Shot my Colt Walker this weekend.

Rigmarol, I'm fully aware of the common refrain that, "they were meant to shoot horses" and have seen it written many times before.

Like the others I have seen, none of the sources you provide give a citation the same assertion they all make (that Walker wanted to shoot horses), which is why I asked for a citation.

I've heard lots of people claim that the reason they were called "horse pistols" is because they were used to shoot horses. This is not true. "Horse pistols" were so-called because they were intended to be carried on saddle holsters for use on horseback.

I wonder if this same misinterpretation is responsible for the thought that Walker wanted them to shoot horses, which is why I would like to see a citation that supports the claim.

Steve
 
enyaw:

Instead of typing "Anywhoooo" to indicate a new paragraph, you might consider just tapping the Enter key twice. Makes for much easier reading than a "wall of text".

:)

Steve
 
Anyhoo...

I'm happy with the info Mailmaker. So I'll be moving on.

Oh, frustrated english teachers shouldn't hang out in online forums. They get everyone confused by correcting Grammers und spelings... LOL.
 
I'm happy with the info Mailmaker. So I'll be moving on.
Click to expand...

Fine by me. Just be aware that it may not be substantiated information. As a history buff I like sources for my information rather than parroting "common knowledge".

Steve
 
^^^ Steve (Maillemaker)

I too am a student of history and enjoy "jousting" with others who are also. :cool:

The term "Horse pistol" has been around long before the Colt/Walker. Any dictionary definition you look up, will say, "A pistol carried by horsemen" or similar.

It is (or sure seems to be) a fact that Walker did indeed want a pistol to kill the enemy as well as their horses. The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Walker is a link to the encyclopedia which clearly states, "would be large enough to dispatch horses as well as enemy soldiers". Is the info in an encyclopedia not considered a "citation"?

I think all the confusion here is not within the origin of the term, it's simply that Walker put a new "spin" on it.

Sincerely,

Birch
 
Birch

As a university professor I don't allow my students to cite Wikis.

But I do tell them that with an appropriate level of skepticism, Wikis may be a good place to start.

As you read the Wiki article you can almost tell whether the info is historically accurate. I think you are right to form the opinion you did in this case.
 
Doc...

...excellent words of wisdom as usual sir!

The Colt/Walker was the first BP pistol I ever owned. Bought it many years ago. I wanted to know everything about it and researched it with due diligence.

We all know (or should) in speaking with other cap & ballers, people say all kinds of things. True or not, they are interesting stories! I was told the "Horse pistol" term originated with the Colt/Walker and later found out the term was around a long time before Walker.

The best info on this pistol I have found is at: http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940672/walkers walkers.pdf

I believe it's quite clear Walker wanted such a very large pistol for various reasons including being powerful enough to kill horses of the enemy. I also believe (as I said in my last post) this is where the confusion lies. Since the origin of the term was before the Colt/Walker, it is my belief after it's introduction, the terms definition expanded to not only a pistol carried by horsemen, but also a pistol used to kill horses.

Thoughts gentlemen?

Birch
 
It is (or sure seems to be) a fact that Walker did indeed want a pistol to kill the enemy as well as their horses. The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Walker is a link to the encyclopedia which clearly states, "would be large enough to dispatch horses as well as enemy soldiers". Is the info in an encyclopedia not considered a "citation"?
Click to expand...

As Doc said, Wiki can be a great place to start, but you need to see the citations that Wiki has, or, as in this case, does not have.

Wiki entries can be made by almost anyone. So you have to take them with a grain of salt and follow their citations.

A lot of stuff on the internet gets copied/pasted as fact that may not necessarily be so. I've seen the "would be large enough to dispatch horses as well as enemy soldiers" quoted everywhere - it's even in Uberti's video on their reproduction. But I know the term "horse pistol" is very frequently misinterpreted to mean "pistol for shooting horses" and so I am wondering if this same error has crept into the Walker design intent.

I would like to know if there are any actual citations, like original Walker/Colt correspondence, that might shed light on the modifications and reasonings behind them that Walker wanted to make over the Patterson.

The best info on this pistol I have found is at: http://www.nramuseum.org/media/94067... walkers.pdf
Click to expand...

This is a very good link. It says:

"In Parson's Sam Colt's Own Record, a near-complete journal of Colt's early correspondence, the reader can follow the development of the Walker Revolver. We see Walker suggesting design changes and begging for a sample to examine."
Click to expand...

This book is still available for only $20 or less:

http://www.amazon.com/Sam-Colts-Own-Record-1847/dp/1879356147

Note that I found a supposedly "free" PDF version of this book but it asks for your credit card information or wants you to download an "installer" (executable). Very risky I would not recommend it.

I have ordered the book and will report back what I find in it.

Steve
 
Chuckle....

My wife was listed as President of the United States on Wikipedia. It took four hours for them to find and correct the error.
 
Maillimaker,
I know what you mean. Been corrected bout that before and I try to accomodate.

I know if I want to be heard(read) I gotta make it comfortable for Hombre and Hombretes to read.

I get carried away at times wanting to say stuff I thunk may be helpful or interesting fer folks to read.

My puter doesn't work correctly and I have to go back over everything to correct text and all that.

I do have a problem with getting paragraphs in order layed out right. It's all so inter-related it gets like one big long paragragh. ha ha ha ha ha ha

I like to thunk I may be able to be helpful to folks ,old timers and newbies, to the cap&baller world. I don't know everything that's fer sure. I do know,fer me anyway, shootin cap&ballers is very satisfying especially if a few of the technics are used that make it easier and more efficient.

Bout "Horse Pistols". I get the idea that was a term used to describe bigger pistols,single shots and then revolvers like the Walker, that were carried on the saddle and not on the person. The USMR(United States Mounted Rifles) were some of the first to carry "Horse Pistols", I think. Is that why it's on the Walker pistol? I'd guess so. The USMR's using Walkers doesn't make the Walker a rifle. Shoots kinda like one though.

People get stuff mixed up when it goes from one to another on the internet just like the ole "word of mouth" spreading of info. They say the best place to find misinformation is on the internet. Word of mouth about pistols killing horses gets mixed up I think. Like the story that the cap&ballers were purposely sighted in for 100 yards because they all shot high and then it's added that was to be able to shoot horses at a 100 yards too. The SAA of 1873 was designed to shoot horses to disable them. Army Ordanance records shows that I guess.

When you mix that all up with people thinking "Horse Pistols" were made to shoot horses instead of being carried on the horses and not on the person ....well.....things can get mixed up I think. I like to see documented evidence. Walkers very well could have been made to disable horses.

You know.....like people thinking the cap&ballers were purposely sighted for 75-100 yards. If you consider the pocket pistols of Colt had little low front sights and high rear sights like all the others and carried a lesser powder charge ole Sam would have been a little off upstairs to thunk he should sight them in fer a long distance. They'd throw balls a hundred yards that would bounce off a horses hide and just sting a soldier.
I figure the sigthts were low on the Colts ,that were designed to used at close range, so they would not get knocked off easily. The Walker had the same type sights as all the subsequent designs but I thunk the Walker Pistol was designed to shoot and "do damage" at longer range then the later models.

I say.... if it's taken from records of the Army Ordanance Dept. it's correct. If info is on a document still around it's positive proof. If there's a request by Walker to Sam Colt that states the Walker Pistol was to be powerful enough to kill horses I'd believe that. I'd wonder what the big ole muskets were being carried around for and not used to shoot the horses too.
All I know is the Walker Pistol being designed was to be more powerful than the Paterson.

Anywhooooo......I'd not be surprised much if there was some good evidense that Walker had instructions to get a pistol built that could at least disable horses.
The only time I've seen the Army requesting a pistol to disable a horse was in the case of the 1873 Colt SAA during the test and trials for a completly new revolver for the Army. The criteria was the revolver had to be a new design and able to disable a horse at 100 yards.

Walker was to get a pistol on the multi shots rendition and more powerful than the Paterson revolver. A pistol not as finicky as the Paterson. The pistol Sam Houston wanted was fer the Mexican War and the Mexican Army had more soldiers walking than riding I think.

If there's any documented evidence that the order put to Sam Colt was for a pistol to kill horses then I'd believe that. I''d believe a document or copy of one that had that fact. Without that it's word of mouth relaying the info and that has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Man! Look at that up there. Looks like paragraphs.
Thanks fer the constructive critisism Maillimaker.
 
Whew, much easier to read, thanks enyaw! :)

I have ordered the book "Sam Colt's Own Record" that supposedly is the correspondence between Walker and Colt concerning the Walker development. I can't wait to see if "shooting horses" was a design requirement! :D

Steve
 
I have finished the book on the correspondence between Walker, Colt, Whitney, and a few associated others.

In this correspondence, there is virtually no discussion of the design requirements for the pistol, and no reference to being able to shoot horses.

In fact, there are only a couple comments from Walker only concerning a couple of deviations of the pistol from the contract. One concerning the acceptability of brass for the trigger guard and another unspecified modification to the loading lever. Both of these comments were after the contract had been agreed upon.

The entire tone of the correspondence gives the impression to me that Colt had already devised the fundamental Walker design before he contacted Walker. His letters to Walker give me the impression that he already had improvements on the Patterson design and Colt approached Walker looking for someone to help him pitch his new design to the government based on the success of his previous effort. Clearly Colt was trying to get back into the firearms business and saw his new design as the means to do it. There are also letters whereby Colt was trying to get himself appointed to an open position in the military. Whether as a backup plan in case his firearm business failed or whether he saw this as a way to make inroads to selling to the military or both I am not sure.

Anyway, if there are performance requirements that were recommended by Walker they are not to be found in this surviving correspondence.

There is a discussion by another officer after Walker's death that talks about the efficacy of the new Walker revolvers in combat, and it is mentioned that they are very, very good, and that the carbine they carry was not of much use, but a cavalryman armed with two Walkers would be able to deal much more firepower than with the carbine.

I have no doubt that a pair of these revolvers, with their 60 grain charges, were able to deliver long-arm power, if not accuracy, with 12 shots instead of one.

It's also interesting to note that cylinders were evidently failing during government inspection of the cylinders during the manufacture of the firearms.

Steve
 
Good stuff!!!

I appreciate you letting us know what you found out in the book!

I also find it hard to believe that such a powerful pistol was manufactured strictly for shooting people especially one designed for conicals as well as rb's. Makes no sense at all. What is... is!!!!

Thanks for the info Steve!

Birch
 
There may be more to this story. In the Spring 2013 edition of Guns of the Old West magazine they have an article about a prototype Walker that was made in 1846 by Blunt and Syms.

The Walker/Colt/Whitney correspondence would seem to have taken place after the prototype was made

So it may be that Walker's design input happened during the prototype phase.

It would be good to find out more information about the development of this prototype.

Steve
 
A good link. I think I had found that before on previous Googlings.

It is interesting to note in that link that it says that Colt had already produced the Blunt and Syms prototype before finding Walker and showing it to him. So it does not seem that Walker and Colt had collaborated on the production of the prototype. And the link also states that the prototype already had a "substantially larger caliber".

The link also mentions the comments made in the Colt/Walker correspondence. Walker's input was rather minor, concerning the sights, the loading lever, and the shape of the grip.

Steve
 
Horse pistol? Because it could kill a horse?

Not likely. It was and is commonly referred to as a horse pistol because both Walkers were carried, two at a time, on a horse. On the horse’s saddle. Not a first as flintlocks were also so carried and named. On the horse.

A rifle is referred to as a shoulder weapon. And a modern revolver is referred to as a hand weapon. Neither is limited to damage that part of the target body.

I have no doubt the massive 4.5 pound Walker was designed to kill most everything it hit.

Joe Bob may refer to his Ace hardware bolt action as his deer rifle, but it is more commonly known as a .22 LR.
 
I am eating a bit of crow...

I made the following statement earlier in this thread:
First was the Walker. A huge revolver designed specifically to take down a horse as well as a man.
Click to expand...

I have contacted the NRA with a historic question regarding the Walker being specifically designed to be able to dispatch a horse as well as it's rider. I share the reply with all while I humbly eat my crow casserole...

I have a historic question about the Colt Walker. Can it be forwarded to someone who can answer it with authority? Question: Was the Walker revolver specifically requested to be able to dispatch a rider as well as his horse? We know it CAN dispatch a horse but was it ever specified in the design request? If it was, may have a citation to quote please? Thank you.





No, there was no “direct quote” linking the dispatch of the rider and horse. Walker did want an improved caliber and did request that in his letters to Colt. The book, Sam Colt’s Own Record, 1949, CT Historical Society, had detailed accounts of the correspondence between Colt & Walker.



I hope that this has been of some assistance to you.



Philip Schreier

Senior Curator

National Firearms Museum

National Rifle Association of America

11250 Waples Mill Rd

Fairfax, VA 22030
Click to expand...
 
Fascinating discussion. I thought "horse pistol" was in reference to handguns meant to be carried in pommels slung over the saddle and not in reference to hand cannons capable of dropping a horse.
 
Rigmarol’s report

We all have at one time or another. Frankly, it makes no difference. This thread started a year ago. You have made an excellent termination.

Joe Bob still does not get it, but that is OK. It’s still his deer rifle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top