FA 83 41 Mag.

[Bisley Bud]

Mr. Baker
I have one of your fine 83, 7 1/2" 41 mags.Would you give me your  thoughts on best bullets and weights for the 1-14 twist.It seems to like the 265 WLNGC and the 210 XTP.I have read Mr.Taffins AH review in 1999 he did on an early 10" 83. is there anything you would add? He seemed to be flying the jacketed bullets pretty fast.Is this ok for the forcing cone?can the XTP's take 1600-1700 fps.Thanks for building the best 41 Mag. out there!!

[myronman3]

obviously, i am not bob. 
    one thing that drives me nuts is when someone trys to make a fine gun like you have something it is not.  it is a 41 magnum, use 41 magnum loads in it.  if you want something with more power, get a caliber with more umph, like a 454 or something like that.  guys like taffin are always pushing the limits of whatever it is they seem to be dabbling with.  this is why i cant stand gun writers.  why not enjoy it for what it is?   you have a finely crafted, accurate, mild kicking, powerhouse of a pistol that will not let you down.    let taffin abuse and destroy his guns, take care of and enjoy yours for exactly what it is. 
  p.s.   i am jealous! 

[cprher]

According to the folks at FA, forcing cone erosion is caused by pushing lead bullets at too high a velocity.  Pushing jacketed bullets at high velocity apparently doesn't cause the same damage.  However, the comments about making the 41 what it is not is good advice.  Like you, I really like the 41 Mag.  But if I want real power I use one of my 454 Casulls or the 475 Linebaugh.  Since I shoot the 41 in a S&W N frame, I keep the velocity modest, about what the police mid-range was loaded to.
Keith

[Steve P]

My FA 41 likes one of Veral's heavy bullets also.  Large dose of H4227 gets me near MOA out to 200 yards.  My gun has never seen a jacketed bullet and likely never will.  Barrel, forcing cone, cylinder, etc are in as new condition.  Recoil is moderate with that LOOOOOOONG barrel.

I have a couple of loads for my Ruger 41 mag with 4 5/8" barrel.  One using Unique and one using 2400 with 210 gr cast bullets.  One is mild, one is wild.  Neither match the FA for performance.

Don't be a granny!!  Drive it like you stole it!! 

Steve

[Sweetwater]

Steve P  +1!!!

"p.s.   i am jealous!"  Posted by: myronman3

Me TOO!

+1 on the 'maintain what it is, not what someone made theirs do' concept. It is yours, it is very, VERY nice. It is GREAT for what it is designed to do. It will take down whatever you aim it at, within your capabilities. IF you can't do it with the 41mag, you do need something a lot bigger, maybe a rifle.

I've had a 41mag since 1980, and have had over a dozen in various models. Never felt I was under-gunned. They work. They can be ruined. You don't need to go there. What looks like it works can, over time, break things. I have never broken a part on a Ruger Blackhawk. I have stressed the limits, realized the error of my ways, and backed off a touch. Sometimes that "little bit more" is what does the damage. Stay cool.

"According to the folks at FA, forcing cone erosion is caused by pushing lead bullets at too high a velocity.  Pushing jacketed bullets at high velocity apparently doesn't cause the same damage." Posted by: cprher

I respectfully have to disagree with this statement. I offer up as evidence one each S&W Model 19 357Mag NIB January 1979. Back in my 'hot-rod' days, I pulled a load out of a magazine (we don't do that!), made 50 rounds with 125gr JHP's and went to my favorite gravel pit on the Kirkland Road in Stillwater, Maine, just a few miles from my house at that time and very convenient. By the time load #50 was fired, I nearly needed a hammer to open the cylinder! I had split the forcing cone in three (3) places and locked the cylinder in place. High speed jacketed bullets did the damage, read that high pressure jacketed bullets. To their credit, S&W fitted a new barrel and paid the return shipping. Even sent me a note complimenting the action work that had been done - smooth and uncomprimising the warranty.

Forcing cone erosion (hot gas, high pressure) is probably preliminary to forcing cone split I really have to believe bullet type to be very secondary. Correction??

[Inspector-Callahan]

According to the folks at FA, forcing cone erosion is caused by pushing lead bullets at too high a velocity.  Pushing jacketed bullets at high velocity apparently doesn't cause the same damage.  However, the comments about making the 41 what it is not is good advice. 
Keith

Sweetwater,

I'll second your comment  and that abnormally "accelerated" forcing cone erosion can be caused by either jacketed OR lead bullets when pushed at excessive velocity. I have a close friend that had this issue with his M83 454 when he was hot rodding Hornady XTP's that weren't meant to be pushed that far. This diagnosis was made via a Freedom Arms inspection. He rarely loaded (if ever) unjacketed ammo. Hence the reason Hornady has created the XTP-MAG bullet, which carries a more robust jacket than the standard offerring. I also believe that the Freedom Arms factory ammo also has bullets utilizing heavier jacketing.

IC

[FN in MT]

obviously, i am not bob. 
    one thing that drives me nuts is when someone trys to make a fine gun like you have something it is not.  it is a 41 magnum, use 41 magnum loads in it.  if you want something with more power, get a caliber with more umph, like a 454 or something like that.  guys like taffin are always pushing the limits of whatever it is they seem to be dabbling with.  this is why i cant stand gun writers.  why not enjoy it for what it is?   you have a finely crafted, accurate, mild kicking, powerhouse of a pistol that will not let you down.    let taffin abuse and destroy his guns, take care of and enjoy yours for exactly what it is. 
  p.s.   i am jealous! 

+1


Should make this a STICKY. Wisdom of the Ages stuff.

On the S&W side I see guys all the time buying Classic older .44 Spcl's wanting to make theminto MAGNUMS....WHY??  Simply buy a .44 Mag.

FN in MT

[AkRay]

obviously, i am not bob. 
    one thing that drives me nuts is when someone trys to make a fine gun like you have something it is not.  it is a 41 magnum, use 41 magnum loads in it.  if you want something with more power, get a caliber with more umph, like a 454 or something like that.  guys like taffin are always pushing the limits of whatever it is they seem to be dabbling with.  this is why i cant stand gun writers.  why not enjoy it for what it is?   you have a finely crafted, accurate, mild kicking, powerhouse of a pistol that will not let you down.    let taffin abuse and destroy his guns, take care of and enjoy yours for exactly what it is. 
  p.s.   i am jealous! 

I disagree with your post.  You're lumping John Taffin into a group he doesn't belong with.  He doesn't "push the limits....abuse and destroy his guns."  The Freedom Arms Model 83 in 41 Magnum is so strong and well made that it will handle any conventional load a person would care to shoot.  The velocities Taffin came up with and wrote about showed what performance levels the 41 Magnum in a Freedom Arms revolver could attain.  The same thing has been done with Model 83s in 357 and 44 Magnum.  He wouldn't suggest that it would be okay to use such loads in a revolver of less strength and quality. 

[Graybeard]

I noticed that Bob hasn't seen this thread and honestly I just noticed it for the first time today myself. I've sent it to him via e-mail so perhaps he will drop by and post to your question.

[Bob Baker]

Thanks for the note Greybeard.

To answer the original question, John Taffin does a lot of shooting to test his loads and I don't see a problem with the quoted velocities out of a 10" barrel.  Just be sure to use the same components he used and start low, then work up to see how your gun reacts to the loads.

For the others, forcing cone erosion happens with both cast and jacketed bullets.  The better question is which gives us more life from the forcing cone?  As a general rule the forcing cone will last longer with cast bullets than with jacketed bullets.  That assumes though that the cast bullet was cast with clean material and of the proper hardness for the load it is being used in.

Also keep in mind the velocity isn't as big of a factor in forcing cone erosion as the pressure developed by the powder being used.  Years ago I did a test using the M83 in .357 mag., 180 gr. XTP bullets and two different powders, H110 and AA#9.  I found I would lose accuracy  with the AA#9 load before the H110 load even though both were loaded to the same velocity.  Basically the #9 load had more pressure and a faster pressure that was distorting the bullet in the forcing cone of the barrel.  This distortion also accelerates forcing cone erosion as the bullet swells to fit the forcing cone but has to size back down to fit through the barrel.  The sizing process pulls off particles of bullet which go out through the cylinder/barrel gap and erode the forcing cone.

Someone mentioned cracking a forcing cone.  This is quite often caused by the bullet stacking up in the forcing cone.  When the bullet hits the forcing cone it swells out causing a lot of radial pressure on the barrel which will crack the barrel.  Any misalignment of chamber to barrel only makes the problem worse.  The lineboring and minimal forcing cone angle we do at FA help reduce the chance of forcing cone cracking and give better accuracy due to less distortion of the bullet.

One of the biggest problems we see with the M83 in the smaller calibers isn’t forcing cone erosion, instead it is erosion of the tip of the firing pin from pierced primers and a ring burned into the fire wall around the firing pin which is caused by stretched primer pockets.  Basically if you are piercing primers, back your pressure down.  If you are stretching primer pockets, back your pressure down and be sure to discard those cases.  Using the case sticking in the chamber as an indicator of high pressure isn’t a good practice.  Usually all that tells a reloader is what the quality of finish is in the chamber, it doesn’t tell much about the pressure of the load.

[myronman3]

  akray...i respectfully disagree with your post.
  my comments regarding taffin.... i dont follow him or any other gun writer anymore because i cant stand the dribble they concoct.   they then put this trash out there as gospel.  and yes, he does push the limits of guns and catridges....or at least he used to.  i would know anymore because like i said, i do not follow his writings anymore.  at any rate,  have no desire to try to turn a 41 into a 44, or a 44 into a 454. 
   here at g.b.o., i can talk to guys who have a lifetime of experience and knowlege who will share it out of the goodness of their hearts.   and, people can get answers to their questions directly from guys like Bob Baker.   
    let me tell ya a story.   many years ago, when i was playing with the 454.   i was fiddling with a load i had read from a guy (i think it was dick metcalf).   the particulars of the load i dont remember, but the bullet he had listed for use was one that was not designed for the velocities it was getting pushed to.  i threw it out for discussion here on g.b.o., and a knowlegable fellow that goes by the handle 'greybeard' pointed out the flaw of the combination and warned of what could/would happen.    when i contacted the bullet manufacturer with the question, they backed up exactly what greybeard said.   i havent read a gun writer since.   
    i use my guns within the limits of what they were designed for and appreciate what they are.   
    and i stand by my orginal post.   happy shooting to ya.