the Walkers. Would rifle powder in 1847 have been ffg or fffg? Would such a difference in powder in 1847 made a difference in performance back then...quien sabe?

 

[Crawdad1]

That's kind of an unfair comparison. The ROA is a 'Modern" handgun with a loading lever attached to it. The Walker was designed a hundred some years ago. But be that as it may, the Walker sure has a lot of power.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Like I said IMHO, the Walker still holds the spot as the most powerful military issued revolver.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Yes! Most powerful issued sidearm PERIOD!

 

[Choctaw]

I've owned both. The Walker is a better tool for whacking surly bartenders.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Also, for nailing barb wire to a post...at least using a horribly inaccurate ASM Walker, though there are good ones.

Fact is any revolver manufactured in the 1970s -80s cannot be directly compared to one designed/manufactured in 1846-47 for a plethora of reasons, although it is an interesting question. They came from two different technological times in firearms history.The fact that Ruger is being compared to the Walker is a testiment to the Walker that the two Sam's created.

 

[mackg]

The answer to the ROA's weakness:



A few hundred were reportedly made by a French store.

 

[Crawdad1]

I ask for a comparison, which one played a more significant role in history? Now we are being unfair to the Ruger!!!!

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Well thats some hawg leg or should I say patte de cuchon.

 

[dickydalton]

I don't have a Walker yet. But I think it'll fit in the mail box when it comes!

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Your mailbox would make a very nice bbq smoker. Sweeeeet!

 

[Crawdad1]

I don't have a Walker yet. But I think it'll fit in the mail box when it comes!

Now that's funny!!!!