Taurus Raging Bull .41 Mag Experience?


PDA






Koveras
October 14, 2004, 09:20 PM
I've decided I need (want) another .41 Mag to join the family. I've been looking at the Taurus Raging Bull, and I was hoping someone here would have some words of wisdom regarding them.

I have heard the cylinder is just a bit shorter than the Ruger BH and the S&W 657, but I haven't verified this. Has anybody shot the bigger cast bullets (250+ grains) through them? What were the results? Any idiosyncrasies encountered with the Raging Bull in general?

Any words of experience are greatly appreciated!

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus Raging Bull .41 Mag Experience?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ChristopherG
October 15, 2004, 01:30 PM
I've only got second hand experience for you.

I don't know exactly how long the Taurus cylinder is, but I do know a fellow who worked up some loads for one using Dry Creek's 230 grain Keith-style SWC, and he had to shove the bullet in all the way past the front driving band in order to get it to fit the cylinder. That's a biggish bullet, but nothing like the 265's et al. that are out there. Personally, I've had good luck with the Cast Performance 250 WFNGC in my S&W and Marlin, and I wouldn't expect that to fit; don't know how you'd do with Winchester's 240 Partition, or really anything over 210 or maybe 220.

41 Redhawk
October 15, 2004, 02:54 PM
I believe Chris is refering to me concerning the 230 gr Keith loads. Those loads were developed in a Taurus Tracker which does have a short cylinder. The Raging bull should not have that same problem. That said, I also do not have any experience with the Bull. Go over to www.accuratereloading.com and post to a guy called Still Crawfish. He has one and is reportedly happy with it.

Chris,

How are you doing? Since we last spoke, I have moved to Pittsburgh PA. The S&W I got from you is still in the family but number one son has gotten it away from me. Did you ever get rid of the Redhawk?

ChristopherG
October 15, 2004, 04:31 PM
Koveras, sorry for the unintentional mislead; glad 41R jumped in to straighten it out!

41R--I did decide to sell the Redhawk, though it was a great shooting gun, in favor of a S&W 657--more or less to standardize on the platform I knew best. Don't know that it was a great decision, but I can live with it. I still love the 41 more and more, that's for sure; found a Marlin 1894fg at a recent gunshow and have been shooting the snot out of it!

Glad your son is enjoying the 686+ enough to cop it from you ;) , and hope Pittsburgh treats you well!

Koveras
October 16, 2004, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the responses ChristopherG and 41 Redhawk. I went over to the Accurate Reloading website and did some reading. This morning on my way home from the range, I stopped in at one of my favorite gun stores and there it was: a Raging Bull .41 Magnum.

Lockup was perfect on five out of six cylinders with only a tiny bit of lateral play on the sixth. The trigger pull in both single and double action was crisp and very light. In fact, I've only felt a better factory trigger on my well worn 29-3. There are a few toolmarks, but overall well-finished. And I compared the cylinder length to a blackhawk and the Raging Bull is significantly longer. It looks like they use the same length cylinder for the .41 as for the .454 (I used to own one of the RB .454's, back in 1999). If they will stabilize, this may be the platform of choice for the 250+ grain bullets.

So, as you may have guessed, I bought the darn thing:

http://members.cox.net/koveras/trb41.jpg

I will try to get it to the range tomorrow or Monday.

BluesBear
October 16, 2004, 11:38 PM
ya know what?

If we're not careful, this .41 magnum thingy just mightl catch on. :D

pakmcc
October 17, 2004, 01:06 AM
Hey. Koveras, I've got a model 57 with 6" barrel and it's very accurate. I had a .44 red hawk and sold it a month later because it was not accurate. I would really like to hear about the RG.41 mag. if you get to the range tomorrow.
IF you could get a couple of groups at 7.5 and/or 10 yds and let the know your group sizes. I'm getting 1" to 1.5" with my .41 mag. smith with my hand loads. (I've never seen of hear or one of these things till today.)
But, that is a beautiful pistol, and I hope it shoots as good as it looks. your truly, pakmcc
PS, please feel free to e-mail me at pm86@wt.net with your results.

Koveras
October 18, 2004, 08:27 PM
pakmcc,

Here are the my very first six shots from the RB fired at 10 yards, 7/8" edge to edge, half an inch center to center. The load was 11.5 grains of Blue Dot behind a 210 gr JSP. It's a light load, but I like to work up to the heavy stuff with a new gun. After this I moved the target out to 20 yards and worked with progressively heavier loads. Full power loads using an undisclosed quantity of H110 behind a Hornady 210 gr XTP put twelve shots into just under 2 1/4" inches at 20 yards, center to center. All groups were shot resting the butt of the grip on a table, sorry no sandbags or anything fancy. I think the gun can do better, but my aging eyes at 20 yards can't.

I shot it side by side with my 657 as a control, to determine if the shooter or the gun was having a bad day or not. The 657 posted similar results.

Since the RB is 53 ounces, recoil was not an issue at all. It is very pleasant to shoot, and the ports didn't create excessive muzzle blast for me (can't say the same for the people next to me). I had been concerned about this since the muzzle blast from the ports was one of the main reasons I got rif of my RB .454 and replaced it with a SRH.

There are some toolmarks in the chambers, but I had no problem ejecting the empties. The barrel is actually 5" long, the shroud is 6 1/2". The rifling is 1:18 1/4, which is a little faster than the Ruger Blackhawk.

And in the final analysis it IS a .41 Magnum, and therefore by definition good.


http://members.cox.net/koveras/trb41_10yds.JPG

Edited because of the stupid case sensitive image name... grumble.

BluesBear
October 18, 2004, 09:11 PM
And in the final analysis it IS a .41 Magnum, and therefore by definition good.

Amen Brother, AMEN!

Now if they'd just make their snubby with a 2" no port I'd HAVE to get one.

pakmcc
October 18, 2004, 10:01 PM
thanks for the info, I've got a Model 57 in 6" and it shoots very well. I'm real interested to hear about you RB.41, I might have to save up and get one, like I said, right after I sell the plane.
That is a very nice group in the picture.
That thing looks like a Dan Wesson? could they be Kin? you know, like CZ's and TZ's??
I'll have to shop around through, the one's I saw in a book at the book store and they were pushing $900.oo
yours Pakmcc

Koveras
October 18, 2004, 10:46 PM
they were pushing $900.oo :what:

I paid $466! Maybe I should sell it and buy two more!

That thing looks like a Dan Wesson? could they be Kin?

As far as I know, there is no relationship between Dan Wesson and Taurus, although the RB does use a shroud over a screw-in barrel. This is supposed to both more accurate and cheaper to manufacture. Some posts over at the smith-wesson forum suggest S&W is going to a similar system.

-------------
And so the cult of the .41 grows...

tc300mag1
October 18, 2004, 11:05 PM
Good looking Pistol im trying to decide on one like it or a blackhawk in 41 mag

pakmcc
October 18, 2004, 11:32 PM
ok, I would buy a RG in .41 mag. for that price.
After some experences with Rugers, mostly they just don't seem to be as accurate as other pistols in the same cal. I would buy anything else. But, I would try a Taurus, if you can't get a model 57 S&W. ok, I've got the Smith, now I'll try a RG.
Koveras, that was a pretty group you shot with your RG, What was the load? or was it factory? were the shells you were shooting Mag. or a lower vel.
pakmcc

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus Raging Bull .41 Mag Experience?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!