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

[Crowman]

Never had much use for a 41, but wouldn't mind getting one to play around with in a double action revolver platform for grins and giggles. Seems to be the 327 to the 357 kind of relationship, to put it in perspective for me. Never shot one, so have no frame of reference verses a 44. I know there is a devoted following, so there's got to be something to it. If Ruger feels there is sufficient demand for a .41 magnum chambering, and if the GP100 frame can handle the higher pressures, then maybe. But expect it would be a 5-shot for extra safety margin, kinda like the model 69. If folks want one, get some letters flowing to Ruger. They are an innovative company.

 

[CraigC]

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.

The cylinder is not the weak point in an N-frame. The greatest weakness is the sideplate design and nothing about any L-frame alleviates that.

But expect it would be a 5-shot for extra safety margin, kinda like the model 69.

It would absolutely have to be a five shot. Folks don't realize that GP's and L-frames have relatively small diameter cylinders. Really only slightly larger than a Single Six.

 

[Sunray]

They would(more likely 'might') if you have enough people to pay for one in advance. Bunch of guys up here got 'em to make a No. 1 in .303 Brit a few years back.
The .41 Special isn't new. First designed in 1963 or 1987 depending who you ask. Mind you, the .41 Mag, like a lot of stuff, was the answer to an unasked question.
"...stopping power charts..." Pretty are much delusional and mean nothing. No cartridge will stop anything in its tracks.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

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

You know, I've rethought this. The Redhawk in 41 magnum makes less and less sense for my particular desires or needs the more I think about it. While I do find the 41 magnum interesting, I guess I really don't have the need in a Redhawk sized gun. The Redhawk is an extremely solid 44 magnum platform, and the 44 can be loaded to some very hot, and some very light levels. If I were to invest in a Redhawk, the capability of the platform combined with the availability of 44 ammo makes it a lot better choice in 44 I think, particularly since I do not have any other firearms in 41 magnum.

The handiness of the 41 mag in an L frame is what spurred this thought to begin with. So to turn around and look at the Redhawk in 41 really defeats the original idea to. If Ruger does come out with a GP in 41 mag, or if S&W decides to chamber an L frame in 41 mag, and manages to do it with a one piece barrel, and lockwork that isn't going to rattle itself loose, I'll consider it then.

So that does beg the follow up question, for those of you with a Smith or Ruger revolver chambered in 41 magnum, do you think a forcing cone thick enough could be had on an L frame without requiring a two piece barrel? I know it's hard to answer not being engineers or designers, but pull out your guns and calipers and an L frame or two, and tell me what you think. When I look at some of the published velocities and bullet weights the 41 mag can be loaded to, I question whether or not a one piece barrel would even work on an L frame.

 

[CraigC]

I agree, the Redhawk is way too much gun for the .41Mag.

 

[Walkalong]

A .41 Mag GP-100 would be a wonderful thing for a select group.

 

[gotboostvr]

I prefer the balance and trigger of the L frames, but if Ruger does it first in a GP, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the extra funds.

I still might just get that Rock Island 10mm single stack I've been thinking of though and call it close enough.

 

[jdh]

I don't see 41 Magnum, as well suited to concealed carry,

It is winter, the 4" 57 is back in the carry rotation.

 

[RealGun]

It is winter, the 4" 57 is back in the carry rotation.

I am guessing that carrying an N-frame concealed is not very common.

 

[jdh]

One advantage of being, shall we say, big boned.

And we are more common than the guy in a department I once worked for who applied to off duty carry a Desert Eagle.

I do happen to know a guy who back pocket carries one of these:

A 327 8 shot 357.

Okay perhaps my circle is not exactly typical.