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

whatnickname

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
1,004
Location
Oklahoma
Lipsey and TALO Distributors have both influenced Ruger to produce some very interesting and desirable firearms. I contacted Ruger last year, after purchasing my first GP100 in 44 Special with a 3” barrel. Basically said if you guys can make a 5 shot GP100 in 44 Special you can sure as heck make one in 41 Magnum. Got the standard form letter response.

Got to thinking that Lipsey might be able to influence Ruger to tackle this project. Got a very interesting e-mail from Lipsey in response. Apparently they have been talking to Ruger about this very thing for some time. Ruger is unwilling to invest the time in the R&D for this project. I bet if we blew up Ruger’s e-mail asking for this they would come around. How about it? Is anyone willing to shoot Ruger a bunch of e-mails asking for a GP100 in 41 Magnum?
 
Last edited:
A GP100 in 10MM pretty much equals the 41 Special and that might be a close as you can get right now.

As much as I love my Redhawk I am ready for Ruger to drop the Redhawk and replace it with the GP100/Super Redhawk action Similar to Bowen's GP-44. That one would be an easy .41 Mag.

Once America becomes completely saturated with current models and gun sales take a dive, Ruger might consider something like this...maybe.
 
The .41 magnum clings on only due to a handful of stubborn old guys that claim it has magical properties and somehow does things other cartridges cannot. The entire point of the .41 magnum was lost in translation and the guns made for it were all built on .44 magnum frames and thus ended up even heavier.
 
I wouldn’t buy a 5-shot .41 as I already have a 5-shot .44 Spl. GP. (I have three .41’s now.)

I would buy a 6-shot .41 Special 4.25” half-lug in a heartbeat. That would be an outstanding combo :thumbup:.

If I do end up buying a .357 GP, it’s with the .41 Spl conversion in mind ;).

Stay safe..
 
The .41 magnum clings on only due to a handful of stubborn old guys that claim it has magical properties and somehow does things other cartridges cannot. The entire point of the .41 magnum was lost in translation and the guns made for it were all built on .44 magnum frames and thus ended up even heavier.
I've always believed that the .41 Mag came about due to an error in reasoning. In the 60s there was a desire for a law enforcement cartridge that was between the .357/.38 and the .44. Simple solution: a .41. Dead center between the two; 3 more than .38, 3 less than .44. The error in reasoning was that the .38 is really a .35-36(ish) and the .44 is a hair less than .43.
The result was a cartridge which, with the standard factory loading, actually produced more energy than the .44 magnum.
Now, having said that, If Ruger were to make a 5 shot .41 magnum GP100 I'd own the very first one I encountered that was for sale.
 
Linsey and TALO Distributors have both influenced Ruger to produce some very interesting and desirable firearms. I contacted Ruger last year, after purchasing my first GP100 in 44 Special with a 3” barrel. Basically said if you guys can make a 5 shot GP100 in 44 Special you can sure as heck make one in 41 Magnum. Got the standard form letter response.

Got to thinking that Lipsey might be able to influence Ruger to tackle this project. Got a very interesting e-mail from Lipsey in response. Apparently they have been talking to Ruger about this very thing for some time. Ruger is unwilling to invest the time in the R&D for this project. I bet if we blew up Ruger’s e-mail asking for this they would come around. How about it? Is anyone willing to shoot Ruger a bunch of e-mails asking for a GP100 in 41 Magnum?

3" is really too short for 41 Mag,
However a GP100 with 3" barrel in 41 Special -
Would be very nice ?
 
But it would still be a Ruger.
Heh. :)

Lots of people are perfectly fine with that, love my two Redhawks and my Security Six. A GP-100 in .41 Mag would be a nice thing indeed. Folks are right though, the market would not be huge, it would have to be a special run, but heck, all they really need to change, seems to me, would be the machining on the cylinder and the barrel. Shouldn't be too tough.
 
The market might be bigger if Ruger wanted it to be. Look at the popularity of some rounds and the guns they fire. Many of them didn’t become popular because everyone automatically wanted one. They became popular because of marketing and promotion. I’ll bet if Ruger and S&W wanted to bring new blood and new shooters to the fold they could work with a couple of ammo companies and then enlist some gun writers and “Wallah!” Renewed popularity in a forgotten old round that kicks butt on the .357 and the 10mm and it could be the new Retro cool revolver cartridge combo. Heck, Ruger bought Marlin. Why not a Ruger / Marlin .41 Magnum hunting combo?

Okay, I will step back while someone systematically dismantles my idea…:rofl:
 
The 6 shot 3" or 4.2" GP-100 in 10 mm with long seated heavy bullet handloads probably comes real close to a 41 mag. At 37,500 psi, the 10 mm rated pressure is just a little more than the 36,000 psi limit for the 41 mag.

The long seating would go along with relying on the moon clips for headspacing so that you could use a good roll crimp.

Having thought about it, seeing a decent used one in a gun shop display would be more likely than ever to prompt action.
 
Last edited:
3" is really too short for 41 Mag,
However a GP100 with 3" barrel in 41 Special -
Would be very nice ?

If I had a vote I would opt for barrels of 3”, 4”, 5.5” and 6.5”. I think Ruger is missing a huge opportunity here. There is a large following for the .41 Magnum, and like Bazoo and others have suggested, the 41 Special too. The 41 Magnum is a way better mouse trap than the .357 and the .41 Special would best the 38 Special in the same way. For the life of me, I don’t understand why Ruger can’t see the opportunity here!
 
I remember when one gun writer, probably in the late Eighties, or very early Nineties, wrote as if a .41 Magnum GP100 were all but an imminent, done deal. Well, it has not happened, yet, and, I think it is less likely now, than ever. I probably would have bought a .41 GP100, back then. By now, I have stopped holding my breath.
 
The big draw here is that Ruger would not have to enlarge the frame for a larger barrel stub like S&W did for the 69. The added meat of a .41" hole should be sufficient, especially if they lengthened the cylinder with a barrel shank that projected into the frame window as little as possible. That's part of the reason why cracking of the forcing cone is a concern. The part of the barrel stub not supported by the frame. I would want it to be a 5" half lug model like my .44Spl.

GP%20walnut%2001.jpg
 
The only company I've seen bring to market a new .41 Mag revolver has been Charter Arms, but they're a small company and they're fine with making small runs of them to meet what little demand there is. Unlike the .32 revolvers built strictly for conceal carry, the .41 just doesn't know what it's supposed to be. People want it as a .41 Special, then some still want the power that's near .44 Mag territory and at that point why not get a .44 Mag?

Post #3 brought up the 10mm GP100 and that's something I've talked about in the past in that a 10mm Magnum GP100 would get close to achieving near full .41 Mag power, but still be able to shoot the cheaper and common .40 S&W and 10mm Auto ammunition via moon clips and as we know cheap, available ammo is what draws people to embrace a new gun and in numbers large enough that manufacturers would actually invest into bringing it to market.

About the only reason Ruger isn't doing a 10mm Magnum revolver right now is because 95% of people either have no clue what 10mm Magnum is or they think it's some kind of joke like changing your blinker fluid.

Well, that and only Underwood/Doubletap make ammo for it.
 
The big draw here is that Ruger would not have to enlarge the frame for a larger barrel stub like S&W did for the 69. The added meat of a .41" hole should be sufficient, especially if they lengthened the cylinder with a barrel shank that projected into the frame window as little as possible. That's part of the reason why cracking of the forcing cone is a concern. The part of the barrel stub not supported by the frame. I would want it to be a 5" half lug model like my .44Spl.

View attachment 1040118

Where in the world did you get those grips? I gotta have a pair like that!!!
 
Back
Top