Do you think Ruger will chamber the GP100 in 41 Remington Magnum?

[Zaydok Allen]

All the talk of the 44 Special GP100 has me examining my revolver selection. I own three 357 magnums, a 460 magnum, a 32 Long, and an 8mm French Ordinance revolver, but there is no middle ground in my collection. It's either 357 and smaller, or a 45 it seems. The 44 Special is fascinating to me, and I may end up with one, but I now find myself curious about the 41 magnum.

When I look at the listed velocities and bullet weights that 41 mag ammo comes in, it hits me as a very handy cartridge, and one that could fit into the GP platform fairly easily as a five shot. In the current 44 Special configuration (3" barrel), it would make a real nice trail gun and SD gun, though 41 mag certainly isn't needed for SD against people. While it may kick a bit, I don't see it as being impractical. That's completely based on my opinion though. I've never owned or shot a 41 mag. I have no doubt they bark pretty good, and would wake you up if you were snoozing.

Is it possible to get a thick enough forcing cone in a one piece barrel design with the GP100 to accommodate the 41 mag?

So I guess I'm just wondering if folks think it makes sense to expect a 41 mag GP100. I realize this is all conjecture and guessing on our part, but it seems with a different barrel and a cylinder, as well as an appropriately think forcing cone, it shouldn't be terribly difficult for Ruger to produce. Their limited 41 mag Redhawk run also makes me wonder if they are trying to revive the largely under appreciated 41 mag cartridge.

I realize 41 mag ammo is not terribly plentiful and it's a reloader's cartridge. The same can be said for the 44 special, and they made that.

What do you all think? Will we see a 41 mag GP100?

 

[BSA1]

No but it will a great platform for the 41 Special.

 

[Drail]

The .41 Rem Mag. is a GREAT cartridge. I have been handloading and shooting it for 30 years. Unfortunately it is not very popular with the majority of the shooting public and has never been supported very well by the ammo manufacturers, distributors and stocking dealers even though it has a lot of advantages over more popular cartridges. Of course most of this could also be said for the .44 Spl. and Ruger has now brought out a GP for that caliber. I never thought that would happen, (or that they would build a 1911, never saw that one coming). No one knows what goes on in the mind of Ruger's corporate folks. Like Forrest said - "you don't never know what you're going to get".......

 

[jdavis123]

I think that BSA is right. There really isn't enough demand for the .41 to make it profitable. I am surprised that Ruger didn't chamber the GP for the .44 mag due to the touted strength of the revolver. If the 686 S&W can handle the pressure of the .44 magnum, wouldn't you think that the Ruger could also?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I think that BSA is right. There really isn't enough demand for the .41 to make it profitable. I am surprised that Ruger didn't chamber the GP for the .44 mag due to the touted strength of the revolver. If the 686 S&W can handle the pressure of the .44 magnum, wouldn't you think that the Ruger could also?

Yes, it certainly could, but S&W had to use a 2 piece barrel in order to get a thick enough forcing cone to make it work. The model 69 cylinder is also not long enough to accommodate some of the really heavy 44 mag loads.

Ruger elected to cater to the 44 special crowd. But that isn't what this thread is about.

 

[CraigC]

They certainly could but I don't know if they will. Ruger tends to like a larger safety margin than other makers, like S&W.

 

[MaxP]

I doubt it. You could however have one built.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I'm not sure but I'd love to see a GP100 6 shooter in the new .41 Special cartridge. It'd be like a six shot .40 S&W without having to deal with moons.

 

[RealGun]

I think that BSA is right. There really isn't enough demand for the .41 to make it profitable. I am surprised that Ruger didn't chamber the GP for the .44 mag due to the touted strength of the revolver. If the 686 S&W can handle the pressure of the .44 magnum, wouldn't you think that the Ruger could also?

What L-frame shoots 44 magnum other than the special design of the 69? Seems like the purpose of the L-frame was to NOT shoot 44 Magnum.

I don't see 41 Magnum, which has a special place in my stable of guns, as well suited to concealed carry, any more than 44 Magnum, the difference being ammo availability. As a hunter and range gun the SA Rugers are terrific in 41 magnum. The problem is that Ruger has nothing in between a GP100, designed around 357 Magnum, and a Redhawk, which is a heavy duty monster. I wouldn't think about stretching a GP100 to 41 Magnum, but I would dream of Ruger developing a new platform that was not meant to be the strongest gun on the planet but quite well suited to 5-shot 44 Magnum. They have to be looking at the apparent success of S&W's 69, which isn't your run-of-the-mill L-frame.

 

[reddog81]

I was going to say the chance of a 41 Magnum being introduced by Ruger was around 0 to 1%, but than I visited galleryofguns and did a search for 41 Magnum guns for sale and saw that Ruger actually already has a a couple of Redhawks and and Blackhawks chambered in 41 Mag. With that new knowledge I'd guess the chance of seeing a GP100 in 41 would be somewhere around 5%....

 

[reddog81]

RealGun, I would argue that the fact that the model 69 exists proves that the S&W L-frame can be designed to shoot 44 Mag loads.

I imagine Ruger must have tried to make the GP100 work with 44 Mag loads but something prevented that from happening. All the boutique ammo makers pushing the envelope of the cartridge probably make it difficult to determine how well a gun will hold up.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

Gary Reeder will build you one, but I don't know if Ruger will. .41 Magnum makes the .44 Special look positively mainstream. For me, and for now, they're both "if I reloaded" cartridges.

 

[dawei]

I would like to see Ruger® produce a 5 shot GP100 in 41 Remington Magnum. I have a Taurus® TRACKER™ Mdl 425SS4CP 5 shot 4" barrel in that caliber that weighs 34oz, and can attest it is a hell of a fine trail gun. I was fortunate that I got one in 2012, the last year of production.

S&W® makes a 5 shot 44 Magnum, the Mdl 69, an L frame, to compete with the Taurus® TRACKER™ in the same chambering. The beauty of the 4" Taurus® TRACKER™ in 41 & 44 Magnum configuration is that they are K frame size guns. A 5 shot 41 or 44 Magnum Ruger® GP100 would be equivalent to an L frame S&W®.

Come on Ruger®, lets Git-R-Done!!!!!

 

[RealGun]

RealGun, I would argue that the fact that the model 69 exists proves that the S&W L-frame can be designed to shoot 44 Mag loads.

I imagine Ruger must have tried to make the GP100 work with 44 Mag loads but something prevented that from happening. All the boutique ammo makers pushing the envelope of the cartridge probably make it difficult to determine how well a gun will hold up.

No argument, but the statement I was questioning was that the 686 could shoot 44 Magnum, and I won't defend a different context. The 69 has a different barrel design, etc.

 

[22-rimfire]

I doubt you'll see that chambering. They seem to do batches of the Blackhawk in 41 mag from time to time.

 

[DPris]

I don't think they will.
Denis

 

[Drail]

If they do build a .44 Mag. GP and they fail to address the forcing cone problem they'll get a whole bunch of them returned. The pressures of the cartridge and the strength of the frame and cylinder are not the problem. Hot gases and misalignment of the chamber with the bore all have to be dealt with by the forcing cone.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I don't think they will.
Denis

Crap. That's the two cents I was waiting for. Bummer. I guess I'll look at the Redhawk.

 

[Dog Soldier]

The stopping power charts are interesting when discussing handgun calibers.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

 

[CraigC]

Not to interject a little reality into a dream world but for all those wanting a .44Mag GP just because S&W builds the model 69, if the N-frame shoots itself loose with a few thousand rounds of full pressure .44Mag, what do you think will happen with the L-frame?

 

[jdavis123]

Craig, not to be argumentative but, do you have first hand knowledge of an N-frame model 29 or 629 shooting loose. Over the years, my 29-2 has digested countless factory and handloads packed with 2400 or 296 as well as medium target loads. Although I don' have an exact round count, I am sure that it is in the thousands. My gun is as good as it ever was. Nothing is loose, B/C gap is in spec, forcing isn't eroded, and no excessive end shake. Any gun can be the victim of abuse but, based on my long term experience, I don' think that that it is a common problem for N-frames to shoot loose when used with ammo within SAAMI standards. Sometime around the mid 1980s S&W introduced an endurance package with the 29-3. This was in response to the silhouette shooters who were using handloads that exceeded SAAMI specifications. I imagine that such abuse would result in a damaged weapon after a time. No doubt that an L frame isn't as stout as an N frame but advances in metallurgy have made such things possible.

 

[CraigC]

Fact is, most shooters don't shoot them enough to ever find out. Some do. Silhouette shooters were among the first to discover the 29's inherent weaknesses. They just couldn't hold up to the regular diet of published full pressure loads. Rugers do. In fact, Bill Ruger took all the lessons learned from S&W adapting the turn of the century era N-frame to the .44Mag when he designed the Redhawk, from the ground up, as a .44 Magnum. Just as he eliminated the shortcomings in the Colt single actions when designing the Single Six in the early 1950's.

The gunsmith that built this custom Ruger .500 used to do warranty work for S&W and rebuilt dozens of loose N-frame .44's. Include several of his own.

The endurance package came out in 1987, several years after the first 29-3's but before the -4's. It was a feeble attempt to fix what was wrong. It doesn't keep guns from shooting loose.

 

[MaxP]

Craig, not to be argumentative but, do you have first hand knowledge of an N-frame model 29 or 629 shooting loose. Over the years, my 29-2 has digested countless factory and handloads packed with 2400 or 296 as well as medium target loads. Although I don' have an exact round count, I am sure that it is in the thousands. My gun is as good as it ever was. Nothing is loose, B/C gap is in spec, forcing isn't eroded, and no excessive end shake. Any gun can be the victim of abuse but, based on my long term experience, I don' think that that it is a common problem for N-frames to shoot loose when used with ammo within SAAMI standards. Sometime around the mid 1980s S&W introduced an endurance package with the 29-3. This was in response to the silhouette shooters who were using handloads that exceeded SAAMI specifications. I imagine that such abuse would result in a damaged weapon after a time. No doubt that an L frame isn't as stout as an N frame but advances in metallurgy have made such things possible.

Craig essentially beat me to it, but the heyday of metallic silhouette happened well before the Endurance Package was introduced with I believe the -4. The metallurgy isn't the issue, it's the turn of the century half-frame design. While the Endurance Package helps, it doesn't "fix" or address the inherent weakness of the design. It doesn't take over-pressure loads to shake a 29 loose, and they typically don't handle full-tilt loads with heavy bullets well. I still like 'em and own Model 29s, I just don't use them for any heavy lifting.

 

[Crowman]

The Smith model 69 is NOT a typical L frame. No worries about handling heavy loads. The cylinder length is the main determinate for Bullet selection. I got my Model 69 out and looked it over and it is not built like my other L frames. The barrel forcing cone diameter is thicker than my 629 and 625s, the frame front is beefier, the barrel tensioning system is different, more like a non-removable Dan Wesson barrel, the cylinder has a front ball detent lock for extra strength and they got rid of the old turn of the last century threaded star extractor rod and replaced it with beefier one similar to Rugers. One machinist I know figures it to actually be stronger than the N frame due to the bolt notches having offset cut in the beefy part of the cylinder away from and not directly into the thin web over the chamber charging hole bores.

 

[joneb]

I'm not sure but I'd love to see a GP100 6 shooter in the new .41 Special cartridge. It'd be like a six shot .40 S&W without having to deal with moons.

I don't mind moon clips, as they are a speed loader.