WV:
Yeah, I checked the gap between the cylinder face and forcing cone on both my Walker and Ruger - if one is tighter than the other, I would have to give it to the Walker. However, we don't know the variable of manufacture of the Walker used for the Lyman tests. Additionally, you can adjust this tolerance with the barrel wedge as well. Who knows?
Now to completely confuse you and everyone else - the ballistics on other .44's compared with these two. Though the Lyman book doesn't say what model was used, they do list ballistics for a .44 cal. revolver 8" barrel w/ 1:24 twist. Largest comparable load between all three would be 30 grains of Pyrodex P - now this is where it gets confusing - at least to me. All of these are for 180 gr. conical, except 190 gr. for the Ruger, listed if muzzle velocity in Ft/ps:
Ruger 7 1/2" 1:16 - 30 gr. /774 - 40 gr. 1157
Walker 9" 1:48 - 30 gr./851 - 40 gr. - 929
44 8" 1:24 - 30 gr. 802 - 40 gr. - not listed
The jump in reported velocity in the Ruger with an additional 10 gr. of powder is 32%, with the Walker, a paltry 9% :what: And, both the replica weapons deliver more power at 30 gr. than does the Ruger, which blows them both away at 40. I don't get it.
This question of ballistics has arisen from my trying to determine which handgun would work best for deer hunting. Not as a primary, but as a sidearm in case that close shot came in. Though they are both limited in their performance as a deer hunting weapon, they are capable at close distance as long as you have done your part and practiced. Which would be best?; probably the one you shoot the best - which in my case would be the Walker.