41 magnum, why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a fairly silly reason but none the less the reason I don't own a 41 Mag is the same reason I don't own a 20 Gauge shotgun. Nearly all the 20 gauge shotguns are built on 12 gauge frames and all the 41 mags are built on 44 mag frames. Very few maker scale the frame to match the 20 Ga or 41 Mag. This is also my objection to most 9mm revolvers for CCW despite my love of moonclips and rimless revolvers. YMMV

This is kind of where I'm going with it. I mean.....I don't expect a 41mag frame but still it is a valid point
 
Unless they do it in a Redhawk frame and still call it a GP100, a hybrid like the Super GP100, a misnomer really, a 41 Magnum in a GP100 is not going to happen while remaining 6 rounds. I wish that notion would not keep coming up.

Who said it had to be 6 rounds?

5 would keep it slim and smaller, and that's a great area for the 41mag imo
 
Well on the "Shelby Rampage" topic Dodge did make a "California Special" version that had a Shelby Charger nose on them.

I'm pretty sure that's the museum for this one.

It's made up of 4 cars, and was built as a race car for a very specific budget.

So not only does it look unique but it was built to be a race car for under $2000. Has huge slicks with it for racing, 16psi of boost, and terrifying wiring that I need to fix
 
Who said it had to be 6 rounds?

5 would keep it slim and smaller, and that's a great area for the 41mag imo

I would think a 6-shot GP100 in 41 Mag should be possible. They make a GP100 in 10mm Auto that is a 6-shot and the chambers for 41 Mag are only ~.011 inch larger in diameter than 10mm Auto. 41 Mag operates at a slightly lower pressure than 10mm Auto ( 37.5 ksi vs 36 ksi). The rims are going to be very close together much the way they are in a 7-shot 357 mag GP100. It would be close but might be possible.
 
Last edited:
I posted this in another thread and again here for reference on cylinder wall thinkness and closeness of rims. It is my 41 Special done on a GP100.View attachment 876970 View attachment 876972

So clearly everything fits now it would just be a matter of can the material/geometry take the extra stress of the 41 Mag's pressure and the forces resulting from it.

What are typical 41 Special chamber pressures?
 
Nothing specific really, just thinking of something new. I've owned a few 44s, own a great 45lc and 357.....

Mostly it's just a new gun

Do you reload??

If not getting ammo for the 41Mag will be expensive and hard to find.
 
So clearly everything fits now it would just be a matter of can the material/geometry take the extra stress of the 41 Mag's pressure and the forces resulting from it.

What are typical 41 Special chamber pressures?

Using more pricey steels like the various carpenter steels and a Max OD cylinder I'd think full bore 41mag's would be possible.

Might mean it'd be a more expensive limited run, rather than a normal production item however if their normal steels won't hold up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
A 5 shot 41 magnum GP100 or L frame would be easier to do safely, as the cylinder stop notches would fall between chambers rather than on them. I would happily sacrifice 1 round for the ballistic capability of the 41 magnum in a smaller package. There's no situation I can picture myself in where 5 shots of 41 magnum wouldn't do what I needed it to. If I'm killing something bigger I'll bring a bigger gun.
 
Last edited:
I've owned three 41 mag revolvers in the past. They didn't do anything the 44 mag didn't do better. I sold them along with the dies, brass and bullets and never looked back.Nothing wrong with the round it just wasn't anything special. And Brian Pearce wrote an article on the 41 mag stating the difference in trajectory is almost meaningless.
 
A 5 shot 41 magnum GP100 or L frame would be easier to do safely, as the cylinder stop notches would fall between chambers rather than on them. I would happily sacrifice 1 round for the ballistic capability of the 41 magnum in a smaller package. There's no situation I can picture myself in where 5 shots of 41 magnum would do what I needed it to. If I'm killing something bigger I'll bring a bigger gun.
The GP100 (or the shooter) can barely handle full power 357 Magnum. They had it right when the 357 Magnum was introduced as an N-frame. We should try that and then imagine doing the same with full power 41 Magnum. The weight and balance of a bigger gun makes the 41 manageable. I think the gun maker has to always view it as shooting full power ammo, and whether they are covered as being responsible for providing the gun. Most importantly, would it sell once it gained a conditional reputation?
 
The GP100 (or the shooter) can barely handle full power 357 Magnum. They had it right when the 357 Magnum was introduced as an N-frame. We should try that and then imagine doing the same with full power 41 Magnum. The weight and balance of a bigger gun makes the 41 manageable. I think the gun maker has to always view it as shooting full power ammo, and whether they are covered as being responsible for providing the gun. Most importantly, would it sell once it gained a conditional reputation?


The gp100 is pretty beefy and I've fired thousands of heavy reloads thru it without any effect whatsoever.

Common opinion is they are much stronger than comparable s&w because it lacks sideplates
 
Everyone tends to compare the 41 Magnum to the 44 Magnum. That was all the flap when the 41 Magnum was first introduced and, of course, the 44 Magnum came out better...at least on paper anyway. As a practical matter the differences, while there, weren’t all that much more significant. The inventors of the 41 Magnum never intended the 41 to be a better 44 Magnum. Their intent was to make a better 357 Magnum and sell it primarily to the law enforcement community. The 41 Magnum is a way better mousetrap than the 357. Unfortunately the law enforcement community yawned and a few hunters picked it up but most went with the 44 Magnum and never looked back which started the round on the way to semi-obsolesce, save for the efforts of a few die-hard fans that liked it...me included.

My meager income back in the 60s and 70s was such that the 41 Magnum just wasn’t in the cards. The income situation improved. The wife problem...”Why do you need another gun.” Improved (divorced her sorry ass. You reach a point in life where you learn that you can live with sex but not without your damned glasses.) I own four 41 Magnums today...one S&W 657 Hunter Model (only 2000 of those ever produced) and three Rugers...Two Redhawk (5.5” and 7.5”) and one 4&5/8” Blackhawk. The 7.5” Redhawk is scoped and will consistently shoot sub 2” groups at 50 yards. I’m currently lobbying Ruger to bring out a 5 shot GP 100 stainless in 41 Magnum in a 4” and 6” barrel...Would appreciate some supportive e-mails being sent to Ruger to lobby for that project. If they can produce the GP 100 in a 5 shot 10MM, they sure as hell can produce one in 41 Magnum. I’ve asked Lipsey to chime in and got blown off. While I’m on my soapbox I will also put in a plug for the invention of the 41 Special as well. If the 41 Magnum is a better mousetrap than the 357 Magnum, the 41 Special will be one hell of a lot better .38 Special! I like the 41 and will continue to enjoy the round for the balance of my years. Let’s lobby Ruger to give the 41 Magnum it’s rightful place in their lineup.
 
The GP100 (or the shooter) can barely handle full power 357 Magnum. They had it right when the 357 Magnum was introduced as an N-frame. We should try that and then imagine doing the same with full power 41 Magnum. The weight and balance of a bigger gun makes the 41 manageable. I think the gun maker has to always view it as shooting full power ammo, and whether they are covered as being responsible for providing the gun. Most importantly, would it sell once it gained a conditional reputation?
Well they sure wouldn’t be for everyone. But neither is a small frame 357, and a lot of us own those. However that fact doesn’t make them a viable investment for a manufacturer, and I understand that.

The popularity of 38/357 makes that combo work.
 
I would bet a hundred bucks any factory .41Mag GP would be a five-shot. I wouldn't want to shoot one much with max loads but would be happy with a 230gr Keith at 1200fps.
 
Last edited:
We should try that and then imagine doing the same with full power 41 Magnum. The weight and balance of a bigger gun makes the 41 manageable.

I love all things .41, for the most part... but I want no part of a light-weight .41MAG pistol. S&W had the .41 Mountain Gun for a while, then there is the Pug (as someone mentioned.) Smith even had that Lew Horton 3" N-frame .41 round-butt, too... no thanks. There is a place for those pistols... as a lighter alternative in a carry gun in .41MAG. I don't carry a revolver for protection, so I need not apply. Those type of handguns would shine more with moderate Magnum loads, or Special loads.

I think there is a place for the .41 in a mid-sized revolver. I think a 5- or 6-round L-frame was what the .41 needed when it was introduced, not the models 57 or 58 that we got, intended for LEO, etc. Similarly, I think a 5-shot revolver in a package like the GP/SP Rugers, et al, would be a big hit, in either .41MAG, or a SAMMI standardized .41SPC (in a properly sized frame and cylinder.)
 
In my old age, I've become enamored with the shorter barrelled revolvers. My favorite is the S&W M69 with the 2 3/4" barrel .44 Mag (and yes I shoot magnums 3 or 4 times a week). For some reason they just work for me.

Recently I added a couple of .41 Mags - 2.5" Charter Arms Pug (23.0 oz) and a 2.5" Taurus Titanium Tracker (21 oz). These two are for use as pocket guns while walking the dog here in MT (my reason for the 41 Mag). The Taurus's recoil is less vs the CA. The action on the Taurus is very smooth and makes the little gun easy to shoot.

Here are some chrono results from the Charter (haven'et chroned the Taurus yet). Labradar results at the muzzle and 55 deg f (45 deg f for the last two).

180gr Barnes ….… 1,195 fps (21 es)
230gr HSM …….… 1,145 fps (28 es)
230gr Underwood .. 1,263 fps (18 es)
250gr Grizzly …….. 1,169 fps (4 es)
210gr Fed Swift A Frame .. 1,191 fps (1 es)
210gr Grizzly Punch …….. 1,239 fps (20 es)

Grizzly Punch is a bit too long to function reliably in either (I'm working on shortening them by both deep seating and using 41 special brass.

Here are the guns:

thumbnail_IMG_315121.jpg

FWIW,

Paul
 
Their intent was to make a better 357 Magnum and sell it primarily to the law enforcement community. The 41 Magnum is a way better mousetrap than the 357. Unfortunately the law enforcement community yawned and a few hunters picked it up but most went with the 44 Magnum and never looked back which started the round on the way to semi-obsolesce, save for the efforts of a few die-hard fans that liked it...me included.

Best answer yet. And the LE should have been given the softer shooting 41 mag loads instead of full power loads. Or if the 41 Special had of been available back then. But the switch to semi autos was on the horizon and for the most part the 41 mag was a hunters round. And thats why it was compared to the 44 mag that did everything the 41 did plus a little more.

But a 41 Special in a 5-6 shot GP-100 would be great. But would it be any better than the 44 Special GP-100? I doubt it. And I don't know if Ruger is selling that many 44 specials now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top