iakobos865
Member
I have a Winchester 1897 and would like to know what size shells I could expect to use safely. It was most likely made prior to 1920. Thanks for your thoughts.
Winchester 1897 12gauge
- Thread starter iakobos865
- Start date
- Status
I used Light Winchester AA's for CAS in everthing from a 97 made in 1898 to one made in 1958. If I had a late model E series I would use something up to 3 1/4 dram 1 1/8 ounce loads without worry. I would not use the heavy express loads or the short mags. in a 97. Not saying they won't handle them but I just prefer not to take any chances. This is JMO ........
MMCSRET
Member
Is it possible that the chamber is 2 5/8ths inch? It is my understanding that some were. Mine, built in 1918 is stamped 2 3/4"
iakobos865
Member
I don't see any stamp on mine that would indicate chamber size. Either there isn't one, or it is too faint for me to see without knowing where to look.
whitefeather
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 124
Factory 2 3/4 loads won't hurt a '97 unless it's in really bad shape. They have nickel steel receivers.
The '97's are just as strong as the Model 12's. They are both extremely robust designs.
The '97's are just as strong as the Model 12's. They are both extremely robust designs.
iakobos865
Member
Everyone, thanks for your input on this question.
ATAShooter
Member
Yep, check it good... I bought one that was 2 5/8 one time. Was very p.o.'d when I got to the range and tried to load it.
ReloaderFred
Member
Even 1897's that were chambered for 2 3/4" shells are short chambered, due to the fact that the shells they were chambered for were roll crimped, not fold crimped. If the chamber hasn't been rebored, you'll see that the shell crimps are feathered after firing, due to the short leade. The plastic of the crimp is being compressed by the shot load and wad when it exits the shell, which in turn increases pressure.
You'll also want to check to see that the barrel to receiver fit is nice and tight, if it's a take-down gun. There is an adjustment cog built into the gun, and if it's fired with a loose fit, the receiver will crack, ruining a fine old gun.
I've got four of them, including one Black Diamond Trap, and I've had all of them rechambered and the forcing cones lengthened. I've seen several of the Model 97's with cracked receivers, including one solid frame gun that was shot with 2 3/4" high base loads in what is essentially a 2 5/8" long chamber.
There is one person on this forum who claims it does no damage to shoot the longer shells in the short chambers, but I've seen the damage it causes. Very few people would shoot a 3" case in a 2 3/4" chamber, and that's what is essentially being done when firing a 2 3/4" case in the shorter chamber.
Hope this helps.
Fred
You'll also want to check to see that the barrel to receiver fit is nice and tight, if it's a take-down gun. There is an adjustment cog built into the gun, and if it's fired with a loose fit, the receiver will crack, ruining a fine old gun.
I've got four of them, including one Black Diamond Trap, and I've had all of them rechambered and the forcing cones lengthened. I've seen several of the Model 97's with cracked receivers, including one solid frame gun that was shot with 2 3/4" high base loads in what is essentially a 2 5/8" long chamber.
There is one person on this forum who claims it does no damage to shoot the longer shells in the short chambers, but I've seen the damage it causes. Very few people would shoot a 3" case in a 2 3/4" chamber, and that's what is essentially being done when firing a 2 3/4" case in the shorter chamber.
Hope this helps.
Fred
Last edited:
I have several 97's I use in CAS. Reloader Fred is correct that even a chamber marked 2.75 is not the same as today's 2.75.
Regardless of whether or not shooting modern shells causes damage I chose to extend my chamber and open the forcing cone. Recoil is noticeably less once the work is done and the guns pattern better by opening the cone up.
I purchased the tools to do the job and a check guage from Brownells for about $125 and have done several of my own guns and the guns of several friends - it was a good investment. Almost any shotgun can benefit by opening up the forcing cone.
Regardless of whether or not shooting modern shells causes damage I chose to extend my chamber and open the forcing cone. Recoil is noticeably less once the work is done and the guns pattern better by opening the cone up.
I purchased the tools to do the job and a check guage from Brownells for about $125 and have done several of my own guns and the guns of several friends - it was a good investment. Almost any shotgun can benefit by opening up the forcing cone.
kirbythegunsmith
Member
reposting details
I always appreciate when my information is referred to, and even alluded to, but if the readers don't have familiarity with the entirety of the post(s), perhaps some refresher is necessary, since no one else has seen fit to post the links to give everybody a shot at the previous explanations provided.
How about starting here:
(I posted detailed explanations, comprehensive illustrations, and pictures of precision tools used)
Gunsmith notes on chamber length safety, additional related details
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=391107
That thread also has the links posted to the earlier topic discussions here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=390434
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=389122
Who has posted more explanatory details than that provided by me? I haven't seen anything that provides much beyond posting various "expert opinions sans explanations" that do little to add weight to the side of a slim argument.
I have still not seen any information that would make me think that a minuscule 1/8" or less chamber length in a gun design that passed proof tests is likely to be the sole and only cause of frame cracking, since no one has any sort of history of the cracked frame guns to make any judgment calls about shell usage habits and numbers.
More to the point, there is one particular verified- and undoubtedly unmodified- '97 shotgun taken from the assembly line and placed into ammo testing service i.e. ALL kinds, and had over 1 million rounds when the well-known Winchester magazine advert was seen by the general public.
No frame cracks there, then I doubt that the frame cracks seen in CAS were due to shell/chamber length, especially since all of those guys seem to play with the light loads, anyway, not high brass stout loads.
As I have said before:
seeing frame cracks and seeing the shells in use today does not equal evidence, the same as:
seeing no frame cracks and having the shooter say their chamber is lengthened is not proof that no stresses are left to be induced.
Having the end of plastic crimp edge (usually thinner than the rest of the hull wall thickness) laying inside a forcing cone slope would have the diameter drawn down (according to my precise measurements of 1/8" of official '97 forcing cone) from .797" to .782", a total of less than .008" per side, or about 1/2 the thickness of the crimp material.
What an obstruction! And of resilient plastic, to boot!
Just where is the monumental pressure boost supposed to occur?
Perhaps somebody can point out the weak spot in the Remington 1100 TRAP gun I had here with frame and barrel extension cracking, and all from a steady diet of low-brass shells AND A FULL LENGTH 2-3/4" chamber? Or, maybe shooter maintenance or other mechanical defect could be a remotely possible cause?
By the way, the same chamber lengths of 1897's are present in Model-12/25 2-3/4" marked guns, Model 37's, Remington Model 10 and 29's, plus more, I'm sure. Where are the frame cracks caused by excess chamber obstruction in any of those high production gun examples, as well?
Slightly longer chamber length does not equate to safety factor any more than slightly shorter chamber length (shotgun, specifically) equates to hazard. Mechanical integrity and condition of metal has more to do with these conditions.
[email protected]
I always appreciate when my information is referred to, and even alluded to, but if the readers don't have familiarity with the entirety of the post(s), perhaps some refresher is necessary, since no one else has seen fit to post the links to give everybody a shot at the previous explanations provided.
How about starting here:
(I posted detailed explanations, comprehensive illustrations, and pictures of precision tools used)
Gunsmith notes on chamber length safety, additional related details
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=391107
That thread also has the links posted to the earlier topic discussions here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=390434
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=389122
Who has posted more explanatory details than that provided by me? I haven't seen anything that provides much beyond posting various "expert opinions sans explanations" that do little to add weight to the side of a slim argument.
I have still not seen any information that would make me think that a minuscule 1/8" or less chamber length in a gun design that passed proof tests is likely to be the sole and only cause of frame cracking, since no one has any sort of history of the cracked frame guns to make any judgment calls about shell usage habits and numbers.
More to the point, there is one particular verified- and undoubtedly unmodified- '97 shotgun taken from the assembly line and placed into ammo testing service i.e. ALL kinds, and had over 1 million rounds when the well-known Winchester magazine advert was seen by the general public.
No frame cracks there, then I doubt that the frame cracks seen in CAS were due to shell/chamber length, especially since all of those guys seem to play with the light loads, anyway, not high brass stout loads.
As I have said before:
seeing frame cracks and seeing the shells in use today does not equal evidence, the same as:
seeing no frame cracks and having the shooter say their chamber is lengthened is not proof that no stresses are left to be induced.
Having the end of plastic crimp edge (usually thinner than the rest of the hull wall thickness) laying inside a forcing cone slope would have the diameter drawn down (according to my precise measurements of 1/8" of official '97 forcing cone) from .797" to .782", a total of less than .008" per side, or about 1/2 the thickness of the crimp material.
What an obstruction! And of resilient plastic, to boot!
Just where is the monumental pressure boost supposed to occur?
Perhaps somebody can point out the weak spot in the Remington 1100 TRAP gun I had here with frame and barrel extension cracking, and all from a steady diet of low-brass shells AND A FULL LENGTH 2-3/4" chamber? Or, maybe shooter maintenance or other mechanical defect could be a remotely possible cause?
By the way, the same chamber lengths of 1897's are present in Model-12/25 2-3/4" marked guns, Model 37's, Remington Model 10 and 29's, plus more, I'm sure. Where are the frame cracks caused by excess chamber obstruction in any of those high production gun examples, as well?
Slightly longer chamber length does not equate to safety factor any more than slightly shorter chamber length (shotgun, specifically) equates to hazard. Mechanical integrity and condition of metal has more to do with these conditions.
[email protected]
ReloaderFred
Member
I'll ask you the same question that 1858 asked you before and you never answered: "
kirby, based on the chamber and forcing cone dimensions for the '97, why wouldn't it be safe to shoot a 3" shell in a '97 shotgun with a 2-3/4" chamber and stock forcing cone? I measured some Winchester 3" shells that I have and they're 2-9/16" long unfired. If the hull "grows" by 3/8" at the most (approximately half the diameter of the shell), the hull is now protruding 3/16" into the forcing cone with 3/16" in the chamber. The diameter of the forcing cone at 3/16" is 0.764" based on diameters of 0.798" at the start and 0.730" at the end of the cone. The hull that you measured was 0.014 inches thick at the end so the forcing cone is reduced to 0.736" diameter which is still larger than the bore that you measured at 0.730. Given that as you said, a tight bore is 0.715" would this, in your opinion, result in an overpressure situation? What if the forcing cone was lengthened?"
It seems to me that you've taken a position on this subject that is 180 degrees out from what the majority of gunsmiths that I've talked to on Model 97 chambers have stated, that the chambers need to be lengthened and the forcing cones relieved. Now you're in the position of defending your stated position.
Why not just let people do the chamber modification and not risk damaging a fine old shotgun? I'm sure you wouldn't want someone shooting rifled slugs or sabot slugs through the shorter chambers, and I do know of some who use these shotguns for home defense, since they're so familiar with them.
Hope this helps.
Fred
kirby, based on the chamber and forcing cone dimensions for the '97, why wouldn't it be safe to shoot a 3" shell in a '97 shotgun with a 2-3/4" chamber and stock forcing cone? I measured some Winchester 3" shells that I have and they're 2-9/16" long unfired. If the hull "grows" by 3/8" at the most (approximately half the diameter of the shell), the hull is now protruding 3/16" into the forcing cone with 3/16" in the chamber. The diameter of the forcing cone at 3/16" is 0.764" based on diameters of 0.798" at the start and 0.730" at the end of the cone. The hull that you measured was 0.014 inches thick at the end so the forcing cone is reduced to 0.736" diameter which is still larger than the bore that you measured at 0.730. Given that as you said, a tight bore is 0.715" would this, in your opinion, result in an overpressure situation? What if the forcing cone was lengthened?"
It seems to me that you've taken a position on this subject that is 180 degrees out from what the majority of gunsmiths that I've talked to on Model 97 chambers have stated, that the chambers need to be lengthened and the forcing cones relieved. Now you're in the position of defending your stated position.
Why not just let people do the chamber modification and not risk damaging a fine old shotgun? I'm sure you wouldn't want someone shooting rifled slugs or sabot slugs through the shorter chambers, and I do know of some who use these shotguns for home defense, since they're so familiar with them.
Hope this helps.
Fred
kirbythegunsmith
Member
Clarification details
Hello, Fred.
I am going to start by stating that I am not against chamber modification, which I believe I posted earlier, and as for forcing cone rework, my special super-long forcing cones are not like what you have probably seen before, and the smoothness of the finish is typically better than the bore of normal barrels.
I'll bet if you tried one of my forcing cones, you'd turn your nose up at any other style after that.
I am not wanting to argue, since most times that regresses to a back and forth:
'TIS
'TISN'T!
"TIS!!
'TISN'T!!!
And where does that get you?
I am definitely stating that the slight chamber length difference cannot and is not going to make any monumental pressure or force changes that others use as horror stories to get somebody scared into having work done, since the innumerable examples out there of uncracked frames (of all types, including that 1100 I mentioned) belie the case that the chamber length is the cause.
If I was to surmise the most likely cause, it is the fact that the front outer corner of the ejection port is the thin section that may be excessively wiggled from the shock of firing, and mainly due to looser fit of unadjusted barrels may cause extra pounding shock not present in other designs.
There may be a case for this in an easily-understood situation: shooters that care for their guns, and keep them maintained (barrel adjustments tight and not shot until repaired, if loose) would be more likely to spend the money to get a chamber/forcing cone job vs. Mr. Lickpenny not doing either at a gunsmith- barrel adjustment refit OR chamber/forcing cone.
I'd be surprised if you haven't already pointed that likelihood out at some point in time around here.
By the way, have you seen the cracks that sometimes develop at the inside corner of the action bar groove and sometimes into the corner of the interrupted mag. tube threads? There's a couple of nice thin spots waiting to be overstressed. Cracks that develop there from loose barrels can reduce frame rigidity and allow excess flex that culminates in ejection port edge cracks.
I'm afraid that the information posted referring to the last entry of
"1858"
needs some math revision, referring to the length of crimp laying in the cone, and so forth.
A 3" shell that is 2-9/16" unfired becomes- guess what- that's right: 3 inches, not just another 3/16" long.
I'm sorry that I need to be the one to point out repeated errors of an elementary nature, but since nobody else spotted them, and wants to use that information to make a judgment call about my posting relevance, there's the rub.
Sorry.
Here's the real reason, regardless of the math errors:
a shell of 2.3" unfired (standard 2-3/4" length) has the shot touching the chamber wall (through the hull) at about 2.15-2.2", and will have at least 3/8" free run before hitting the forcing cone, see? (this example, not a normal 2.75" chamber)
How much run will a 3" shell (unfired shot edge at 2.45") have? Under 1/4" in this specific example.
Point 2: 3" shells are loaded to a higher spec. pressure max. than 2-3/4" shell max., I believe.
Naturally, we are not even taking into account the ejection port length being for 2.75" max., either.
As for slugs being shot in unmodified chambers, that is probably better since the slug has less chance of mis-alignment from a long jump to the bore. Lead slugs are usually a bit undersized, really soft lead composition, and easily deformed. The exception to this would be in an offset chamber/forcing cone situation where the slug is already getting abused unevenly due to the variance of impact, since the longer cone side would naturally have to push harder against that side of the slug to guide it into the off-center bore from the chamber position.
I wonder why nobody has taken the position that if a slightly longer chamber reduces pressure, why not have a 3" chamber to REALLY reduce the pressure, or maybe even 3.5" chamber?
I'm going overboard, but you see the point.
This, of course, does not take into account the extra deformity that must happen to the lead projectiles from sliding down an oversize hole and (after gaining more speed than would be present in a standard un-lengthened chamber) then being subjected to the squeezing action of the forcing cone funnel.
Trade-offs are always present.
Of course, some might point out that lengthening the chamber extends the thinnest part of the chamber wall further into the section of the barrel that may (in at least some instances) be already tapering in exterior dimension.
See, I do cover a lot of bases with my explanations.
Now I'll ping it back to you, Fred.
Good time discussing things, wouldn't you say?
BTW, Fred, did you read the articles at my website?
[email protected]
Hello, Fred.
I am going to start by stating that I am not against chamber modification, which I believe I posted earlier, and as for forcing cone rework, my special super-long forcing cones are not like what you have probably seen before, and the smoothness of the finish is typically better than the bore of normal barrels.
I'll bet if you tried one of my forcing cones, you'd turn your nose up at any other style after that.
I am not wanting to argue, since most times that regresses to a back and forth:
'TIS
'TISN'T!
"TIS!!
'TISN'T!!!
And where does that get you?
I am definitely stating that the slight chamber length difference cannot and is not going to make any monumental pressure or force changes that others use as horror stories to get somebody scared into having work done, since the innumerable examples out there of uncracked frames (of all types, including that 1100 I mentioned) belie the case that the chamber length is the cause.
If I was to surmise the most likely cause, it is the fact that the front outer corner of the ejection port is the thin section that may be excessively wiggled from the shock of firing, and mainly due to looser fit of unadjusted barrels may cause extra pounding shock not present in other designs.
There may be a case for this in an easily-understood situation: shooters that care for their guns, and keep them maintained (barrel adjustments tight and not shot until repaired, if loose) would be more likely to spend the money to get a chamber/forcing cone job vs. Mr. Lickpenny not doing either at a gunsmith- barrel adjustment refit OR chamber/forcing cone.
I'd be surprised if you haven't already pointed that likelihood out at some point in time around here.
By the way, have you seen the cracks that sometimes develop at the inside corner of the action bar groove and sometimes into the corner of the interrupted mag. tube threads? There's a couple of nice thin spots waiting to be overstressed. Cracks that develop there from loose barrels can reduce frame rigidity and allow excess flex that culminates in ejection port edge cracks.
I'm afraid that the information posted referring to the last entry of
"1858"
needs some math revision, referring to the length of crimp laying in the cone, and so forth.
A 3" shell that is 2-9/16" unfired becomes- guess what- that's right: 3 inches, not just another 3/16" long.
I'm sorry that I need to be the one to point out repeated errors of an elementary nature, but since nobody else spotted them, and wants to use that information to make a judgment call about my posting relevance, there's the rub.
Sorry.
Here's the real reason, regardless of the math errors:
a shell of 2.3" unfired (standard 2-3/4" length) has the shot touching the chamber wall (through the hull) at about 2.15-2.2", and will have at least 3/8" free run before hitting the forcing cone, see? (this example, not a normal 2.75" chamber)
How much run will a 3" shell (unfired shot edge at 2.45") have? Under 1/4" in this specific example.
Point 2: 3" shells are loaded to a higher spec. pressure max. than 2-3/4" shell max., I believe.
Naturally, we are not even taking into account the ejection port length being for 2.75" max., either.
As for slugs being shot in unmodified chambers, that is probably better since the slug has less chance of mis-alignment from a long jump to the bore. Lead slugs are usually a bit undersized, really soft lead composition, and easily deformed. The exception to this would be in an offset chamber/forcing cone situation where the slug is already getting abused unevenly due to the variance of impact, since the longer cone side would naturally have to push harder against that side of the slug to guide it into the off-center bore from the chamber position.
I wonder why nobody has taken the position that if a slightly longer chamber reduces pressure, why not have a 3" chamber to REALLY reduce the pressure, or maybe even 3.5" chamber?
I'm going overboard, but you see the point.
This, of course, does not take into account the extra deformity that must happen to the lead projectiles from sliding down an oversize hole and (after gaining more speed than would be present in a standard un-lengthened chamber) then being subjected to the squeezing action of the forcing cone funnel.
Trade-offs are always present.
Of course, some might point out that lengthening the chamber extends the thinnest part of the chamber wall further into the section of the barrel that may (in at least some instances) be already tapering in exterior dimension.
See, I do cover a lot of bases with my explanations.
Now I'll ping it back to you, Fred.
Good time discussing things, wouldn't you say?
BTW, Fred, did you read the articles at my website?
[email protected]
kirbythegunsmith said:
I think you need to spend more time reading the posts correctly. I made the post referenced by ReloderFred many, many months ago but if you bothered to read it properly you'd notice the folllowing ...
"I measured some Winchester 3" shells that I have and they're 2-9/16" long unfired. If the hull "grows" by 3/8" at the most (approximately half the diameter of the shell), the hull is now protruding 3/16" into the forcing cone with 3/16" in the chamber."
Last time I checked, 3/16 + 3/16 = 3/8".
And you still haven't answered the original question.
Fred, I'm very pleased with my '97 after having the chamber reamed and the forcing cone lengthened so thanks for the tip ... it's comfortable to shoot even with a steel butt plate. With the modifications to the chamber, regardless of kirbythegunsmith's opinion on the matter, I feel much easier about shooting hundreds if not thousands of rounds through it over the next few years.
ReloaderFred
Member
1858,
I'm glad the rechambering proved to be what you were expecting. The gentleman who did it for you has lots of experience with the 1897 Winchester. The person who did two of my Model 97's has been to China several times to advise the factory managers there how to properly make the new copies of the Model 97. On his last trip, about 10 months ago, he went through all the guns at the factory and picked out about 200 that he felt were within specifications. EMF is awaiting delivery on them now, but customs seems to be taking their sweet time in releasing them. I'm assured that once those guns hit the market, they will go fast. The owner of EMF, "General U. S. Grant", SASS #2, shot on our posse at Winter Range last week. He's a great guy and fun to shoot with. He's forgotten more about cowboy guns than most people know today.
Fred
I'm glad the rechambering proved to be what you were expecting. The gentleman who did it for you has lots of experience with the 1897 Winchester. The person who did two of my Model 97's has been to China several times to advise the factory managers there how to properly make the new copies of the Model 97. On his last trip, about 10 months ago, he went through all the guns at the factory and picked out about 200 that he felt were within specifications. EMF is awaiting delivery on them now, but customs seems to be taking their sweet time in releasing them. I'm assured that once those guns hit the market, they will go fast. The owner of EMF, "General U. S. Grant", SASS #2, shot on our posse at Winter Range last week. He's a great guy and fun to shoot with. He's forgotten more about cowboy guns than most people know today.
Fred
ReloaderFred
Member
Kirby,
I'm not going to further debate the issue, since it's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind on the subject, and you're not going to change mine.
One thing that I would like to point out, though, is some of the new shotgun slugs are made from copper alloy, and don't compress. They are close to bore diameter and are designed to be fired in rifled barrels, but there is nothing that would prevent them from being fired in the old Model 97 or Model 12, and I believe this would create a dangerous situation in an unmodified, short chambered gun.
Your point about the barrel to action fit on the take-down guns is a good one, and one of the first things I check on any Model 97 I lay my hands on. Most people aren't aware that Winchester built in the adjustment cog into the gun. I've seen some that were very loose, and was able to show the owners how to take the slack out of the gun and possibly preserve it.
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, my gunsmiths, and that's several, don't agree with your treatise on this subject. I know that opinions are just that, but I also know what I've observed in these guns, and I see a lot of them. As I told you before, I'm not a gunsmith, so I rely on the advice of those who are, and the ones I've consulted have all counseled to have the chambers and forcing cones rebored. They point to the feathered crimps on shells fired in the shorter chambers as evidence that something is amiss. I've seen this, and it makes me nervous, since it's obvious that the shell is too long for the chamber it's being fired in.
Every firearm manufacturer unequivocally states to only shoot the proper ammunition for the firearm, and since the ammunition now being manufactured doesn't meet this requirement, then I choose to modify the firearm to safely shoot the modern ammunition.
Fred
I'm not going to further debate the issue, since it's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind on the subject, and you're not going to change mine.
One thing that I would like to point out, though, is some of the new shotgun slugs are made from copper alloy, and don't compress. They are close to bore diameter and are designed to be fired in rifled barrels, but there is nothing that would prevent them from being fired in the old Model 97 or Model 12, and I believe this would create a dangerous situation in an unmodified, short chambered gun.
Your point about the barrel to action fit on the take-down guns is a good one, and one of the first things I check on any Model 97 I lay my hands on. Most people aren't aware that Winchester built in the adjustment cog into the gun. I've seen some that were very loose, and was able to show the owners how to take the slack out of the gun and possibly preserve it.
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, my gunsmiths, and that's several, don't agree with your treatise on this subject. I know that opinions are just that, but I also know what I've observed in these guns, and I see a lot of them. As I told you before, I'm not a gunsmith, so I rely on the advice of those who are, and the ones I've consulted have all counseled to have the chambers and forcing cones rebored. They point to the feathered crimps on shells fired in the shorter chambers as evidence that something is amiss. I've seen this, and it makes me nervous, since it's obvious that the shell is too long for the chamber it's being fired in.
Every firearm manufacturer unequivocally states to only shoot the proper ammunition for the firearm, and since the ammunition now being manufactured doesn't meet this requirement, then I choose to modify the firearm to safely shoot the modern ammunition.
Fred
FWIW: Rather than adjusting the cog I have had better luck with shimming the barrel. My first 97 was pretty loose and the shims locked it up tight as a drum.
I put about 500 rounds through it the first year I had it and it still rides in my cart as a backup, it's just as tight as can be.
The cog is good but the shim is better IMO (and only $15).
ReloaderFred
Member
I have some of the shims, but I'm keeping them for use in a gun that has been adjusted as far as the cog will allow. The main thing is to take all the slack out of the barrel to frame fit, and either method will accomplish that.
Good shooting,
Fred
Good shooting,
Fred
- Status
