I was watching the History Channel a while back and understood that the 1847 Colt Walker was more powerful than even the .44 Magnum (dispite what Dirty Harry Calahan said to the contrary) of today. Is that true? I will say that I got my dad a reproduction of one of those mammoth Walker pistols a few years ago and it is like shooting off a cannon. What about comparing it to the S&W .500
Which is more powerful, the Colt Walker .44, the .44 Magnum, or the .50 caliber handg
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
The only question is, were they wrong or did you misunderstand?
The Colt 1847 Walker would fire a 138 grain round ball over 55 grains of black at 1200 fps for 450 ft-lb energy; per this ref:
http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/44walker.htm
Looking up the ballistics of .44 and .500 Magnums is left as an exercise for the student.
The Colt 1847 Walker would fire a 138 grain round ball over 55 grains of black at 1200 fps for 450 ft-lb energy; per this ref:
http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/44walker.htm
Looking up the ballistics of .44 and .500 Magnums is left as an exercise for the student.
Sir William
New member
Depends. In the day, Walkers weren't often loaded with careful measuring, they were filled up by eye level, patched and a ball was inserted, loading was accomplished by a lever for all 6 chambers at once. The loaded cylinder then had grease wiped over the chambers. This was the simple speedloader of the period. These loads were often way over 55-60 gr of BP. These hot period Magnum loadings often resulted in spectacular KBs as often as not. This is why some said it was as dangerous to be standing behind a Walker Colt as to be the intended target in front.
any purpose i might have.You Did Hear Correctly The 44 Walker Claim On The History Channel.
You must also understand the Phil Schreier, a museum curator and the fellow you saw make that claim, is one of the true blowhard dunces in the firearms expertise business. He knows all but nothing about the subject, as dumb as a sack of hammers, but he happens to be the curator at a firearms museum which gives him " instant credibility. "
You must also understand the Phil Schreier, a museum curator and the fellow you saw make that claim, is one of the true blowhard dunces in the firearms expertise business. He knows all but nothing about the subject, as dumb as a sack of hammers, but he happens to be the curator at a firearms museum which gives him " instant credibility. "