FA in 357...97 vs 83

[Antipaladin]

Anyone have or shot both in the 357 caliber? The 83 seems overkill for the round

 

[Rockrat]

357 mag vs. 353 casull

 

[DHD]

An 83 in 357 being overkill? Maybe so, but you can load the thing to a level where you'd better label the ammo boxes specifically for the 83.

I do have an 83 in 357 and it is one of my favorites. Accuracy is spectacular as expected and recoil is light even with heavy loads. I almost exclusively load 180 grain bullets for this revolver. Taffin mentioned in an article on the 83 that the weak link is the brass for this revolver. I bought 100 pieces of 360 DW Starline brass and shortened them to 357 length just for this revolver for that reason. That may have been unnecessary as the Starline 357 Magnum brass is strong stuff.

The original 83 in 357 was labeled the 353 Casull and more than a few thought that this was a cartiridge specific to the FA83 and in a manner of speaking maybe it is. As I stated in the above paragraph, if you plan to load ammo to the potential of the revolver, that ammo needs to be labeled FA83 357 or some such. If you are researching a 83 in 357, you already knew this though.

I do not have a 97 in 357 as I have a slicked up RBH in this caliber that shoots very well.

 

[Antipaladin]

Great info DHD. Thanks

 

[Inspector-Callahan1]

I have many 83's and 97's, but none in 357 unfortunately. That said, I'd prefer a Model 97 in 357 Mag- a six shooter too. The 83 is massive and unless you plan on loading super heavy 83 only loads, I'd prefer standard 357's in a frame that is scaled down. I have a 41 in the Model 97 6.5 inch and it is utterly perfect. I have no need to hotrod it, and save any of that for my 44 & 45 caliber Model 83's.

Best wishes....FYI a 357 Model 97 is probably the next one on my list. It would be absolute perfection.

 

[bnewberry]

I am also on the hunt for a 97 in .357. I got an 83 in .454 this year, finally after years of wanting one. Now I want a 97 to round out the collection.

 

[snakeeyes4445]

I have owned a 97 five and a half inch .45 Colt and found it to be too light for holding offhand in the windy cold and difficult December conditions when when we hunt deer in Iowa.
I have a six inch 83 in .41 magnum, now wearing a Simmons 2 to 6x scope which I will remove after load development.
They both show typical FA accuracy. I can get more consistent shot placement with lighter (not light) loads, as the grip tension affects the upward barrel movement and torque less than with maximum loads. Either can handle the recoil, but the heavier frame is easier to shoot. I would like to try a 7.5 in a 97 though which would add some weight and sighting radius.
We just sit and wait for deer, so weight is not an issue with either.

 

[Kevin]

I was going to ask which is the best barrel length of these revolvers. I see you can order a up to a 10" barrel.

I guess the model 83 in .22lr is overkill.

It would be interesting to see one of their 2008 single shot guns. They look like an overbuilt Thompson Contender.

 

[Montelores]

The 97 in .22 LR is noticeably heavier than 97's in larger calibers.

More steel in the barrel and cylinders because of the smaller bore.

Monty

 

[Laserbait]

The 97 in .22 LR is noticeably heavier than 97's in larger calibers.

More steel in the barrel and cylinders because of the smaller bore.

Monty

It's like the old Redhawks in 357 magnum, little bitty holes in big chunks of stainless steel.

 

[Rockrat]

My 83 in 357 has a 9" bbl. 7.5"-8" would have been plenty, but it still works fine for me.

 

[seasterl]

I've owned many FA 83 but only one FA97, and it was in a 357Mag with 38Spl cylinder. I sold my FA97 because it was just too small for my hand and I found the Model 83 to be a much better fit. I never owned the Model 83 in 357Mag, though, but I did own it in a couple 44Mag, a couple 500WE, and a 454. I don't own any FA now since I no longer compete in IHMSA, but I do have a bunch of Ruger and a few S&W. I can buy two or three Ruger and fully customize them at the price of just one FA!

 

[Onty]

I've owned many FA 83 but only one FA97, and it was in a 357Mag with 38Spl cylinder. I sold my FA97 because it was just too small for my hand and I found the Model 83 to be a much better fit. I never owned the Model 83 in 357Mag, though, but I did own it in a couple 44Mag, a couple 500WE, and a 454. I don't own any FA now since I no longer compete in IHMSA, but I do have a bunch of Ruger and a few S&W. I can buy two or three Ruger and fully customize them at the price of just one FA!

I will take customized Ruger Bisley with #5 base pin latch from Bowens, Clements and other top smiths any time over FA. Absolutely nothing wrong with FA, fantastic revolver, I just think that customized Bisley is better.

 

[5of7]

The original 83 in 357 was labeled the 353 Casull and more than a few thought that

Was this just a special ho loading for the .357? or was there a difference in the cartridge dimensions.

 

[David Bradshaw]

The original 83 in 357 was labeled the 353 Casull and more than a few thought that

Was this just a special ho loading for the .357? or was there a difference in the cartridge dimensions.

*****

The Freedom Arms Model 83 is Dick Casull’s .454 revolver as factory production. As you infer, to call the Casull revolver in .357 Mag “353” is bound to confuse. Why not assume it designates a different cartridge? I think of all Model permutations of Dick Casull’s revolver as Model 83.

To select the smaller M-97 for a .357 Mag, I would have to attach a Ronnie Wells grip frame configured for my hand. I just cannot shoot the factory M-97. A Ronnie Wells brass grip frame built along the lines of the
Bradshaw Bisley or Bisley +4 Degrees might perfectly tame that little animal.
David Bradshaw

 

[DHD]

The original 83 in 357 was labeled the 353 Casull and more than a few thought that

Was this just a special ho loading for the .357? or was there a difference in the cartridge dimensions.

No difference in dimensions as it's a 357 Magnum. However it can be loaded to a ridiculous level. I don't load it to a Taffin level (I'm referring to his article from years back) but I do go above what I would feed my Blackhawk at times. Not necessary as anything I shoot out of it is accurate. That's not a boast.

 

[Onty]

To select the smaller M-97 for a .357 Mag, I would have to attach a Ronnie Wells grip frame configured for my hand. I just cannot shoot the factory M-97. A Ronnie Wells brass grip frame built along the lines of the
Bradshaw Bisley or Bisley +4 Degrees might perfectly tame that little animal.
David Bradshaw

David, you mentioned "Bradshaw Bisley or Bisley +4 Degrees for M-97". Are you talking about standard Ruger Bisley grip rotated 4 degrees, assuming bottom moved backward?

Would be possible to see a picture or a drawing of that grip? Thanks!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

 

[5of7]

Well I had a Redhawk in .357 Mg. and loaded some pretty hot stuff in it using 180 Gr. Hornady bullets. With 16.5 grs. of AA9 I was getting 1475 to 1525 FPS with the 7-1/2" barrel. The primer pockets started to open up after 2 trips through the dies, so I stopped there. The OAL is listed at 1.705" on my empirical data. That bullet has 2 cannelures which allows for taking advantage of the longer cylinder of the RH. I tried some 200 grain hard cast, but the groups were lousy due, I suspect, to the twist not being fast enough, so I didn't pursue it. I sold the Redhawk .357 here...I think.

 

[Onty]

Since we are talking about FA 353 and Redhawk 357, what about H&G #321, 200 grains? I was always fascinated with this bullet:

According to H&G catalogue https://www.hensleygibbs.com/HGcatalogs/HG_Catalog_1994.pdf , page 7, it was intended for 357 Remington Maximum. Considering brute strength and cylinder length of FA 353 and Redhawk 357 revolvers, I am assuming this bullet should work in them.

 

[seasterl]

Are you referring to an eight-shot Redhawk or did they make a six-shot version? I’m not sure I’d go too hot with an eight-shot. The FA Model 83 is only a five shot, so there’s a lot of steel between chambers.

 

[Onty]

For hot loads in 357 Redhawk, I agree with you, six shot is the way to go.

Regarding H&G #321, 200 grains, i tried to scale drawing and seems to me that distance from crimp groove to tip is about .470". Combined with 357 Magnum case, this will make round with 1.760" OAL. If 357 Magnum Redhawk has a long cylinder like 44 Magnum or 45 Colt, it could take round 1.790" OAL (plase correct me if I am wrong). In that case, 360 DW load data might be used https://www.danwessonforum.com/forum/reloading/loading-data-from-the-old-dan-wesson-website/ .

As for loads used in FA 353 http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt353.htm , I wouldn't use them in 357 Redhawk. Redhawk is six shot and bolt notches are close to chambers. FA 353 is five shot and considerably stronger gun because bolt notches are between chambers.