Posted on 01/07/2019 4:57:16 AM PST by w1n1
The iconic Colt 1847 Walker Revolver was the game changer of the old west.
Only about 1100 of the guns were ever made in total, 1,000 of which were for the military, only 100 was for the public.
The Walker Colt saw use in the Mexican-American War and on the Texas frontier. Samuel Walker was carrying two of the revolvers that bore his name when he was killed in battle during the Mexican-American War in 1847. This revolver best known today as Clint Eastwood's weapon in "The Outlaw Josey Wales."
Did you know that this massive cap-and-ball revolver was the most powerful revolver until the modern .357 Magnum cartridge was invented? That truth is certainly quite impressive.
At the time, the Colt 1847 Walker Revolver would have been unlike anything ever experienced before. The massive .44 caliber revolver was meant for taking out mounted opponents on horseback, or the horse itself. These revolvers were hard used, broken, and exploded by soldiers untrained to load them correctly. Not many of these old beastly revolvers survive in great condition. Read the rest of 1847 Colt Walker.
“I have an Italian repro Colt 1851 in .44, so I ask: Is that the same thing as a Walker Colt?” [central_va, post 14]
Not exactly the same: very close in design and function, differing only in size, caliber, and details of parts shape/dimension.
The names by which they are commonly known today have been bestowed by collectors and historians; Sam Colt never used “Walker” or “1851 Navy” in marketing. He didn’t really market the great big 44 - most went straight into military service. “Colt’s Dragoon Revolver” (distinct from the later Dragoons) was all it was called, and that only fitfully. The 1851 Navy was “Belt Model of Navy Caliber.”
If it is indeed a 44, your revolver isn’t an exact replica of anything. Colt’s never made original “Navies” in anything except 36 caliber. It was the most-produced arm among Colt’s percussion revolvers, and enjoyed the longest production run: over 215,000 from 1850 into 1873.
Not all historians agree on the origin of association of cal 44 with the Army, and 36 cal with the Navy, but it was the custom, even among other gunmakers.
Regret to report the transcription contained errors. Not sure who made them first.
Samuel H Walker was killed in action in October 1847, not in 1848.
The 357 Magnum revolver cartridge came out in 1935 or so, not the 1950s.
Until then, the Walker revolver was the revolver producing the highest velocity. All earlier factory-loaded handgun cartridges produced lower velocities than either the Walker or the 357. But the Walker did not produce the most kinetic energy: its round lead ball was fired at some 1050 ft/sec, but the ball weighed only 138 grains so it developed only 337 foot-pounds of energy. The Walker did hold the record for velocity in handguns until Mauser introduced its C-96 “Broomhandle” auto pistol, with an uploaded version of Hugo Borchardt’s 7.63mm cartridge.
No US handgun produced a higher velocity until Colt’s itself brought out the 38 Super Auto in 1929.
Conical (pointed) bullets were never the preferred load for Walkers nor other Colt percussion guns; where ASJ dug up all the material on troopers loading conical bullets backwards, I’ve no idea. In his book Sixguns, first published in 1955, Elmer Keith recorded what a number of ACW veterans told him in person: that the round ball was preferred in the 1851 Navy, because it was a more effective man-stopper.
Walker Colts may have been marked “ADDRESS SAML COLT NEW_YORK CITY” but they weren’t made there: they were made at the Whitney factories in New Haven, CT.
Colt’s 1851 Navy, Baby Dragoon, 1849 Pocket, and the First, Second, and Third Dragoons were pretty much the same except for size and caliber, and were minor evolutions from the huge Walker. They came to market in 1848 through 1850, despite the different numbers.
Colt’s did not introduce truly different models until the Sidehammer of 1855, and the 1860 Army, which did indeed appear in 1860.
“...[1851 Navy] was the most-produced arm among Colt’s percussion revolvers, and enjoyed the longest production run: over 215,000 from 1850 into 1873.” [my post 21]
My apologies.
I was in error: the Pocket Model of 1849 was made in larger numbers than any other Colt’s percussion revolver: 325,000 from 1850 through 1873 at the Hartford factory, and 11,000 more at the London factory.
“The real trick was ejecting the percussion cap while cycling the next round...” [ImJustAnotherOkie, post 7]
“If you have ever seen any old cowboy movies from the 1930’s and 1940’s, you will see people pointing their revolvers straight up in the air when they cock them. This is because they were taught by real old-timers, who knew that if you did this, the fired caps would fall out, and not back into the gun.
I have fired my percussion revolvers in Cowboy Action shoots enough to know this works!’ [G-Bear, post 18]
Anyone who has fired more than a shot or two from a percussion revolver finds out that percussion caps are a squirrely proposition.
They fall off before firing (or get blown off when another round ignites OK), they split, the fragment, they occasionally freeze in place on the nipple and cannot be removed except by filing or grinding. Sometimes they jam on tight but refuse to fire: a real head-scratcher wen it comes to safe handling and de-loading.
The cock-while-muzzle-up technique is often recommended, but I’ve seen it fail, or make things worse - cap fragments come loose and fall inside the mechanism, tying everything up. Not a safe situation, if there are any rounds still unfired.
No technique to avoid cap-jamming is foolproof; one other I have seen work is to hold the revolver right-side-down while recocking. Thus oriented, any fragments trapped under the hammer will fall out the right side as the cylinder advances. At least, they fall out most of the time.
Sam Colt’s initial design had a cylinder with square shoulders at the rear. It’s said that early on he found that fired caps jammed the mechanism repeatedly. Thus, just about the first alteration to the design was the rounding-off of the rear shoulder - gave cap fragments fewer tight spaces to hang up in. Other modifications adopted still later included a trough machined into the recoil shield, on the right side, just behind where the nipples pass when the cylinder rotates. Another way to provide extra space, for split, ballooned, or fragmented caps to move through, after being fired.
(the direction of side-holding, and the description of the channel in the recoil shield, apply to right-hand (clockwise) rotation only. Revolvers that rotate cylinders to the left must be held the other way. Not that I’ve seen many.)
I cannot recall seeing any western films predating 1960, where any actor used any handgun except a Colt Single Action Army, and a few S&W (or H&R, or Iver Johnson) break-tops. Filmmakers and TV producers cared less about historical accuracy then. Can’t speak to what G-Bear has seen on film; I do know I’ve not seen every western ever made.
Yep, Eli Whitney made them for Colt, then passed the machinery on to Colt on completion of the contract. Colt could not make them as he had no machinery , being insolvent at the outset. I think Whitney made a few Walkers after the 1100 were delivered per Colt’s contract - it’s not clear whether those were “authorized” production.
“Even relic Walker Colts (those dug up in a field etc) are worth many many thousands...” [Vaquero, post 2]
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/04/24/rock-island-april-2018-premiere-firearms-auction-sets-10-world-records/
Last April, an original Walker Colt sold at auction for $1,840,000.00. Highest price for any firearm, highest price for any Colt.
Extra-rare: highest-condition Walker (one gathers), civilian, cased set, rock-solid provenance. Includes original bill of sale handwritten by Sam Colt himself.
3D-printed inert replica, made of plastic. Supposedly identical, except for the non-gun material and colors. A bit less pricey.
“Mercifully, revolver technology moved on pretty quickly. The power, size, and solidity of the Colt Walker did set a standard that Colt’s long-barreled Single Action Army (a/k/a Peacemaker) in .45 caliber well satisfied.” [Rockingham, post 8]
Colt’s percussion revolvers were all somewhat delicate and prone to shooting loose: they weren’t a solid-frame design, but instead a group of four major assemblies - barrel, cylinder axis, cylinder, frame - held together by a wedge through a slot in the front of the cylinder axis, which threaded into the frame’s recoil shield. Simpler to make, easier to maintain, but not that strong.
Remington percussion revolvers (mid 1850s) had a solid frame and were much stronger.
Colt’s Single Action was actually a smaller, sleeker handgun: their first solid-framer in a major caliber. Considerably stronger and more durable, but a bit delicate (using the same lockwork Sam Colt invented back before 1836). It dominated western movies & TV more than it did it did the Wild West; mad in fairly large numbers (357,000) over a 70-year production run. Chief advantage was smaller size and quicker handling, chambered for powerful cartridges (45 Colt, 44-40, 38-40). Grip size & shape were taken from the 1861 Navy, one of the very last sidearms Sam Colt had a personal hand in designing.
There were numerous other revolver makers in the same period: Smith & Wesson, Whitney, Ethan Allen, Remington, Marlin, Manhattan, Sharps, Stevens, H&R, Iver Johnson, Hopkins & Allen, Merwin Hulbert are just a few. Many nameless makers who never marked their products. A great many made single-shot pistols. And there were seemingly a thousand and one cartridge conversions of percussion revolvers, some sold by the original makers themselves, especially Colt’s and Remington.
Films & TV have given us a false picture of uniformity.
Mattie Ross: True Grit.
I agree that percussion caps can be a problem, on any firearm, not just revolvers.
However, a few tips:
As I was telling someone else on here, take your nipples out and polish them. This will allow the spent caps to come off easier.
Also, if you are using Remington or CCI caps, they are a part of the problem. Get some RWS (Dynamit Nobel) caps, with the pleated skirt. These will go on, and come off, much easier.
The Italian company that made the 1851 CSA Navy revolver repro came offered it in two calibers, .44 and .36. I chose the .44. So it( the .44) is a repro of a non existent revolver that was not ever produced?
“...1851 CSA Navy revolver repro came offered it in two calibers, .44 and .36...” [central_va, post 31]
Does your revolver have a rebated cylinder and an octagonal barrel? Six chambers? Which Italian firm made it?
Flayderman lists eight manufacturers of 1851 Navy-style revolvers for the Confederate States of America. None were named “CSA.” Many modern gunmakers have produced arms that aren’t historically precise replicas of any particular original arm.
Back in the 1850s, the terms “Army” and “Navy” were associated with caliber 44 and 36, almost exclusively. Never learned exactly why.
Colt’s did produce one model with a rebated cylinder and an octagonal barrel: the Pocket Model of Navy Caliber, also known as the M1862 Pocket Navy. It was 36 caliber, with a five shot cylinder, using the M1849 Pocket frame, slightly altered.
It has an octagonal barrel and navy scrimshaw on the 6 round cylinder. I can't remember the name of the company that made it. It is definitely .44 cal.
“... take your nipples out and polish them. This will allow the spent caps to come off easier...” [G-Bear, post 30]
Nipple (cone) sizes and cap sizes vary quite a bit. Nipples that supposedly require a particular cap number sometimes won’t work with that cap number (they can be too loose or too tight); other times, caps of a given number from one cap-maker will work, while those of the same number from a different cap-maker will not.
Some authorities recommend polishing the cone, as you have suggested; still other counsel machining or filing, to get oversize cones down to a usable diameter. It’s probably less bother to try different cap numbers, or caps from a different maker, before going so far.
Pinching a larger cap to fit more tightly on an undersize nipple is a common technique.
I’d be reluctant to polish nipple cones, especially on a revolver. The smoother they are, the greater the likelihood that the firing of one cap may blow unfired caps right off the cones of nearby chambers. More than an annoyance: flame and sparks could enter the unfired chamber and set off the charge. Grease or sealing wads are recommended for the fronts of loaded chambers, but little attention has been paid to the rear end. One can drip melted candle wax into the cap recess of an already-capped chamber. But there is a risk that the cap’s charge will be contaminated and rendered inert.
Haven’t had the privilege of seeing RWS caps. Skirting to counteract an inexact fit on nipple cones is a good idea. At least, as long as one can afford any.
The Tap-O-Cap is a less costly alternative. I understand it’s now out of production, but one might find some on the used equipment market. Dixie Gun Works used to sell it: a punch and die set that forms pleated-skirt caps from the wall of an aluminum beverage can. You punch out caps from half-inch strips of aluminum, then punch out the charge spots from rolls of paper caps for toy guns. Using a small dowel with a wetted tip, or the end of a Q-tip from which the cotton fuzz has been removed, you pick up a charge spot and press-fit it into the underside of the cap. The pleats allow perfect fit and easy application onto a variety of nipple cones; two or three charge spots (or more) can be inserted, for best results. Caps thus assembled aren’t moisture-proof, unlike commercial caps. The charge spots usually stay where you put them, inside the cap.
Without a doubt, a very fussy and time-consuming task, but the cost of materials is very low.
I read that that was why you see guys flipping up they barrel as the cock the hammer so the spent cap falls (hopefully), by gravity, to the ground.
“It has an octagonal barrel and navy scrimshaw on the 6 round cylinder. I can’t remember the name of the company that made it. It is definitely .44 cal.” [central_va, post 33]
Bronze frame, or steel?
I don’t know enough about Colt’s original cylinder engravings to determine which scene went with which model.
And I’ve no information at all, concerning what engravings have been applied to modern-made replicas: an entirely separate field of collecting, now that they have been on the market for 60-odd years and many have been discontinued.
The 44 cal alone establishes yours as being something other than an exact replica of an original 1851 Navy.
It’s a pretty narrow channel in the frame where the hammer contacts the cap. They fall right out right past the hammer when it’s pulled back.
Ever had a toy cap gun with the plastic caps? The caps are the same thing but don’t fall out.
Its brass frame. Since it is a heavy gun the kick is not bad at all. Very nice to shoot actually.
“Its brass frame. Since it is a heavy gun the kick is not bad at all. Very nice to shoot actually.” [central_va, post 38]
“...In True Grit, for example, John Wayne called Kim Darby’s Colt Dragoon a ‘horse pistol’ as it was known at the time and warned that she would find it hard to handle the recoil from such a large gun...” [Rockingham, post 29]
The most solid point of identification at all.
Colt’s never made the 1851 Navy with a bronze frame, often identified colloquially as brass.
In fact, they did not make any percussion revolvers with a bronze frame. The first arm they did make that had a bronze frame was their House Model “Cloverleaf”, with a four shot cylinder in 41 rimfire (1871-76).
Their next bronze-frame gun was their Third Model Deringer, aka “Thuer”, a swivel-barrel single-shot spur trigger arm in 41 rimfire, made from 1875 to 1910.
The Confederate States of America did make some brass/bronze frame revolvers: T W Cofer, Griswold & Gunnison, Schneider & Glassick, Spiller & Burr. The first three were copies of Colt’s 1851 Navy, more or less; the last was a copy of the Whitney Navy Model.
Bronze (or brass as you like) is more dense than iron or steel, so a given revolver with a brass frame will weigh more than an identical model with a steel frame. Reduces recoil yet more.
Brass is, however, softer than steel. Replica revolvers with brass frames are known for shooting loose in a short time. Dixie Gun Works used to market a number of them and always warned consumers that the gun was not guaranteed in those circumstances.
The screenwriters for True Grit (original) who put those words into the mouth of John Wayne outsmarted themselves. In reality, no cap-and-ball handgun recoils very much. They are simply too heavy compared to the mass of the ball and expelled powder gases/smoke. Especially true of the Walker and the very slightly lighter Dragoons.
“Big gun means heavy recoil” is a common misconception among the uninitiated.
But what I think I have is a replica of a Confederate made 1851 with a fictitious bore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.