Lipsey & Ruger…ask for a GP100 in 41 Magnum!!!

[NeroM]

For most of us, the "big" game we most often hunt is "deer" and perhaps hogs.
Also a majority of hunters, hunt with some form of long gun,
Handgun hunters are a minority.
My deer gun a revolver.
Over time have used 357 mag, 41 mag, 44 mag, 45 Colt and 454;
Among these, my preference is 41 mag, but have used 45 Colt for a longer timeframe.
Some years ago, a lot of gun writer ink was spilled about the effectiveness of a 250 gr
43 cal bullet at 1200 fps. This load, in my experience, is about the max that is truly
Comfortable to shoot. 250 gr at 1200 fps is an easy load in 41 mag, that is why I favor
The 41. A dozen or so years ago, when I acquired a FA83 in 41 mag, the dealer asked
Why I wanted 41. He was shooting a FA in 454, but admitted he could only go a couple
Cylinders. Before I could get my answer out, another guy talked about how enjoyable
The 41 is, especially compared go 454.
For me, 41 mag, is the right balance of power and shootability.
Other cartridges are nice choices, I think if a handgun hunter is
Really honest with her/himself, they too will find the 41 mag to be optimal.

PS, slightly off topic - another highly effective and shootable deer load
Is 255 gr SWC in 45 Colt at 950 fps.

 

[TTv2]

The mention of 41 mag always stirs the blood. Some for the good, some not.

As much as folks want to declare it dead, it ain't. The problem isn't that 41 ain't popular, the problem is that ammo companies charge ungodly prices for their wares. They could sell it for $25 a box and sell it darn fast. A person looking for a new gun would see a stack of cheap ammo in the store, and then buy a gun to match. I know I would have 20 years ago when I got into it. But I got the 357 because that's where the ammo availability was, not because it was better in any way.

The same can be said about any caliber, I've read all the stories of people buying Tokarevs because the ammo was cheap and then promptly sold those Toks as soon as the cheap ammo dried up. Didn't care a lick about the potential of the cartridge, how high velocity it was, just that it was cheap.

The ammo makers are never going to make .41 Mag in the same quantities they make 10mm or .357, not unless in the next John Wick movie he starts blasting gangsters with a .41 Mag and looks straight into the camera and says "Being that this here is a .41 Magnum, the most practically powerful revolver in the world capable of blowing your head CLEAN off..."

How many folks ever ask for a gun in 10mm? Bout as many as ask for one in 41 mag I reckon.

Dude, the 10mm has had such a resurgence in the past few years that finding ammo online for $18 a box was easy. Last year before Brandon "won" I was able to get some Federal 10mm for $21 a box at an lgs while 9mm was double the price.

If you still think 10mm isn't being asked for then why did S&W just announce a 10mm M&P and why do they and Ruger make 10mm revolvers? People are buying them and the ammo not costing $35 a box is a big factor. Back in the day you bought a .357 instead of a .41, today people are buying 10mm instead of a .41

 

[Onty]

... 250 gr at 1200 fps is an easy load in 41 mag, that is why I favor The 41. A dozen or so years ago, when I acquired a FA83 in 41 mag, the dealer asked why I wanted 41. He was shooting a FA in 454, but admitted he could only go a couple cylinders. Before I could get my answer out, another guy talked about how enjoyable the 41 is, especially compared go 454. For me, 41 mag, is the right balance of power and shootability. Other cartridges are nice choices, I think if a handgun hunter is really honest with her/himself, they too will find the 41 mag to be optimal...

Yep, you reflect the opinion of us who have or had 41 Magnums. And shoot them! Contrary to that, those who never pulled the trigger on one are the most vocal telling us how "useless" and "unnecessary" 41 Magnum is.

As for GP100 in 41 Magnum. First, there is no 10 mm magnum rimmed. Well, use to be Herter's .401 Powermag, unfortunately Starline, as the last resource for old and odd brass, doesn't list it any more. However, 41 Magnum is there, as well as 41 Special and 414 Super Mag https://www.starlinebrass.com/pistol-brass/ . Obviously, there is interest and market for 41s. Of course, not as big as for 357, 44 and 45, but enough to keep various 41 brass listed. The advantage of GP100 in 41 Magnum is that this will be revolver in fairly powerful cartridge, yet same weight and size as 357. I wouldn't go and shoot from it 100+ rounds, even 220@1200 fps, however, for outdoorsman, or hunter where 41 Magnum is enough, this revolver will be top choice.

@TTv2, as for your statement that "Fact is the overwhelming majority of people don't reload", c'mon, go on ranges and see the facts by yourself. I bet that of all revolver ammo fired, at least 80% are reloads, and active revolvers' shooters will overwhelmingly tell you that at least 98% of ammo they use are reloads. Last time I fired 357 factory load was more than 15 years ago, form friend's S&W 66, while I visited him. He doesn't reload, and in 5-6 years he had that revolver, no more than one box was fired from it. Last time factory 44 Magnum ammo was fired from my revolver was about 20 years by friend's daughter (19 at that time), just to show her how it feels to shoot full power 44 Magnum.

 

[Old_Grouch]

weaker frame

Okay, now I know you're joking. You got me.

 

[black mamba]

I've been a big bore handgunner for almost 50 years, and the 41 magnum just works. It has at least 90% of the power of the 44 magnum, with 20-25% less felt recoil. Every 41 magnum revolver I've owned has been dead nuts accurate, easy to load for, and with power to spare. As NeroM said, it easily covers the threshold of comfortable recoil with enough power for any usage in the lower 48. Elmer's original idea for the 44 mag was a 250 at 1200, and that still works today.

To be honest, in order to split the difference between the 357 and 44 mags, they should have made a 39 magnum, with .395 caliber bullets. But the 41 Colt was already there, and even though the 38 special was misnamed, a 39 cal would seem redundant to many shooters. A 10 mm rimmed cartridge would be about as close as we'd ever come to a 39 magnum, and I'd love to see it in an L-framed revolver, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[JDeere]

Funny how people get trying to defend their choice of caliber. Why not spend time shooting it instead of trying to justify it. Shoot what you like and like what you shoot...Carry on...

 

[Onty]

Funny how people get trying to defend their choice of caliber. Why not spend time shooting it instead of trying to justify it. Shoot what you like and like what you shoot...Carry on...

Same applies in opposite direction. The difference is that some defend cartridge and revolver they know, have experience, and were able to compare with other cartridges/revolvers.

At the same time others, instead of spending time on shooting, bashing that same revolver in caliber on which they never pulled the trigger, never mind owned, reloaded and fired at least several hundred rounds.

 

[TTv2]

Okay, now I know you're joking. You got me.

A cast frame the size of the GP100 in .44 Mag does not give me confidence and Ruger apparently agrees because if they could make a 5 shot .44 Mag GP100 why didn't they do it when they made the .44 Spl? If the frame was so strong you'd think we'd have seen custom GP100's made by gunsmiths, especially after the .44 Spl model was made and yet we didn't.

The answer is obvious: the GP100 cannot handle .44 Magnum.

 

[CraigC]

A cast frame the size of the GP100 in .44 Mag does not give me confidence and Ruger apparently agrees because if they could make a 5 shot .44 Mag GP100 why didn't they do it when they made the .44 Spl? If the frame was so strong you'd think we'd have seen custom GP100's made by gunsmiths, especially after the .44 Spl model was made and yet we didn't.

The answer is obvious: the GP100 cannot handle .44 Magnum.

God, not this again. The cast vs forged argument is so over done. It's always S&W fanboys who can't handle that Ruger builds a stronger sixgun. That or those who actually believed the `80's marketing.

Fact, forgings are stronger, in one direction. Castings are strong in all directions. It takes a minuscule amount of added material to make up the difference between forgings and investment castings. Not only is material used in the GP's cast frame at least as strong but the design makes it even stronger. It's the turn of the century sideplate design that allows S&W's in high pressure cartridges to rattle themselves loose in a few thousand rounds. Sorry, the L-frame is not a stronger gun than the GP because it's offered in .44Mag. That is because the L-frame .44Mag is unlike any other L-frame. Because it wasn't "enough". S&W had to enlarge the front half of the frame to at least enlarge the barrel stub to eliminate the weak link present in the model 696, the paper thin forcing cone. The fact that Ruger has not done this does not mean a damned thing. It is not the strength of the frame that is in question, it's the thickness of the forcing cone because these guns were designed as .357's.

There have been custom five-shot GP .44Spl's and .41Mag's, for years before the factory did it. In fact David Clements' .44Spl was rated for the Keith load. Due in no small part to the longer cylinder and subsequently shorter barrel stub, so that most of it is supported by the frame.

The New Vaquero and Colt SAA frames are nearly identical in dimensions, does anyone argue the Colt is stronger? Nope.

The Single Six has been offered in cartridges as large as the 10mm and .41Spl. Anyone argue that their cast frames are weak.

The Bearcat has been built in the 45,000psi .327Federal. Weak frame? No.

Are there 50,000psi "S&W only" loads in the .44Mag or .45Colt? Never. In fact, it is because of the N-frame that they are marketed as "Redhawk only".

 

[TTv2]

Whatever the case is with the GP100 it can't handle .44 Mag without changes that Ruger doesn't care to make. Ruger is more likely to make a .41 Mag in the GP than .44 Mag, yet they don't and instead make a 10mm.

 

[CraigC]

All we know is that they haven't done it yet.

 

[TTv2]

True, but there are likely reasons and I find it odd how Ruger's biggest competitors in S&W and Taurus offer a 5 shot .44 Mag on smaller frame and Ruger has always been about getting market share.

That said, when Ruger does introduce a new revolver design like the LCR, they take a long time to do it to make sure it's not just worth doing, but also done right and it shows as the QC on the LCR's seems like out of box you've got a guaranteed to work revolver while the SP101 and GP100 have been... disappointing lately.

 

[JDeere]

Same applies in opposite direction. The difference is that some defend cartridge and revolver they know, have experience, and were able to compare with other cartridges/revolvers.

At the same time others, instead of spending time on shooting, bashing that same revolver in caliber on which they never pulled the trigger, never mind owned, reloaded and fired at least several hundred rounds.

You missed the point...Go out and shoot instead of sitting around on a forum and trying to shoot down everything being said against your favorite cartridge...

 

[mjsdwash]

while everyones at it, can you PS a New Vaq in 10mm/40s/w as a regular production? Maybe decent Roper grips for the GP as well. Bring back the Standard model too. My wish list is too long isnt it?

 

[buck460XVR]

I have long wanted to see a resurrection of the .401PowerMag, which would be basically a 10mmMag with a rim.

I remember as a kid in the sixties, fondly ogling those West German made revolvers in the perennial Herter's catalogs that came to our house(back when you could still mail order a gun). Still have few items ordered from them, like my first Lee Loader and a "Sporter" stock I custom carved for my ol' M1917 ought-six. Gun rags praised it's power in the Whitetail woods and it was those articles that ignited in me the desire to hunt deer with a revolver. Just hearing it's name ".401 Power-Mag" still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand.

 

[TTv2]

.401 PowerMag doesn't have the same name recognition like 10mm Magnum or 10mm Auto Magnum would have.

 

[CraigC]

I remember as a kid in the sixties, fondly ogling those West German made revolvers in the perennial Herter's catalogs that came to our house(back when you could still mail order a gun). Still have few items ordered from them, like my first Lee Loader and a "Sporter" stock I custom carved for my ol' M1917 ought-six. Gun rags praised it's power in the Whitetail woods and it was those articles that ignited in me the desire to hunt deer with a revolver. Just hearing it's name ".401 Power-Mag" still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand.

I'd like to hire the guy that wrote their marketing, he was a fine story teller! I keep hoping I'll run into one but brass is still an issue.

What lit my fire was reading JD Jones, Bob Milek, Ross Seyfried and John Taffin in the `80's.

 

[Onty]

I keep hoping I'll run into one but brass is still an issue...

This might help:

401 Powermag Case Forming https://singleactions.proboards.com/thread/1394/401-powermag-case-forming

 

[UncleEd]

Kindness is required here
regarding those who wish
for and want various .41
Magnum firearms.

As children, they were sweet
little creatures but different
than their playmates. They
always seemed to wander.

Now as adults, they are fine
folks but they still want to
wander and they retain the
innocence of the sweet
little creatures they used to
be.

They are so few and really
pose no dangers to others.
Let them have their dreams
and hopes.

 

[CraigC]

This might help:

401 Powermag Case Forming https://singleactions.proboards.com/thread/1394/401-powermag-case-forming

I know, that's why I'm not doing it.

 

[RealGun]

I'm not gonna call you lazy, it's your preference to not be sizing bullets, but you and others seem to have this belief that I'm telling you why you should own it when I'm not, I'm more focused on why rimmed 10mm Mag should be made. The counter to that is "it can't do what .41 Mag can" and to that I ask: does the majority of the market really need the power that .41 Mag is capable of and at the cost of what the ammo is priced at? Fact is the overwhelming majority of people don't reload, offer them good power in 10mm Mag in a rimmed package but the ability to shoot ammo that is much cheaper and more available than .41 is in 10mm Auto and/or .40 and they can see a relatively affordable to shoot gun that has more power than .357 Mag in the same size gun as .357 Mag.

Of course, the big drawback is nobody makes rimmed 10mm ammo of any flavor and rimless 10mm Mag is only made by boutique ammo makers @ $2/rd. The way that changes is talking about why rimmed 10mm Magnum is a good idea, not just reacting like Hulk Hogan by saying, "That don't work for me, brother."

The fact of the matter is .41 Mag has been around for 50 years and where is it now? It's less popular than .32 is. I'm not saying throw the .41 away, those who have it and are happy are well served by it, but those who don't... what makes a .41 a better choice for them over a revolver that can shoot .40 and 10mm?

This is why Ruger makes a 10mm GP100 and not a .41

Could you (and others) try any harder to hijack this thread to be about your interest in 10mm Mag chambered for a revolver?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Just thinking about the .41LC and its history I can't help but think the .41 was kind of cursed from the beginning. The .41 Magnum came out when most large police departments were having public relations issues and avoiding the "magnum" name, movies were in the theaters featuring rogue "hero" cops toting massive magnum revolvers and the market for hunting just wasn't there. In 1960, most handgun hunters were more interested in the .44 than the .41. And, having the option of shelf-stock ammo in .44Spl for lighter game and plinking was darned attractive, even then. If it ever catches a break, some marketing genius may find a way to popularize it - like someone said, if John Wick blows away a bunch of gangsters with a .41 and Keanu Reeves can manage to utter some unforgettable line about the gun, maybe. That depends on Keanu Reeves managing to emote. Good luck.

 

[Old_Grouch]

The .41 Magnum came out when most large police departments were having public relations issues and avoiding the "magnum" name, movies were in the theaters featuring rogue "hero" cops toting massive magnum revolvers

I don't remember those movies until the early 70s.

In 1960, most handgun hunters were more interested in the .44 than the .41

No one was interested in the .41 Mag in 1960 because it didn't exist then. The first .41 magnum was the S&W Model 58 which was introduced in 1964.
Disclaimer: I am not a .41 Magnum fanboy. As I said in a previous post I have only one. It's the only one I've ever had, and I've never fired it. I do find a certain "romance" about the caliber as I think it came about, as I stated earlier, as a result in an error in reasoning.
Does it have its place? Yes. If it doesn't than neither does the .44 Mag (a .454 Casul will do everything it does); neither does the 9mm (the .38 Super will do everything it does); neither does the .40 S&W (the 10mm will do everything it does) Okay, the principle should be evident by now. (I won't even discuss the .45 GAP )
My point is that everything has its place, even if that place is to amuse and satisfy the owner in some way.
I could argue all day long that the ONLY necessary handgun caliber is . 357 Magnum. (But I wont. )

 

[Onty]

Please delete, double post, problem with internet

 

[Onty]

..Every 41 magnum revolver I've owned has been dead nuts accurate, easy to load for, and with power to spare...

Considering my experience with 41 Bisley, and reports from gun writers who own S&W 57/657, I think you are correct. I had a reasonably good accuracy even when using some iffy bullets. I didn't cast, and local supplier had SWC with very short and undersized front driving band. Seems to me that 41 Magnum isn't finicky regarding bullets' quality. I cannot say that for 357 Magnums revolvers I had.

I found in several instances statements (correct or not) from gun writers that one major reason for 41 Magnum accuracy is that it was later than 357 Magnum and 44 Magnum, so SAAMI specification for 41 caliber was done taking in account the best design features of other calibers. Also, production of 41 revolvers was lower than 357, 44 and 45, so tooling was not pushed too far in production of 41 revolvers as it was in production of revolvers in other calibers. Anybody remembered a small army of shooters complaining about undersized chambers on Ruger 45 Colt revolvers, and oversized on Colts and clones? Smiths regularly offer opening cylinders on Ruger 45 revolvers, and some folks even started business doing that.