FA 97 strength

[MattC]

Has FA ever opined on the stregnth of the 97 in 45 colt?  The oft quoted limit for ruger blackhawks and OM Vaquero was 32000 psi.  Where does the FA fall?  Surely its stronger than a colt SAA but with the small cylinder not at strong as a ruger?  How fast do you suppose a RCBS 270 SAA could be pushed safely?   

[tominboise]

I can't speak to the strength issue, but having shot some mildly heavy loads in my M97 44 special, I would say that the recoil will limit you before the gun will.  The trigger guard starts to get on your middle knuckle pretty hard when the loads get stiff.  At least it does for me.

[MarkH]

Reputably published Ruger Blackhawk data should be fine for the 97-45.  Pay attention to OAL cartridge length in the manuals and proceed at your own risk.

[MattC]

Thanks for the replies.  I am contemplating a 97 purchase and haven't decieded on a caliber.  I have a ruger bisley in 45 colt I use for deer hunting, but if I fall in love with my 97 I'll probably want to hunt with it, and the 45 is probably the most reasonable of the 97 hunting chamberings. And I wouldn't have to acquire a new mold.  Anyone have a 357? 

[paul105]

As MarkH said, the cyl on the 97 is fairly short.  If you plan on using the RCBS 270 SAA, you'll either have to crimp over the front drive band, or trim your cases short.  My 97 cyl will take a load with a 1.610 OAL, which is where the bullet is even with cyl face (I try to keep OAL to 1.600 in case of bullet jump).   You may see cyl measurements given for the 97 that seem to allow for longer OALs, but remember that 97 cyl is recessed for cartridge rims.

I talked with John at Freedom Arms when I was having some work done and asked about strentgh of M97 in .45C.  He basiscally said they are stout -- you could use fairly heavy loads listed for the lighter bullet weights (OAL 1.600), however, he said you should stay away from the heavier (longer) bullet loads -- that is why they made the cyl as short as it is.

As mentioned above, recoil will probably become the limiting factor with the lighter weight of the 97.

Give FA a call, they are friendly, and willing to answer questions --- at least, that has been my experience.

Paul 

[Lee Robinson]

After talking with Freedom Arms about this and SEVERAL different "techs" as well as Mr. Baker, I have been informed that as long as I stay below 30,000 CUP I should be ok...but then in further discussion (although we didn't CUP test the load) we came up with a few loads that should be in the low 20,000 CUP (22,000 or so) that I am going to give a run through my 45 Colt Model 97. I have a 5 1/2" barrel, a fluted cylinder, and an inverted crown on my gun, but none of these things should alter any of the strength characteristics of the gun because the "weak link" would be the outer wall between the chamber of the cylinder (IMO, but talk to FA to confirm).

I am new to reloading, but I have studied loads, pressures, case capacities, powders, and primers very extensively lately...and being a person with technical lab experience (I used to be in charge of a lab for several years that dealt with VERY VERY minute measurements of radioactive materials and steroids when in grad school). My point, I am confident I will stay well below pressure requirements with my starting loads. Anyway, I am using a 270 grain LEAD bullet in my planned loads, but like it has been mentioned I would end up with an overall length too long for the Freedom Arms cylinder. Considering my bullet of choice is an all lead "Keith style" type (not the RCBS 45-270, but similiar with the keith design and flat base)...I used this in helping me determine a load for a 270 all lead bullet. Like it was mentioned earlier...you will have to either seat the bullet deeper or trim your brass. Also, like mentioned earlier I didn't want to seat a bullet over the driving band because this would IMO simply not be necessary and would have an adverse effect in pressure (raising it too high for my liking although I am confident this could be done below pressure specs if done properly and with the right powders).  I just simply didn't want to go that deep into my brass because it would lower the case capacity significantly. Now, there was still room in my brass for my desired grains of 4227 or my desired grains of H110...but again, I just didn't want to seat that deep (if memory serves me correctly it was 130 micrometers deeper than specs to do that). I found I could crimp in the crimp groove if I trimmed my brass to 1.250 (taking off about 30 thousands from specs). Well, giving up (trimming) 30 microns IMO is much safer than giving up 130 (seating deeper over the driving band)...and with the "heavy-class" powder loads being loaded on the "lighter side" ignition should be reliable (especially in a reduced capacity case), but with pressures I estimate would only be about 22,000 CUP. I am NOT interested in breaking any pressure limits or speed records for a 270 grain bullet, but just want a good hunting load to carry in this lighter 45 caliber gun, so I will be trying these loads soon, but starting first with 4227 which has more reliable ignition than H110. I have a chronograph and I am hoping these loads will push the 270 grain bullet around 1100 fps. I will print my results when I complete these measurements. I do not wish to print the load volumes I am going to run until after I have gave them a try...but I have talked about my desires with Mr. Baker and other FA "techs" and they all think everything looks WELL within range or a reasonable load. If you don't mind waiting a couple weeks I will have more info for you.

I don't know if load data contents are permitted on this board or not, so I didn't post my actual load volumes even though my desired volumes are estimated to be well within pressure ranges and load is "OK"ed by FA with trimmed case (but it is not published with this alteration and exact bullet specs). If it is not appropriate to publish this data on this forum, by all means feel free to remove this post. HOWEVER, The data is right at or JUST BELOW the starting published load data for this set up...but I am starting here BARELY under the recommended starting loads because of the trimmed brass/reduced capacity which improves ignition and raises pressures.

[paul105]

Lee Robinson,

How about a pic of the fluted cylinder?

TIA,

Paul

[paul105]

Interesting article by M.L. McPherson  -- Info on deep seating.

http://levergun.com/articles/thoughts.htm

Paul

[Lee Robinson]

Paul, I will take a picture of my gun for you if you like...no problem. But until I do, here is a link that shows what the fluted cylinder looks like. It is in this download of their catalog. http://freedomarms.com/FA-2005catalog.pdf

[paul105]

Lee,

Thanks, somehow I missed that on the FA Site.  No need for pic, unless you want to.

Paul

[paul105]

Here's a good article on the FA 97 .45 Colt by John Taffin:

http://www.sixguns.com/range/Fa45.htm

If the measurements shown in the table about 1/4 thru the article are correct (and I have now reason to believe they aren't) the weakest point on the Ruger Cul is the "Thickness Between Chambers" at .0585" and the weakest point on the the FA 97 is the "Cylinder Wall Thickness" at .058".  Looks to me like there isn't any discernable difference in Cyl strength.  I also don't know what dimension is the most critical when it comes to cyl strength.  The bolt notches on the ruger are over the chambers which would make the apparent "Cyl Wall Thickness" less of an advatage to the Ruger.  With all that said, Taffin says:

"The .45 Mid-Frame sixgun is slightly smaller than a Colt Single Action, quite a bit smaller where it counts than the Ruger OM .45 Colt and Freedom Arms .454 Casull. It is a standard sized sixgun for standard loads. The .45 Colt Mid-Frame Freedom Arms revolver with its five-shot cylinder allows more metal between chambers, almost 90% more than a Colt Single Action and, unlike the Colt with its near paper thin walls, the Freedom Arms Model 97 has the cylinder bolt slots between the chambers rather than underneath them exactly as on the Large-Framed Freedom Arms revolvers. To my sixgunning experience this says the Freedom Arms Model 97 .45 Colt Mid-Frame is stronger than a Colt Single Action or New Frontier but, nowhere near, certainly not in the bank vault strength area of the original Freedom Arms M83 .454 Casull.

Its five-shot cylinder, may, only may mind you, make the Model 97 as strong as the Ruger .45 Blackhawk, however, I have no intention of using the heavy .45 Colt loads tailored for the Ruger in the Freedom Arms Model 83. My max loads for the .45 Blackhawk are 300 grain hard cast bullets at 1100-1200 fps; for the Model 97 I will stay with 255 grain bullets at around 1,050 fps. Nothing scientific, just fly-by-the- seat-of-my-pants experience. None of my 300 grain loads will fit the short cylinder, 93% as long as the Ruger, of the Model 97. When bullets are seated properly they protrude through the front face of the cylinder preventing cylinder rotation."


Obviously, the folks at Freedom Arms have the best info and should be the last word

Paul

[De41mag]

Just to say about the strength of the Mod. 97;

In my 44 special, I'm pushing a 180gr.XTP at 1250fps and a Speer 200gr. Gold Dot at 1200fps.
As someone else said, your hand will give out before the gun will.
I've even heard some guys pushing 240 grainers at 1300fps. I couldn't handle that!
These guns are probably as stout as any gun made out there. And i sure like mine.

Dennis 

[STJ]

In my 44sp 4.25bbl FA97 I shoot 300gr LBTS at 1175FPS...The recoil is the limiting factor...not the gun

The 44sp is way more usefull than the 45colt in the 97 IMO.  A lot more bullet choices.

Now if FA had a 45 schofield camber....

[Graybeard]

Bob Baker was at the hunt I attended this past weekend and I mentioned this thread to him and asked him to stop in and comment when he can. He is getting ready for both the SCI and SHOT shows so it might take him a little while but I'm pretty sure he will comment on this when he finds the time to get logged in here again.

[Lee Robinson]

On that note...Bob Baker did mention to me that the model 97 should NOT be loaded to 44 mag pressures.

Paul, thanks for the read by Taffin. Interesting to say the least.

[Boxhead]

I load the RCBS 270 gr SAA (Skovill's design) to 1270 fps in my M97 45 with slightly shortened brass to make it work. I'd be hard pressed to find a more capable caliber/load for the M97.

[Lee Robinson]

Boxhead,

Would you email me at chimerakennels@msn.com

I have some questions about that RCBS 45-270 SAA die. I am curious if it is the same as the keith design. Does it have a flat base?

[Bob Baker]

The Model 97 was designed to be a general duty firearm which means it wasn't designed to be a horsepower gun like the Model 83.  The loading data in the popular loading manuals for the Rugers and TC's will work fine in the M97 as long as only the 1.600 OAL loads are used.  As always, start low and work up.

[Lee Robinson]

Bob,

Lee here from the phone conversation a week or so ago. I am the fellow that worked in the lab at one time with radioactive materials meaured in minute amounts and such as we discussed. Maybe you remember? Anyway, I loaded up a few of those rounds we discussed, and I will say I couldn't be happier right now. I will run a few more though before I get too excited about it...but, this is the group I got...3 rounds, 1 hole...free standing at 15 paces. This is a 270 grain Keith type lead bullet that I estimate to be going around 1050 to 1100 fps or close (I expect close to 1100) to it and probably around 22,000 CUP...but I don't know the exact speed or CUP to be exact. These numbers are based upon calculations. I will chronograph a few of these rounds in the next day or so.

[Lee Robinson]

The load I am testing with H110 shot close to expected coming in averaging 1150-1160 fps.

DISCLAIMER...Remember, as you change any loading data, pressure changes result. Studies/measures have shown that not only do powdertype, load volumes, and bullet weight change pressure, but so does bullet type, primer type, case length, crimp type, etc...so for those that don't know...leave this to those that do. Also...it is well known that H110, although an excellent powder, is sensitive to misfire should one go too light with it leaving too much empty case capacity. And of course one doesn't want to go too heavy either. Even though 21 grains is reported in load data as a load for bullets considerably heavier, that is done with full length brass. And after discussing my desires with both Freedom Arms and John Linebaugh, we felt that in a reduced case (trimmed to get the desired 1.600" OAL) removing 0.030" of empty capacity and improving reliable ignition of this powder. So, I trimmed my brass to 1.250", loaded 21 grains of H110, seated and crimped my bullets with 45 Colt dies made by Dillon, and ended up with an OAL that fit in my Model 97 Freedom Arms 45 Colt. So far, things still look very promising with chrono speeds averaging around 1150-1160 fps. I figure this is running closer to 25,000 CUP. I am happy with measures and with the grouping I am getting from this load and I will test it more for accuracy this weekend.

Because there is more "leadway/forgiveness" on reliable ignition with 4227, I went down to only 19 grains of 4227 powder in my trimmed brass and I will work my way up. Most load data for the 45 Colt with 4227 shows load data 19.5-22 (even 23.5) grains but those reports are with full length 1.280" brass. Remembering, as brass is shortened pressure goes up, so I started lighter to side on safety and only loaded 19 grains. My starting load for 4227 came in slow averaging 960 fps. I figure this to be running around 20,000 to 22,000 CUP.  As we can see by the chrono (although not a direct pressure test), pressure didn't go up too extreme. It would appear that I have room to work with this load up slightly should I choose to do so. Over the weekend, I will proceed to build this load up SLOWLY (and I will TEST everything with a chrono as a measure as I go) but I will NOT push the upper reported load data limits due to my brass length being reduced. I will always make sure I do NOT compress my powder by measuring empty case capacity prior to seating the bullet as I proceed...(I have no intent at this time to go over 21 grains of 4227 even if things look good). Again...Please recall, this is NOT "typical" 45 data since my brass is trimmed...so even though "calculations" are made, I am proceeding cautously, patiently, and with extreme measure...and checking these loads by looking for signs of pressure, confirming expectations with chronographed measurements, and evaluating the ACCURACY of each load.

Consider this post to be nothing more than it is...a reporting of me working out my loads. It should not be considered as a "strength test" for the Model 97 because to be honest I am not interested in pushing the limits. I just want a good load to hunt white tail or hogs with in this lighter gun.

[Lee Robinson]

After resizing brass, it was coming out to be 1.257" or so instead of remaining 1.25"...so brass trimming was changed to 1.245...and after resizing in my 45 Colt die by Dillon I was getting 1.250" in my brass. Seating the 270 grain keith bullet in the crimp groove gave me the final OAL of 1.600"

With 21 grains of H110 everything looked good (as far as I can tell) at 1150-160 fps.

H110 - With 21.5 grains of H110 things looked good at 1180 fps. I also tried 22, 22.5, and 23 grains. I feel 22 grains is the upper limit, as even though things looked good there at 1200 fps...when I tried 22.5 I didn't notice any thing to be concerned about at 1225 fps...but when I used 23 grains at 1250 fps primers were starting to flatten out (I saw no other signs of pressure but still...I DON'T WANT TO...and I am not interested in going any further than this)...so, I feel that would be the upper limit of this gun for me (which is plenty of power for the game in my area...and I appreciate getting this ability in such a small gun). This is my opinion and again these estimations are based not upon direct reloading data due to the trimmed brass...but based only off of comparison to other very similiar data with pressure reports and speed reports...and then "varifying" relativity to my tested loads with chronographed measurements. This post isn't intended to be anything more that a report of my findings with the few rounds I shot of each load (20 loads with 21 grains, 4 loads with 21.5 grains, 8 loads with 22 grains, and 4 loads of 22.5 and 23 grains each)...and I can not guarantee your results will be the same as findings are influenced by so many other things (crimp, primer, case length, powder, charge, bullet weight, etc).

BTW, although recoil is heavier than a cowboy type load, it was never a problem and the gun handled very nicely.

P.S. My "cowboy" or lighter load at this time is the same set up (brass length 1.250" and bullet weight 270 grain cast) with 8 grains of Universal at 900 fps.

[GRainwater]

Hope this isn’t too much of a nit to pick with Lee but I believe the relevant variable is OAL (over all length), not brass length.  Trim your brass and perhaps you get a better crimp but I doubt it would change pressure significantly.

The issue of adjusting loads for my 97 45 Colt motivated me to buy Quickload.  It is a wonderful program for adjusting published loads. 

For example, take a desirable published load with a 1.65 OAL but you want 1.62 OAL.  Get Quickload to show you the pressure at 1.65 OAL then adjust the OAL to 1.62 and play with the powder until you get the same PSI.  Now you have a good idea of your target load. 

My favorite load is 300 gr. bullet with Lil’Gun adjusted down from the Hodgdon reloading manual OAL from 1.65 to 1.58. 

[GRainwater]

About a year ago I sent an email to Freedom Arms about the strength of the 97 45 Colt.  This is what I got back.  My questions are in quotes.

“What is the designed maximum operating pressure for my 45 Colt Model 1997 Freedom Arms revolver?”.  Simply follow the manuals for the 45 colt loads including the loads for the Rugers and Thompsons not to exceed 1.6" OAL because most amateur reloader do not have the equipment to test pressures.

“Typically the modern reloading books have a section for original Colts and a separate, higher pressure section for “Ruger, Thompson Contender, and Freedom Arms”.  Unfortunately the reloading manuals do not specify whether the pressures are suitable for the model 1997 FA or just the 1983 model.”   FA does not have a m83 chambered just for .45 colt. But we have a m83 with a extra cylinder for the .45 colt.  They do not show pressures for a reason because like above most people can't test pressures.

The model 97 will work fine with the loads found in the commercial manuals including the Thompson and Rugers loads. But is limited by a maximum OAL cartridge length of 1.6" as per SAAMI and the physical size. The model 97 is a tremendous capable revolver but is not indestructible. It was designed to be small  and carry-able and chamber the Ruger and Thompson load recommendations. Nothing more.

[Lee Robinson]

I agree with you on the OAL thing. I only trimmed my brass to crimp in the crimp groove. I could have crimmed on the driving band, but I wouldn't have been able to get my desired "roll crimp" on that band unless I would have reduced the OAL even further to go over the driving band...and simply put, I didn't want to reduce my OAL any more than necessary. By trimming my brass, I was able to go with the 1.600" OAL by simply seating the crimp groove of the bullet to the new brass length of 1.250" and get the 1.600" OAL. If I would have used full length brass and crimped over the driving band, I would have had to go much shorter and pressure would have been higher.

However, all this said, I think you and I are basically on the same page. Thanks for clarifying the brass length was trimmed only to allow the rolled crimp in the crimp groove and was not the actual "cause" for me reducing the load, but simply a by-product of the cause. The cause, as is pointed out by Grainwater is reduced OAL (or more specifically the reduced the case capacity resulting from the reduced OAL).

[Reloder28]

Am I ever glad I read this post. I was about to purchase a 97 totally unaware of the difference between the 83 & 97. Evidently, the 83 is for pure hunting with heavy loads & the 97 for normal type 45 LC shooting.

I think I would prefer the 83 in 454 Cassull with an extra cylinder for 45 LC.