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

41 ain't dying. It's just not as popular as some. I'm not an old timer set in my ways. I ain't been shooting forever and had a 41 since the dawn of it's birth. I've never owned one, but I want one!

5 years ago I settled for a 44 mag SBH. I sold it and got a 44 special flattop blackhawk earlier this year. I still want a 41 mag.

The point is, I'm not of the same 41 crowd as everyone else, I'm new blood. There are plenty of us.

"
The .44 special fits, so why wouldn't the .44 Mag?"

Because Ruger does not want to make the changes necessary for whatever reason. The cylinder could stand to be lengthened somewhat and the forcing cone issue addressed by either a thicker barrel shank or shorter shank in conjunction with the longer cylinder both of which could be done readily. They are probably worried it might not take "Ruger only loads" and the hot heavier loads such as 340 grain. I understand Smith says not to use a lot of the heavier loads in their 69's.
Also, Ruger could widen the frame a bit at the front as Smith did with the 69 but that Taurus did not do on their medium frame .44 mags.

As to whether Ruger ever will make a .44 mag GP or .41 mag it depends upon not only market for that item but what is the market for other GP offerings. As long as everything else is selling and the assembly line is kept running there is not too much incentive to engineer and switch over to a batch of the ?? caliber.

Old_Grouch said:

The .44 special fits, so why wouldn't the .44 Mag?

Click to expand...

Cuz gun go boom.

CraigC said:

If I'm gonna have to resize bullets, I'll just cast them in the first place.

Click to expand...

Or you could buy them already cast and size them. Of course, there is absolutely no loading data out there for a 260 grain 10mm Magnum load.

That's another added hassle the .41Mag would alleviate.

Click to expand...

Or a rim could be put on the 10mm Mag as the semi autos chambered for the caliber are pretty much gone. The ability to choose between a rimmed case and rimless for use with moon clips has some appeal.

Call me lazy but I'm not sizing or casting.

I have long wanted to see a resurrection of the .401PowerMag, which would be basically a 10mmMag with a rim. I've given serious consideration to building a .38-40 convertible out of an Old Model .357 Blackhawk. I had heard that you could run lubed .41Mag brass through a carbide 10mm sizer to make cases but that turned out to be problematic. And again, bullet selection is limited.

I'd be in for a 41 Special 4" barrel or longer GP100. It would be a nice addition to my 44 Special GP100. I'm interested cartridges a bit off the main stream these days. My Model 69's never see anything stouter than a 44 Special load in a 44 Magnum case.

I do not understand the fascination with big bore, 3" or shorter barreled revolvers. I have big bore, short barreled revolvers in 44 Special (Model 624 and GP100) 44 Magnum (Model 69). They are shootable but I'd much prefer to shoot my longer barreled versions. Also, the big frames are difficult to conceal. But to each his own.

I do have one 41 Magnum, an 8-3/8" Model 57. I bought it mostly to help fill a spot in my collection of 8-3/8" S&W revolvers. If I stumble into another Model 57 with a 4" to 6-1/2" barrel, I might invest.

S&W L Frame .44 mags don't go boom. What make you think a GP100 would?

I bet that those who are looking down on 41 Magnum never shoot it extensively. I challenge those to shoot in a single session 150-200 rounds, loaded with 220 gains bullet at about 1200 fps. And do the same with 44-250, also at 1200 fps, from similar revolvers (S&W M57/M657 v/s M29/M629, or Ruger Blackhawk or Bisley 41 v/s 44). On the end of the day, they will see the difference.

Am I saying that 44 Magnum is not worth? Nope, I have 3; SBH (converted to Bisley) 5:5" stainless, blue Bisley 7.5" and Redhawk 7.5" stainless. However, I decided to sell Redhawk (my first 44 Magnum, too heavy), and if could get blue 41 Bisley, blue 44 Bisley will be also for sale. If someone asks why, well, I like to shoot on longer ranges (100 m), and after having and shooting 41 Bisley (foolishly sold it) and 44, I've made up my mind.

JCooperfan1911 said:

I'd rather see a reintro of the half lug .357 GP.

Click to expand...

Best answer for me. I would love to have a half lug GP-100 or just a 6" security Six just because the barrel isn't lugged. Or even a 4" half lug GP-100.

Onty said:

I bet that those who are looking down on 41 Magnum never shoot it extensively. I challenge those to shoot in a single session 150-200 rounds, loaded with 220 gains bullet at about 1200 fps. And do the same with 44-250, also at 1200 fps, from similar revolvers (S&W M57/M657 v/s M29/M629, or Ruger Blackhawk or Bisley 41 v/s 44). On the end of the day, they will see the difference.

Am I saying that 44 Magnum is not worth? Nope, I have 3; SBH (converted to Bisley) 5:5" stainless, blue Bisley 7.5" and Redhawk 7.5" stainless. However, I decided to sell Redhawk (my first 44 Magnum, too heavy), and if could get blue 41 Bisley, blue 44 Bisley will be also for sale. If someone asks why, well, I like to shoot on longer ranges (100 m), and after having and shooting 41 Bisley (foolishly sold it) and 44, I've made up my mind.

Click to expand...

And how many shooters will routinely fire 200 rounds of big bore revolver ammo in one sitting?

More defenders of the arcane, mythical .41 magnum and its equally arcane, mythical “advantages.”

Sorry but a short L-frame, six shot, lightweight snubby in .40S&W with recessed moonclip cylinder cuts would get more traction and more market. The “Major” guys and gals would render their garments and scream at the Heavens. Might be worth the entertainment value.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

Sorry but a short L-frame, six shot, lightweight snubby in .40S&W with recessed moonclip cylinder cuts would get more traction and more market. The “Major” guys and gals would render their garments and scream at the Heavens. Might be worth the entertainment value.

Click to expand...

There is a thread on the Firingline forum about new guns you would like to see and my idea was rimmed 10mm rounds in a GP-100 so you didn't have to mess with moon clips which I do not like. You already have the load data just make cases with a rim. But I was pretty much shot down and beat up for my idea. I like the 40S&W and 10mm rounds and having a revolver in those calibers sounds good to me. If I could get away from moon clips so much the better.

I looked at the Ruger GP-100 in 10mm that takes the moon clips. By the time you bought a few extra clips, the clip loading tool and special mandrel and the unloading tool you had over a hundred bucks in just the tools to get started. No thanks.

JCooperfan1911 said:

And how many shooters will routinely fire 200 rounds of big bore revolver ammo in one sitting?

More defenders of the arcane, mythical .41 magnum and its equally arcane, mythical “advantages.”

Click to expand...

Ask regular silhouette shooters, they will tell you how many rounds they could use in a single day.

If someone shoots couple dozens of full power 44 Magnum in a single day, but most of the time "shooting" old tales, that's fine with me. Heck, I had done the same. I also had 357 Magnum Bisley, but I didn't like it. Too big gun for a caliber. Am I going to bash 357 revolvers? Nope, I have also S&W 686-3, 6". The point is that if I want bit more power to my liking, I have to load 357 full throttle, something I try to avoid. However, you can bet that S&W 686 will always have a place in my small collection.

Also, I have no use for 454, 480, 475 460 or 500. Semiautos? Not my cup of tea, I don' like chasing brass. Am I going to bash them? Nope, and I never will!

My bottom line is; there are other fine calibers than 44 Magnum, and one of them is 41 Magnum. And if someone is reading all this, he should consider also opinion of those who have or had 41 Magnum.

****************************************************

Talking about GP100 in 41 Magnum, I wouldn't mind having one, but at least 6", with full underlug. And capable of taking loaded round with bullet .430" from crimp groove to the tip. As for cylinder, 5 bore is fine. If 5 rounds from revolver in any magnum caliber is not enough, there is Desert Eagle.

Onty said:

I also had 357 Magnum Bisley, but I didn't like it. Too big gun for a caliber.

Click to expand...

I had a Black Hawk convertible and sold it for the same reason. Too much gun for the cartridge. In my experience the Ruger single six in 32 mag is about the most perfect combination of a gun and caliber. At least the best I have ever used.

Onty said:

I also had 357 Magnum Bisley, but I didn't like it. Too big gun for a caliber.

Click to expand...

You really wouldn't have liked the .357 Redhawk I had back in the eighties.

I like the size and weight of 357 in Blackhawks. Go figure.

When I loaded 44 magnum, I generally loaded into the special and +p special areas. I did load some hot stuff, and it wasn't pleasant, though fun occasionally.

Old_Grouch said:

S&W L Frame .44 mags don't go boom. What make you think a GP100 would?

Click to expand...

For me, it is not how strong a revolver may be but what it is actually chambered in. There is something special about shooting 41 Special in a gun chambered in 41 Special.

Ditto for 44 Special and 38 Special.

When I want wrist snapping recoil, I'll drag out one of my magnum revolvers with full house loads.

You can often tell who's a reloader by their distaste for certain cartridges and love for others. In reality, 357,41,44,480,45colt, all load the same and cost nearly the same if you cast and load. Sure makes hunting the next gun fun knowing you can feed it.

Old_Grouch said:

S&W L Frame .44 mags don't go boom. What make you think a GP100 would?

Click to expand...

weaker frame

cfullgraf said:

I do not understand the fascination with big bore, 3" or shorter barreled revolvers. I have big bore, short barreled revolvers in 44 Special (Model 624 and GP100) 44 Magnum (Model 69). They are shootable but I'd much prefer to shoot my longer barreled versions. Also, the big frames are difficult to conceal. But to each his own.

Click to expand...

I'm of the opposite opinion in that the big bores in low pressure loadings (.44 SPL, .45 Colt) are better for short barrels because the pressure is so low that a longer barrel doesn't have much gain, not like a magnum would. One reason I prefer a Glock 30 to the Glock 29.

Doesn't mean that I view something like .32/.327 or .38/.357 as long barrel only revolvers, their purpose is to be a smaller frame and lighter, more concealable gun.

ThomasT said:

There is a thread on the Firingline forum about new guns you would like to see and my idea was rimmed 10mm rounds in a GP-100 so you didn't have to mess with moon clips which I do not like. You already have the load data just make cases with a rim. But I was pretty much shot down and beat up for my idea. I like the 40S&W and 10mm rounds and having a revolver in those calibers sounds good to me. If I could get away from moon clips so much the better.

I looked at the Ruger GP-100 in 10mm that takes the moon clips. By the time you bought a few extra clips, the clip loading tool and special mandrel and the unloading tool you had over a hundred bucks in just the tools to get started. No thanks.

Click to expand...

You should know by now that any new idea that doesn't involve an established caliber that people don't have guns chambered for and are set in their ways will never be allowed to flourish because how dare you suggest their beloved .41 Magnum is dead and there is no future for it in a world being populated by semi automatics, how dare you tell them they need to buy a new in a better caliber!

It's always resisted because THEY don't want it, however it's not about what THEY want that drives the market, it's about what everyone else wants and in a world where revolvers are fast being replaced by semi automatics what few revolvers most people are willing to buy today are going to be stuff they already have for their semi autos, which is 9mm, .40/10, and .45 ACP. .45 had the Auto Rim and this was 100 years ago, so even then people realized how nice it was to have a revolver that could do both rimless and rimmed versions of the same caliber.

Of course, the anti rimless crowd... THEY all point to the failure of 9mm Federal as incontrovertible proof that a rimmed variant of a rimless pistol cartridge is universally not wanted, but they can't seem to accept that the reason it failed was it was a Charter Arms idea (not a popular brand or large company) and the company went under not soon after the concept was introduced. There were also safety concerns about idiots putting the ammo in .38 S&W chambered revolvers, but that's not the sole reason 9mm Federal disappeared.

The world is a very different place than where it was 30 years ago, the failures of one cartridge at that time is not the final judgement on the concept as a whole. The 10mm is unique in that it would gain more from having a rimmed version than 9mm or .45 would as the 9mm is generally stuck in revolvers with cylinders the length of .38 SPL or .45 Colt respectively. Make revolvers with cylinders of appropriate length and you have something with a rimmed 9 or .45, the 10mm however (especially the 10mm Magnum) is longer and thus revolvers chambered for it don't have overly and ridiculously long cylinders that are a waste of space and weight.

But since it's not .41, it's taboo to speak of it.

Onty said:

Ask regular silhouette shooters, they will tell you how many rounds they could use in a single day.

Click to expand...

Silhouette shooters make up probably less than 1% of total gun owners. Gun companies, especially the big boys, aren't making guns for the 1% of potential customers out there who would buy them.

My bottom line is; there are other fine calibers than 44 Magnum, and one of them is 41 Magnum. And if someone is reading all this, he should consider also opinion of those who have or had 41 Magnum.

Click to expand...

There are fine calibers outside of .41 Magnum too and while you have little interest in other calibers, the market has spoken over 50 years and shown its disinterest in .41 Magnum.

I hate to focus on a 10mm revolver, but Ruger kind of came out of the blue and started making one and years later they're still producing them. Makes me think there is more interest in 10mm revolvers than .41 Mag, but what do I know? I was born in the 90s.

CraigC said:

Call me lazy but I'm not sizing or casting.

I have long wanted to see a resurrection of the .401PowerMag, which would be basically a 10mmMag with a rim. I've given serious consideration to building a .38-40 convertible out of an Old Model .357 Blackhawk. I had heard that you could run lubed .41Mag brass through a carbide 10mm sizer to make cases but that turned out to be problematic. And again, bullet selection is limited.

Click to expand...

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

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 revolver market is just as strong as the auto market here. You go to the gun store and see racks of both. And people buying both.

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