[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Colt Walker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations Needed

[edit]

Several posts in this article are in need of citation and are likely not factually accurate. I will notate them. Roundeyesamurai 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding in additional information regarding the factual errors in this discussion page. I am not editing the front page, because I believe it to be important that people see that an attempt is being made to police the overwhelmingly great number of factually inaccurate firearms pages on Wikipedia.

In order of notation:

1) The Walker Colt was not the largest blackpowder handgun ever produced. It was (read this sentence carefully) the heaviest factory-production blackpowder revolver produced. It also (again, read carefully) utilized the largest charge of blackpowder of any factory-production blackpowder revolver produced.

2) Walker was not a Ranger at the time. He was a former Ranger (rank of Private), who had enlisted in the 1st U.S. Mounted Rifles ("Dragoons"), and subsequently recieved an officer's commission. Hence, he was a U.S. Army officer at the time the revolver was created.

3) It is nigh on impossible to prove Walker's intention for the revolver, without source material attributable to him. Although its true that this revolver served well in this capacity, it cannot be established that Walker specifically had this purpose in mind without the aforementioned source material.

4) The chambers had enough space for 60 grains, but Colt recommended a 50-grain charge. This charge was also contingent on two factors: 1) the coarseness or fineness of the powder, 2) the projectile used (see below).

5) This is a blanket statement about scores of models of blackpowder revolvers, in a multitude of different loadings, with a multitude of different specifications.

6) The Walker was originally designed with a round ball in mind; however, when the Minie ball was introduced shortly thereafter, most Walker shooters adopted them. When Minie balls were used, the charge of powder had to be significantly reduced.

7) Walker died shortly after recieving his revolvers from Colt (a matter of weeks). He had not enough time to "use them to great effect".

8) Subjective narrative. The exact circumstances of Walker's death are not known. For all we know, he may never have fired his revolvers at all.

9) Slightly more than a thousand were produced, not "1100".

10) - 13) Sources?

Roundeyesamurai 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the 60 grain powder charge. You get 60 grains of black powder in the cylinder when you deduct the bullet. 50 grain you can do with the round ball. You can use 50 grains for the conical bullet, when you hammer the charging lever down. Something one should not recommend. 45 grain seems to be the maximum normal load, when you want the heavy conical bullet. 50 grain below the round ball, is a misuse of black powder, as hardly all of it is burned when the bullet leaves the barrel. Jochum (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More Of Above

[edit]

There has been great progress with the article, but there are still unsourced/inappropriate statements:

1) Walker was an officer in the First U.S. Mounted Rifles at the time, not the Rangers. 2) In order to support this statement, one would need a reference to his battle record. 3) Source this. 4) This isn't applicable, since Walker revolvers were not cartridge loaders.

BTW- AF985, you cannot remove citation tage simply because of appearance.

Roundeyesamurai 06:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that Samuel H. Walker, of the US Mounted Rifles, was sent by General Winfield Scott to urge Samuel Colt to reopen his Paterson NJ firearms factory, which had closed by reason of bankruptcy. The two collaborated in a new firearms design and Colt was able to re-open his firearms operations using Eli Whitney’s manufactory at Whitneyville CT because of the order for 1,000 Colt’s revolving pistols and accessories. George Chabot

Good addition, George. I made a small modification to it- USMR were called "Dragoons" frequently, but Dragoons were in fact another type of unit altogether. Roundeyesamurai 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sidebar information about manufacturing dates/dates of service are generic for non cartridge revolvers and accurate to that extent. Nevertheless, they should be changed to more specifically represent this specific revolver. The holster pistols called Walker or Whitneyville Walker were produced only during 1847 and were replaced by revolvers now popularly called "Colt Dragoons." Appropriate citation would be Colt, An American Legend by Robert L. Wilson.) The original contract called for 1,000 revolvers to be issued in pairs for carry in saddle scabards-replacements for the earlier single shot Aston Martin pistols. Each pair would share a single flask, bullet mould and combination tool. Modified orders came through that the horse soldiers would receive only one revolver. This left half of them in storage in the Baton Rouge armory awaiting additional accoutrements. (citation would be the Whitneyville walker book on the front page) The original walkers did actually number 1100 or thereabout. Colt had Eli Whitney Jr make 100 additional for promotions and private sales.

There is a persistent tendency to extend the manufacture dates of this revolver beyond 1847. Most recently until 1849. The original walker numbered 1,000 under military contract plus 100 additional non-contract units. The very NEXT production of the large USMR revolvers were modified significantly enough that they were and are known by different names. No pure-form Walkers were made after 1847 By 1849, the Dragoon revolvers with the front lever latch and shortened cylinder were in their second generation and entering the Third Model Dragoon phase. I have made some changes to the article. The basic factual information comes from the referenced whittington book with much the same information appearing in RL Wilson and many other sources. They in tern, are generally quoting or paraphrasing John Ford. J. E. Johnsons 1848 report is very interesting. I found it on the web at one time but can't seem to locate it any more. I will try to figure out how to foot note to link to referenced material (found and cited).--Mcumpston (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Mcumpston (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Power section

[edit]

I believe the following language, added May 20, 2008, is redundant and detracts from the overall quality of the article-discussion? "Through the years the colt walker has found it worth in power and velocity, after the 44 Magnum had been developed the Colt walker has declared not the most powerful magnum. As for the colt walker hobbyist have found the colt walker as a great collector item for black powder hobbyest, and is a high level to shoot and clean." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion? I went ahead and removed the above.--Mcumpston (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Mcumpston (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

I believe I have identified the last non-copyvio version; with the copyright mateial added in these edits by Mcumpston. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question: where was the copyrighted material taken from? One problem we run into sometimes is that Wikipedia has an article on a firearm, then someone copies the article verbatim for their website, making it hard to tell who copied who.--LWF (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say this about the alleged copywright violation. The apparently violated passage linked to this page is a UK based-commercial blurb of a book

WHICH I WROTE AND TO WHICH I HOLD THE COPYWRIGHT. This is obviously and transparently sourced in the reference section of this article--Mcumpston (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that's so, then that content has to be licensed under GFDL in the appropriate place. I saw something similar recently where information from a website was placed on Wikipedia and deleted as a copyvio, and was handled by the owner licensing the content under GFDL on the webpage.--LWF (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Apparently the appropriate fix is, as Candidate Obama might say, " Above my pay group." All I did was quote from a published work which happened to be authored by me and published through a publisher, as it were. Any provinence above and beyond this is beyond my capabilities and interest. Maybe it would be better to delete the entire article including the pictures which were also produced by me. It is kind of a shame in that the article violates no "intellectual property" rights and is a thorough discussion of the Walker Colt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) --Mcumpston (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I have reversed edits by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing and and returned this article to its original state--Mcumpston (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the release material opens the copyright material for commercial use. I am not willing to do this. I am withdrawing objections to termination of the article along with the copyright releases on the images. I am no longer participating in Wikipedia--Mcumpston (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, you're not the first to have this problem and you'll not be the last. Most people do not, in my experience, release external material under GFDL, as it means surrendering all rights. Sorry this was not handled optimally. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting note:The images with this article also appear in the book that Pigsonthewing successfully though spuriously identified as a copyright violation. Leaving them in the article may very well lead to another report of copyright violation. I attempted to withdraw the licensing of the images but Pigsonthewing reversed the edit--Mcumpston (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The site admins are looking at this now, I suggest you leave Andy alone and let the dispute die a natural death. Do feel free to add surces to this article, though, as it could certainyl use them. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

most powereful before the .357 mag? absolutely not!

[edit]

There's no citation for this claim, which isn't suprising since it isn't true. The .577 pistol cartridge is rated at 525 on the kynoch charts(factory load: this was used in various pistols), and the bulldog pistol also fired a more powerful round. There are probably others as well, these are some examples I just happened to remember. Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 44 Bulldog was definitely a less powerful cartridge, pushing 168 gr at 460 ft/s producing only 80 ft·lbf in factory loads. This isn't anywhere near the same in revolvers chambered for it. Also, the claim for the Walker includes "repeating". Many single shot black powder pistols were more powerful; even a howdah pistol often exceeded the Walker, but with only one or at most two shots from one or two barrels, respectively. I have seen published claims confirming this statement; I will look at finding a reference. It won't be hard. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the claim "however its muzzle energy is less than the Winchester 44-40, and the .577 pistol cartridges, both used in late 19th century revolvers.", as this is not cited and is therefore simply POV commentary. The existing cited statement, with its quote, governs what should be here, unless there are cited references stating something else. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating does not save the most powerful claim of the Walker. The Lancaster double and quadruple handguns in 577 were both repeating and more powerful. So it should be retracted to revolver. But even that may not be true. The point is how big a powder charge the Walker takes in reality. I assume that modern replicas do get the dimensions right. Than we should talk about 50 grain max with the round ball and 45 grain max with the heavier conical bullet, without abusing the loading lever. Perhaps the Gasser 11.3 x 36 R should get that title, as the most powerful black powder revolver in the 19th century. That round was also used in cavalry carbines. Some people talk about references here. Where is the reference, that the Colt Walker takes a 60 grain black powder charge?Jochum (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walker/Colt's Company

[edit]

The patent Arms (Paterson) failed lete in 1842. the Colts Patent Arms Co. was founded after the 1100 Walkers were finished. -- hmaag (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colt Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World War 2

[edit]

I have not found a single source that the Colt Walker was used in World War 2. Where did this come from? And why is it listed in the Wars tab, does anyone have a source to show it was used in the Second World War? JedOfTheJedidiahLands (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Powder charge

[edit]

As far as I know, 60 grains of black powder is rather unrealistic as a charge. It seems that some manage to compress 50 grains with the conical bullet with hammering and bending the charging handle. 40 to 45 grain seems to be a realistic number. Jochum (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capt Walker Did Not Carry These During the Mexican War

[edit]

The first lot of these weren't accepted by the US Army until July 7, 1847. Those weren't issued by the Army until October 1847. Colt had a presentation pair made specifically for Walker that arrived at his camp at Vera Cruz the day before he was killed in action. There is no evidence that Walker even knew about the delivery, much less opened it. Samuel Colt purchased these from Walker's widow for his personal collection.

Cite - "A History of the Colt Revolver and the Other Arms Made by Colt's Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company From 1836 to 1940", Charles T. Haven and Frank A. Belden, Bonanza Printing, New York, copyright 1940, Library of Congress Card Number 78-59199 184.103.14.6 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colt_Walker&oldid=1233374940"