Shorty Walker

Anybody have a shortened Walker to talk about?
Been thinking about making a Walker a bit handier but have my doubts about using all that powder space except under a 230-250 grain bullet.

Seems I've seen pics of shorter-barreled Walkers, or Dragoons around here somewhere. Don't think they "need" all that barrel, unless one is cramming all the powder possible in the chambers, and is concerned about getting every last foot per second. If that's the case, a single shot is a better choice. With the big chambers and a slug, it will still outclass the 1860. Might be a close race with a '58 Remington, as they have a lot of powder space.

I sure like my 1860 better with a 6", instead of the long barrel. I see nothing wrong with taking a Walker down to 5.5" or 6". In the process, one could add a better loading lever and catch, than the Walker style.

I’ve seen them whacked down to just forward of the (lack of proper term) under lug.

I have contemplated the handiness of it being 4-4.5”, which is what I’ve always considered an ideal length for a sidearm in the woods. But I’d keep the standard length for a primary arm.

I’ve also contemplated an additional barrel reamed smooth for squirrels and rabbits, but I’m not sure if there’s be enough shot or oomph to be useful to 15 yds.

nkbj said:

Anybody have a shortened Walker to talk about?
Been thinking about making a Walker a bit handier but have my doubts about using all that powder space except under a 230-250 grain bullet.

Click to expand...

If you do use a heavy bullet make sure you don’t have too much bearing surface. I created a 285 grn WFN bullet for my ROA when I thought we’d be moving to VA giving me the opportunity for bears. I gave it a very long bearing surface to help create additional pressures since I figured about 25 grns of 3F would max out the Ruger chambers. I gave my various bullets to a fellow who loaded 52 grns of Pyrodex P into his ASM Walker and the chamber blew open. It wasn’t designed for a repro.

arcticap said:

Without the longer barrel, the Walker would be more like a Dragoon.
The gun would also lose some of its sighting plane which helps to improve accuracy,

Click to expand...

In essence the sight radius is one thing I see the Walker being nice for concerning hunting (with a modified square notch in the hammer), and the longer barrel would certainly increase the velocity a bit. But I’ve read that some people feel the hammer as a sight isn’t as accurate as it has a little play or wiggle in it vs one built into/on the frame.

I’m a bit curious how a chopped Walker (or Dragoon) would balance in the hand, and how wieldy it would be. It’s still a heavy gun.

rodwha said:

I’ve seen them whacked down to just forward of the (lack of proper term) under lug.

I have contemplated the handiness of it being 4-4.5”, which is what I’ve always considered an ideal length for a sidearm in the woods. But I’d keep the standard length for a primary arm.

I’ve also contemplated an additional barrel reamed smooth for squirrels and rabbits, but I’m not sure if there’s be enough shot or oomph to be useful to 15 yds.

Click to expand...

As the OP mentioned "handiness", I figure sight radius would be of second concern. I'm always thinking about smooth bore hand guns for grouse guns, or rabbit/squirrel guns, depending on where you live. I think one could get a good amount of shot and powder in a Walker cylinder for an effective shot load. Since patterns are usually better with light powder charges even in handguns, even modern ones, you wouldn't be filling up much space with powder. Most do consider the 4-4.5" to be ideal for a sidearm or woods gun, but I find the 5.5-6" to be the best combination of "handiness", sighting radius, and velocity.

rodwha said:

In essence the sight radius is one thing I see the Walker being nice for concerning hunting (with a modified square notch in the hammer), and the longer barrel would certainly increase the velocity a bit. But I’ve read that some people feel the hammer as a sight isn’t as accurate as it has a little play or wiggle in it vs one built into/on the frame.

I’m a bit curious how a chopped Walker (or Dragoon) would balance in the hand, and how wieldy it would be. It’s still a heavy gun.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that reducing some of the muzzle weight would make such a big gun balance better. ? I don't think hammer-wiggle effects accuracy...judging on how well that friend of Cap-n-Ball's shoots his Walker. Also, hammers can be shimmed for a no-wiggle, zero-wiggle fit, if one happens to have an especially wiggly hammer...or is concerned about wiggly-hammer-syndrome.

I'd like to try a five inch barrel and 230 grainers like it was originally designed for.
Pretty much the standard formula preserved on up to Colt's model 1911.

nkbj said:

I'd like to try a five inch barrel and 230 grainers like it was originally designed for.
Pretty much the standard formula preserved on up to Colt's model 1911.

Click to expand...

Weren’t the original Picket style conicals more like 170 grains?

I know a couple of the paper cartridges used during the Civil War could be found with conicals up to 230 grns or a bit more.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...mike-cumpston/gun-review-the-walker-colt/amp/

Had to punch it in on the calculator. The Walkers were made for 32 to the pound, so that's 218 grains, not 230.

nkbj said:

Had to punch it in on the calculator. The Walkers were made for 32 to the pound, so that's 218 grains, not 230.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I’ve always seen 170 grns but never looked into it myself. Figured with such a short and pointy bullet it made sense to be so light.

Quite frankly, other than just for traditions sake, I’d opt for a ball over that Pickett bullet as I’m more into hunting, but then I create custom molds with wide meplats for that.

Rat said:

Seems I've seen pics of shorter-barreled Walkers, or Dragoons around here somewhere. Don't think they "need" all that barrel, unless one is cramming all the powder possible in the chambers, and is concerned about getting every last foot per second. If that's the case, a single shot is a better choice. With the big chambers and a slug, it will still outclass the 1860. Might be a close race with a '58 Remington, as they have a lot of powder space.

.

Click to expand...

I've been surprised at how many people talk about only fitting 35 grain in a 58 remington. You could probably stuff 40 in mine and still use a felt wad, with 35 of pyrodex P and a wad the ball can be seated to the max depth of the rammer.

FerricOxide said:

I've been surprised at how many people talk about only fitting 35 grain in a 58 remington. You could probably stuff 40 in mine and still use a felt wad, with 35 of pyrodex P and a wad the ball can be seated to the max depth of the rammer.

Click to expand...

Ultimately I want the most accurate charge that is useable for hunting. I never tried anything below 25 grns as, from what little chronographed results using an energetic powder put these loads (using a conical) as warm .44 Spl equivalent, my idea of minimal. For my NMA I found 30 grns (weighs 33 grns) of 3F Olde E was the sweet spot using the various projectiles I have. There’s a bit of excess space and I’m considering a new projectile in reading the length to use lead as filler as it seams weight doesn’t impact the accuracy potential.

I picked up a used Remington a while back that had the chambers reamed.
I should find it and see how big they are. Caint remember what they are.