Author Topic: Model 97 in .41 Mag. (Read 2364 times)

makilly · « **on:** December 26, 2008, 09:06:57 AM »

Seeking owner information on the FA 97 IN .41 magnum. Are there any commercial cowboy loads? Is brass readily available for handloading? Thanks in advance. maklilly

Graybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** December 26, 2008, 09:23:16 AM »

No. Yes.

Ken ONeill · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2008, 02:18:39 AM »

The 97 in .41 Mag. is a pretty good candidate for "perfect handgun".

6.5BR · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2008, 04:48:51 AM »

And what would be the 'perfect' bbl length?

Ken ONeill · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2008, 11:03:17 AM »

In a 97, 5 1/2"... for me!

doghawg · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2008, 04:09:00 PM »

As close to perfect as I've come so far.........

6.5BR · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:42:13 PM »

Ken, I DID think in the past, '06 shot show, 4.25, but now thinking 5.5", esp 41, would prefer perhaps a 44 sp in 4.25 but could go with one above.....looks like 5.5 to me!

Thanks. Hope to go to '08 show next week and fondle another 97......awaiting my first.....anyone have a clean one.....cheap?

james66 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2009, 01:48:12 PM »

I have two 97's in .41, one 5.5" with a round butt and a consecutivley numbered 7.5". I love them both. Brass is readily available from a number of supply houses.

benny · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2009, 09:51:06 AM »

hello there,
i went with the 4.25" and love it. round butt, etc...
georgia arms has a low velicity load if you don't reload, but as i learned, best to get the equipment and start.
i haven't seen ANY gun that can replace this compact, powerful package.
benny

6.5BR · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:04:15 AM »

Personally considering a 10mm 1911 for a compact package, deer/hog capable to 100 yds, easy to pack, not overly bulky or heavy. FAs just gotten to pricey new.

myronman3 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:43:12 AM »

Quote from: 6.5BR on January 21, 2009, 09:04:15 AM

Personally considering a 10mm 1911 for a compact package, deer/hog capable to 100 yds, easy to pack, not overly bulky or heavy. FAs just gotten to pricey new.

you know, i feel where you are coming from; but i cant say i agree. yup, the price is something. but, you get your money's worth for sure.

i've been toying with the notion of downsizing my collection of guns and getting a few really nice high end pieces instead of having so many that i cant shoot all at once anyway. if i do go that route, i am thinking a f.a. 97 41 mag with a 4 1/2 bbl would be perfect for me. i had a 83 44 mag, and that was something else. i was an incredible shot with that gun. the only thing was the bbl was too long for my tastes.

SHOOTIST TOO · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2009, 05:33:22 PM »

I have a 6" model 83 in 454 .I haven't keep up with Freedom Arms for a long while. I am interested in a 41. I thought the 97 was only offered in a 22. I take it that a 97 is a smaller frame. Would it be more ideal model for a 41 ? Did they make very many in 41's ?

Dand · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2009, 10:40:45 PM »

I have a question for owners of the 97 in 41 mag - can you use cartridges like the corbon and buffalo bore loads with 265 gr LFN bullets? I think the overall loaded length is about 1.7 inches. I handled one of these guns in a store years ago and it seemed very nice and well balanced. But I thought the cylinder was shorter than my Rugers and Smiths and I like to use the above loads.

Graybeard · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2009, 01:49:42 AM »

The '97 cylinder is not long enough to use a 1.7" long round.

Ken ONeill · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:44:04 AM »

Quote from: 6.5BR on January 21, 2009, 09:04:15 AM

Personally considering a 10mm 1911 for a compact package, deer/hog capable to 100 yds, easy to pack, not overly bulky or heavy. FAs just gotten to pricey new.

I've only ever owned one 1911 10mm - an original Colt Delta Elite, that I eventually had Jim Clark fully accurize before his death. Although the power was adequate, the accuracy even with Jim's work was inadequate for hunting deer and hogs at 100 yards, or anything close to it. I'd say you'll have a task finding a 1911 10mm that will perform at that level. Give me a revolver or a single-shot.

Dand · « **Reply #15 on:** March 05, 2009, 06:34:57 PM »

thanks GB

6.5BR · « **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2009, 02:27:16 PM »

Ken, I met Jim Clark, and shoot at the range next to the current 'smith shop' where Jr. took over.

I have read great reports on the Kimber Target and the Glocks as far as accuracy, and also hear the CZ Dan Wessons shoot well, the Bobtail getting my attention. Since the 41 OMBH in 4 5/8 w/allow frame is within a few ounces of the 97, I may have to talk my brother out of the one I sold him. It sure makes a handy potent carry six gun. Retro-fitted by Ruger w/transfer bar, I can load 6 also, and any length factory or heavy handload I'd reckon.

I still might not mind owning a 4.25 or 5.5 97 in 41 or 44sp down the road....have to save my nickels.....lots of them

Ken ONeill · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:12:13 AM »

6.5BR,
I have a 4 5/8" New Mdl. BH, and you're right, they make an excellent 6 shot carry gun. About 15 years ago, I had Hamilton Bowen fit mine with a steel gripframe, rear sight, and ejector rod housing. That made it a really classy gun, but there are times when I miss the light weight of the alumunum.
Of course, the blued NMBH in .45 Colt is lighter still.

6.5BR · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2009, 10:46:57 AM »

I really should get my brother to sell back that OM gun

Of course on my wishlist is a Ruger in 45 colt, the shorty fluted stainless looks like a good field piece, DANG sure wish Ruger would make a SS 4 5/8 fluted also in a 41 mag......too few appreciate the round I guess.

So do users swap to steel grips for durability?

Ken ONeill · « **Reply #19 on:** March 14, 2009, 01:26:04 AM »

Well, the Ruger aluminum gripframes were notoriously poorly fitted, with one ear or the other sticking up, etc., and they looked a bit different than the blued steel, as did the aluminum ejector rod housings. So, in the quest of "perfection", and having a "real" steel gun "like they used to make" some lke me have changed to the steel configuration.
In truth, the steel absolutely does not offer any improvement in durability...the Rugers are bull-strong as is. And lighter, too.
On the other hand, some of us just want personalized guns that suit our conception of what a "perfect" gun is at some point in time. My Ruger rear sights have almost all been changed to Bowens, for example, and most front sights have been changed to undercut patridges, because I see them better. The time and money I've spent on cosmetics and such? Well...we won't talk about that!
We've thoroughly hijacked Makilly's thread. Sorry.