"41 special" in 97...???

[benny]

Hello gents,

I see that reed's is making a run of 41 special brass as well as loaded ammo.  I know that fa sells cylinders for their 83 in the "short" calibers and does not reccommend using the colt, special, etc.. in the magnum length chambers.  What is the reason behind this?  Would it be ok to use the 41 special brass or loads in the 97?  the 230gr keith would fit, at around 1000fps, seems like it would be a nice load.
thanks,
benny

[Lloyd Smale]

that would actually make a slick gun. the 97s are a tad on the short side for most cast bullets in 41 mag anyway and is plenty stout to take decent velocity loads in 41 special.

[Swampman]

The .41 Special is best used in a converted 5 shot Ruger Single Six.

[Ken ONeill]

As has been stated about a blue-billion times, FA strongly discourages use of the shorter cases  because FA cylinders are TIGHT. Consequently powder residue, lead, copper and such can build up in front of the shorter cartridge thereby possibly impeding chambering and increasing pressures when the standard longer cartridge is used. At least theoretically, powder burn ringing or marking could also occur in front of the shorter cartridge's mouth. As even the standard length cartridges like a .357 Magnum are shot in the FA, they can become a bit more difficult to seat, due to the little bit of carbon build up, etc. in the tight FA chambers.
In my view, fear of pressure problems is most important with cartridges like the .454, .475L, and .500WE. However, I continue to be amazed at the number of people who don't know how to, or simply don't want to, clean their guns. They are the really prime candidates for chambering and pressure problems. A person who knows what a really clean gun is, and cleans his accordingly, MIGHT not have a problem, depending upon the caliber, etc.
In the case of the .41 Special, I personally would probably prefer another cylinder, if I ever thought I wanted to shoot .41 Magnums, too. The .41 Special would be a nice cartidge in the 97.

[Tallwalker]

The .41 Special is best used in a converted 5 shot Ruger Single Six.

That would be the Remington conversion.......... right?   

[Lloyd Smale]

I had a single six conversion. Sold it to boge quinn. They are a cool gun but have the same limitations on bullet lenght that a 41 mag FA gun has and arent strong enough for much over 900 fps with a 220 grain bullet.

The .41 Special is best used in a converted 5 shot Ruger Single Six.

[Steve P]

I am currently shooting the 41 with an LBT WFN bullet and having good results.  I would only go to the special brass if I had a longer nose bullet that I wanted to use but would not fit the cylinder when crimped in the magnum brass.  If the loaded round fits the gun why spend the extra $$ to put it in "special" brass?

I have several guns that I do use shorter brass.  I use 38 brass in one of my 357s with a 220 grain 35 Remington bullet.  I also use 32S&W long brass in a .32 mag with the RCBS 145 Silhouette bullet. 

If you have the need, buy the brass.  You only have problems if you don't keep things clean and that never happens, RIGHT??   

Steve

[Lloyd Smale]

I wouldnt have a need for mag brass in a 97. Ive never been a big fan of th 41 mag. Just couldnt see what it did that the 44mag and even the 44 special didnt do better for hunting big game. Id like a dedicated 41 special in a 97 and would want it marked that way.

[Tallwalker]

I know this is a Freedom Arms forum, but conversions are being discussed. Would a 41 Special GP100 make sense? It sure does seem like a nice round, and perhaps you could keep the six round capacity.

[Lloyd Smale]

dave clements does them but i think he does them as 5 shots.

[6.5BR]

Tallwalker, why not a 5-shot GP100 in 41 Mag?  That would get me to think about pulling out my wallet.

As would a Ruger BH 5 shot 41 or 44 sp in a smaller gun, something Ruger is doing this yr, a 44 sp. but its blue and I am odd and like Stainless for low maintenance/worry in my high humidity area.

[Golfswithwolves]

I'm a fan of the .44 Special and I have this chambering in my Model 97. I also have a .41 Special in the works in a Ruger Old Model .357 (a smaller and lighter revolver than the Ruger .41 Magnum). If Freedom Arms made a .41 Special Model 97 in addition to the .41 Magnum Model 97 that they already make I think it would be a Good Thing, but I don't think I would buy a conversion cylinder in .41 Special if I owned a Model 97 in .41 Magnum. There's no weight or handling advantage to be gained by doing this that I can see; and I think that the desired Special ballistics could easily be gained by going to lighter loads in the Magnum cases. I may be in a minority with this kind of thinking though as I know that some shooters like to have extra .45 ACP cylinders for their .45 Colts and extra .45 Colt cylinders for their .454 Casulls, etc. But I will just stick to one caliber/gauge for each of my own guns.

[fowler]

I have often thought the 97 would be really slick as a 45 Schofield. You would not have the limitations the 45 colt has in this gun for bullets, For instance a 250gr LFN bullet would fit and so would most Keiths crimped in the neck groove. As it is you have to crimp over the driving band on Keiths or over the ogive on longer nosed bullets to make them work and even then they often won't.

I wonder how hard it would be to get a 45 acp cylinder reamed out to Schofield or just buy a second 45 colt cylinder to be used for just Schofield cases. Or just buy the 44 special and not worry about it unless you have a pile of 45 cal molds at home already....

I shot Henry Garzas 97 in 44 special this weekend and that is one nice revolver that will have to go in my closet some day. It is just a question as to what caliber it will be....