walker avenging angel

My theory is "go big our go home" I have a '51 snub nose with thunderer grips in 44 from Dixie Gunworks.
Click to expand...

I usually agree... Dont even get me started on the old .45ACP vs 9mm debacle! LOL :D

But in this case, Im wondering about powder burn in the shorter barrels... Not much use going big, if half ya powder (and therefore energy\velocity) is just being tossed away downrange.

Those Dixie ones look nice!

Can I ask what load you use with it? And how much powder, if any, gets wasted? Have ya done any sort of chroni or penetration tests?

Even though I think its just cool as can be... I really cant imagine that Walker being able to utilize any thing close to a full charge...
 
Last edited:
Rod...

Yes...As I said I got somewhere north of 1100 with mine but that is with a nine inch barrel.

Take off two thirds of the barrel and I would think that MV would scrub off as well.
 
From another's cut barrel revolver I had to ask about unburned powder. Their barrel was ~3.5" long and it seemed to consume it all. It wasn't a Dragoon or Walker though (.44 cal though).

I'm not so sure it matters about the diameter as it matters about the powder charge length. Once the powder get lit from the base and moves up the powder column it burns everything at the same rate from what I understand.
 
I think the matter here is the cool factor of a Walker that short. A far as MV I would think the advantage of starting out with 60 grains of powder in a cut down walker would be more in line with a full barrel '51 or '62 at 30 grains. Keeping that in mind these avenging angel type pistols were for up close work on people. Orrin Porter Rockwell would have loved it. But he managed with his cut down '51.
 
I'm not so sure it matters about the diameter as it matters about the powder charge length. Once the powder get lit from the base and moves up the powder column it burns everything at the same rate from what I understand.
Click to expand...

Ah-ha! Thats whats I was looking for... Wasnt sure if if had to do with overall charge, length or width... I guess if this is the case, then yeah, .44 would be the way to go... 1860 it is then, if I ever get around to it... Hmm.. Or should it be a Walker? LOL :D
 
That's my theory, but I can't say I know this to be true. It sounds reasonable to me though, but my sense of logic has failed me before… Might want to see if this can be verified if it matters enough.
 
That's my theory, but I can't say I know this to be true. It sounds reasonable to me though, but my sense of logic has failed me before… Might want to see if this can be verified if it matters enough.
Click to expand...

I would very much like to see if this was the case... I suppose the only way to find out would be to test each... Of course, thats beyond my time and financial restraints at the moment, But it DOES seem to me that this would be an interesting and important enough area of overall BP shooting, that perhaps some of the experts (with the big collections) would be interested in finding out? Maybe even important enough for Mike (Dualist) to look into for his work on the magazine and youtube? Seems that powder burn\waste would be of interest to large sections of BP shooters?

Hehe.. Dont worry man... As I age it seems that my logic is making a HOBBY of failing me! :D
 
It does seem reasonable to think of it in this fashion. But of course I'd think so!
:D

But it does seem reasonable that the diameter of the charge isn't much of a factor. The powder is ignited and burns up the column, and so it's the length of the column that is the deciding factor.
 
interesting thought came up, when I was looking at those pictures...

BTW... for back ground, I rarely shoot cap & ball, though I've had a couple...

I've heard of cylinders chain firing ( I think that's the term, where powder lights from the front, or fire goes down a nipple that the cap fell off of ??? )

anyway, if, in the Archangle form, & the loading rod was removed, in effect, all the chambers could fire without damaging the gun ( in theory ??? ) since both chambers on the side clear the frame, & the loading rod should be about the same diameter as the balls... I'd hate for that to happen, but ( & I'm grasping here ) the modification could actually make the gun "safer" :rolleyes:
 
Normally, I don't like cut-down revolvers (love those long barrels), but I kinda like this one. I might do this one day, when I have a lot more disposable income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top