nice, but i'm looking for something along the lines of a 6 inch barrel
January 3, 2010, 05:30 PM
You need to sign in and then make the "completed auction" choice from the drop-down on the right hand side.
Also gives an idea of what people are paying for a given model. Looking at current auctions gives a very small example and doesn't show the end bidding price if there even is one.
These aren't exactly "rare" but rather uncommon compared to the other RH chamberings as most that have them are in that .41 magnum cult and hold onto them.
Try a search at RugerForum as well and any questions about them will be answered there as well.
January 3, 2010, 05:32 PM
They were made only with the 5.5" barrel as I recall. They are not easy to find now. A couple of years back (2006), Ruger let go a number of them from their warehouse to distributors. I picked up a NIB blued one at that point. The dealer had two. It was made in approximately 1985. They weren't cheap, but I saw them on the auction sites later for a little less. That didn't particularly bother me as it was about a $50 difference.
January 3, 2010, 07:09 PM
A couple years back (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=296140) I picked up a blue .41 Mag Redhawk (http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=62523&d=1187456246) on GB for under 500, then picked up a SS .41 Mag Redhawk (http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=106775&d=1254926047) for under 500 on GB, and sold the blue one for under 500 on GB.
They are out there. Be patient. They are worth the wait, IMHO anyway.
January 4, 2010, 05:44 PM
they gotta be more expensive now considering they aren't made anymore and the price hike.
January 4, 2010, 06:24 PM
There was also a 7.5" SS Redhawk. Ask me how I know. And I can guarentee it won't be bought for "under $500". 41 magnum owners do seem to be in a crowd of their own. It is my caliber to collect, but I need several more to complete the collection, because I only have nine of them now.
January 5, 2010, 08:44 PM
Yes, They look like this.
January 5, 2010, 08:51 PM
They were not common, but could be found, when still in production. I had one for a while. I finally realized that it was too big for my hand size, and sold or traded it. Look at dealers who buy collections and estates; plenty of old sixgunners are going into assisted living situations, or going on to the big shootin' range in the sky.
January 6, 2010, 12:58 AM
Yes, and I'm surprised that more of them aren't available.
Because the size of the case is smaller than that of a .44 mag, the gun itself is heavier because of the extra steel. And being a Ruger, it's not that the extra strength actually delivers anything extra. I had one of these gems back in the early 80s, I think, and I recall it was a fabulous gun. But as I learned to respect the .357 caliber more, I saw less of a need for the .41 as a self defense piece. I also saw the .41 as a bit redundant for those who needed a good hunting revolver. In short, most people I knew who owned and loved the Ruger Redhawk .41 did so because they couldn't put their chubby little fingers around a .44 magnum at the time, especially a stainless .44 magnum. Since there's really very little difference between the two in many peoples' eyes, the gun just sort of lost steam as .44 magnum revolvers became more available.
I well remember the day my own S&W 629 got in. I'd been on the waiting list for what seemed forever and the dealer had it in the display section so people who had never seen one could gape at it as if it were some saintly relic. The gun was just like the somewhat rare 29, but it was stainless steel! Even the sights were stainless and the hammer and trigger, while not stainless, weren't MIM and besides, they were flash chromed. But I needed to sell my .41 Redhawk because why have both .44 and .41 ammo kicking around? I already had my .44 dies and was ready to rock and roll.
By then, also, the .41 had completely lost its luster, and as more .44s became available, fewer .41s were selling. It was fairly clear that the .41 wasn't going to dethrone the venerable .357. The .357 was smaller, easier to handle in powerful loads, was completely competent in its field and a voracious manstopper. The .44 magnum was already an institution and just didn't need a kid brother. It couldn't seemingly find a comfortable nitch. All my friends who had .41s unceremoniously dumped them as soon as they could get the .44s they'd really wanted all along.
So this may be the reason they're hard to find. True, they had flat trajectories and packed a .44 wallop without being so hard on the shooter. I just don't think many people had confidence that the gun had a future. If the ammo companies had really jumped on it, I think it could have worked. But Elmer Keith was still alive back then and he certainly wasn't going to let anything threaten the legend he'd created. There was also the nagging question of whether the ammo would be available in 10-12 years.
So all this has affected the availability of the .41 Remington Magnum. Back in my days as a dealer, I'd hawk the SHOTGUN NEWS looking for .44 mags and see only photos of .41 mags, which they were practically giving away. But here we are today, years later, and if I had a .41 5-inch Redhawk sitting in my safe, I wouldn't get rid of it. Maybe others have the same idea.
But Elmer Keith was still alive back then and he certainly wasn't going to let anything threaten the legend he'd created. There was also the nagging question of whether the ammo would be available in 10-12 years.
Elmer was instrumental in the development of the 41 mag also. But he really was a 44 mag guy.
I think the "nagging" question has been answered since the caliber was introduced in the Spirng of 1964, and here it is 2010 and there are probably more bullets and ammo options available 35 years later than at any other time since it's introduction.
I assume that Ruger quit making the Redhawk in 41 mag as it didn't sell enough to keep it in production. They still offer two barrel lengths in the Blackhawk.
Keep looking. You'll find a Redhawk in 41 mag.
January 6, 2010, 02:24 AM
Yeah, while the old man was around the company made good decisions. I recall being furious when the company dropped the Security-Six so they could replace it with a heavier, more cumbersome model. Then, when they came out with the .357 Max, I immediately thought, "How are they going to keep the gas cutting from destroying the guns?" Someone at Ruger wasn't using their noggins.
The .41 mag was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In 1963, the .357 had not achieved the manstopping status it has today and Keith and others thought the answer was to make the bullet fatter (which was the thinking at the time). It turned out that this wasn't the answer at all. The .357 already had penetration and making it penetrate more wasn't going to benefit its performance with the law enforcement community. Besides, they wanted smaller guns, not the big N-frame 27s. Once the .357 came into its own with 125gr JHPs and other loads that would penetrate vehicles, tires and so forth, plus put bad guys on their butts pretty much regardless of where they were hit, the .41 found itself fighting on only one front: that of the .44 mag — and it wasn't winning that one, either.
Right now, knowing what I do now, I'd take the .41 mag over the .44 mag; however, back in the 70s, once Dirty Harry started the .44 mag craze, things got unreal. People were paying $200 over retail just to own one, and many people bought them and then just put them in a safe.
Anyway, check out this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_51/ai_n11840297/). I think it's pretty much right on. Essentially, the very reasons the .41 mag was formulated began to dissipate before it could establish itself. Alas, even as those early reasons dissipated, new reasons driving the new caliber began to take their place.
So why doesn't Ruger reissue the .41 mag? I honestly don't know. While the caliber could fight on two fronts, it had a purpose. One gun that could be used both for law enforcement and for hunting. Take away the law enforcement angle and you had a gun fighting on only one front, and that was one it couldn't win.
January 6, 2010, 12:16 PM
In the 60's and 70's, revolvers were king for law enforcement use. The 357 and 38spl were the choices at the time. Keith's thinking that a 40 cal law enforcement round was not far off the mark in reality. Some law enforcement used 1911's (45ACP); but at that time, most were big full sized guns in the 1911 platform. When Glock introduced their wonder gun (Model 17) in 9mm, it changed the world of law enforcement. The 9mm is not perfect as it is close to 38spl loadings, but it is much more manageable to shoot for the average cop than a 45 in a smaller lighter platform. Double stacked magazines were crucial. Keith's thinking that a 40 cal would be better part of the reason the 40 S&W was developed after a lot of testing by the FBI. Law enforcement wanted a double stacked magazine like the 9mm's with a bit more power. Law enforcement immediately moved to the 40 S&W from the 9mm. Of course, this is a gross generalization, but many departments readily accepted the 40 S&W chambering. Now we have smaller 45 ACP platforms, so everyone is happy.
I tend to collect articles on the 41 mag. I really like it and have no need for a 44 mag. This is not to move this thread into a caliber war. Nobody has to win by choosing a 41 over a 44 mag or vice versa. It is about personal preference and I like the 20% decrease in typical loadings of the 41 mag over the 44 mag. The 41 mag is about 20% more than the 357 mag, but it sure feels like more.
January 6, 2010, 02:14 PM
Keep looking and you'll eventually find a Redhawk chambered in .41 magnum. One of the dealers I frequent had one recently for about $500.00. I was tempted to buy the gun until I remembered there were 4 sitting at home in the safe and it was hard to justify a fifth one.
January 6, 2010, 03:09 PM
I also saw the .41 as a bit redundant for those who needed a good hunting revolver
.41 fans don't of course. :)
I have a Redhawk in both .41 & .44 Mag. I love them both. 90ish% .41 Mag loads using 170 Gr bullets in the Redhawk are downright tame to shoot for practice. (About equivalent to Remingtons reduced recoil loads) True .41 Mag fans will talk about sectional density etc when they are comparing terminal performance on animals. Both obvously work just fine.
January 6, 2010, 11:20 PM
I think the early Redhawks were also available in .357 Magnum. I bet these pistols were probably the strongest .357 revolvers out there. Like the .41 magnum they're probably as rare as hens teeth though.
January 6, 2010, 11:27 PM
found one on gunbroker, ruger redhawk in .357 magnum
March 4, 2010, 06:07 PM
Are you talking about the Ruger Redhawk 41 Magum Blue double action with the 6inch (just under 6 exposed) 501-81042? I have one
March 4, 2010, 06:13 PM
I had a 5.5" Redhawk in .41 . . . it was accurate, but the thing needed a gun carriage. I didn't like hauling a gun carriage on my hikes up Bear Canyon, so let the thing go in a trade. :)
If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Redhawk in .41 mag?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!