• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Ruger OA vs. Walker

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jdixon

45 Cal.
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
721
Reaction score
1
I know someone here can answer this one for me. Using the Lyman BP Handbood (2nd ed.) as a reference, the muzzle velocity of a Ruger OA 7 1/2" barrel 1:16 twist, 40 gr. Pyrodex P behind a 190 conical produces 1157 Fps & 565 Ft/lbs. of energy. The same powder charge in a Walker (9" barrel 1:48" twist) and a 180 gr. conical yields 929 Fps and 345 Ft./lbs. of energy. Even compensating for the 10 gr. difference in bullet weight, the Ruger's performance is significantly better. My question is, how can the Ruger using almost exactly the same load, with a shorter barrel, produce almost 20% more energy at the muzzle than a Walker? :hmm:
 
J.R.,
Several things could cause this to happen. The cyl. dia. verses bore dia., the faster twist building higher pressure,
temperature at time of chronographing,and especially barrel and cyl. gap. :imo: But of coarse there is always the possibility it's a misprint. :what:
 
OK, maybe so, maybe not... BUT let's stay strictly with black powder, round balls, and maximum loads for EACH gun (not the same load for each!) and let's see which gun has more better "paper ballistics" then...?

Those guns are too different to do a direct comparison and then make much sense from the results.

Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
 
I agree with WV_Hillbilly about the guns being different so it's hard to make a direct comparison.

Other things that are hard to figure in the data is the Walker is 194 FPS faster with the 25 grain load, 77 FPS faster with the 30 grain load, 126 FPS slower with the 35 grain load and 228 FPS slower with the 40 grain load.
Wierd, I say.

It might be due to the larger bullet diameter the Ruger uses?
It might be due to the phase of the moon?
It might be a missprint. ::
 
Since I can only speculate, I would venture that the Walker might have looser cylinder chamber wall tolerances (less precise), a larger cylinder gap, OR, the forcing cone is larger, OR all three. That would mean the Ruger load is encountering more resistance (friction) with the weaker loadings until the point that the Walker starts to "bleed" excess gases (excessive waste), where the Ruger starts to actually "pick up steam" and additional pressure (hence velocity) from the closer tolerances. In addition, there are projectile weight variations that may add to the mix with the lower power charges. Does this make any sense? :hmm:
 
You got that one right my friend---the cylinder to barrel tolerances on the OA are modern precision machined---the repro's don't even go as far as the originals in precision. Those lesser tolerances in the Walker and the bullet jump are exactly what produces the better results in the OA---you can take that to the bank amigo. :m2c:
 
The weight and bearing surface of the bullet-depth of seating etc can make a fairly big difference. My revolvers get a lot more velocity with cast 200 grain bullets from a lee mould than they do with the same charges and the 190 grain buffalo.
 
The weight and bearing surface of the bullet-depth of seating etc can make a fairly big difference. My revolvers get a lot more velocity with cast 200 grain bullets from a lee mould than they do with the same charges and the 190 grain buffalo.

I'd say that your experience is probably the best "reason" for the strangely different results between the loads, as the bullet bearing surfaces and design variations do indeed make a VERY BIG difference in performance--aside from the differences in the revolvers being a big factor as well.

BUT, Had the same brand of round ball been used, the same patching, same lube, same loading pressure, etc... the comparison may have been slightly more valid, but still the revolvers are much too different in design and tolerances to "expect" parity in the results.

I also don't completely agree about the replicas being so sloppy in the area of tolerances. Some may well be just that way... the Colt open top frame and wedge system for maintaing cylinder gap obviously isn't the most accurate method devised. Even Colt realised this, don't know why it took him so long to change to a solid frame. It's odd that the Colt/Root sidehammer guns weren't further devolvoped--probably politics and money were involved!

If you would care to pull the info from that Lyman manual... how does a '58 Remington compare to the Ruger with comparable loads??? That would be a more valid comparison based on design similarities. A Walker is in a class by itself, as far as I'm concerned.

Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
 
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.
 
Back
Top