WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
You know what, .357 mag vs .45 Colt? If you're gonna reload for it anyway, (and aren't likely to face down too many Grizzlies) split the difference and find a .41 Magnum. 
.357 Magnum vs .45 Colt
- Thread starter Mr. Mosin
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Mr. Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Messages
- 2,111
You know what, .357 mag vs .45 Colt? If you're gonna reload for it anyway, (and aren't likely to face down too many Grizzlies) split the difference and find a .41 Magnum.
I am NOT buying or reloading .41 Magnum.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
That's a shame. It's a Goldilocks cartridge.
The GP-100 is thicker and heavier, but it is cast rather than forged. It is not meaningfully stronger than an L-frame. It is certainly not stronger than other Smiths like the X-frame.
I would not be too concerned about the trigger on a GP-100. The skill you develop with a double-action revolver trigger is more important than whether it is stock or tuned, or whether it is a GP-100 or a K, L, or N frame. The trigger on a Redhawk or Super Redhawk is a substantial trade-off. You can get them chambered for 454 Casull or 480 Ruger, and possibly for large bear defense that is seen by some as more important than a combat trigger. But a Redhawk trigger is heavy and easy to over-run and lock-up if you're going fast.
There are good defensive revolvers in .357, .45 ACP, and .45 LC, but the latter two chamberings would be S&W 625 and Model 25.
MidRoad
Member
Yea what a jerk,atleast it stayed under 50 cal this time. Sheesh.....
Yea what a jerk,atleast it stayed under 50 cal this time. Sheesh.....
Hahaha!
RealGun
Member
You have decided on .357 Magnum. I think you would have been disappointed in the Redhawk round butt 4". I have had a 4" square butt Redhawk and liked it okay, but for purposing as a "Ruger-only" loader I like my 5.5" Redhawk, a discontinued length that is far better balanced than the 4". I dealt with the trigger reach by using the finger grooved compact that was offered on the 4", still seen on the 41 Magnum Redhawk. The exposed back strap is the trick there, but you give up any cushioning and instead rely on generous palm swell. My gun is also ported, the way it came to me. I like it. The last outing at the range was with 300 grain XTPs fired with 21.0 grains of H110. I lasted for 6 shots, already tired from shooting smaller calibers, but I will say that personally I would not want to attempt that in a smaller gun, i.e shorter barrel. In a .357 we forget that the cartridge was first offered in an N-frame as believed appropriate for high performance ammo. The Redhawk in .357 Magnum would be the same size and is offered in the longer barrel for a better powder burn and better balance. That said, my GP100, even the half-lug Match Champion at 4.2" barrel, is manageable with hotter ammo.
If the attraction of the Redhawk was the ability to shoot 45 ACP, I think you would be better off with a Blackhawk single action with alternate cylinders.
If there was any notion of carrying the gun concealed, the 357 would be more practical and compact.
If the attraction of the Redhawk was the ability to shoot 45 ACP, I think you would be better off with a Blackhawk single action with alternate cylinders.
If there was any notion of carrying the gun concealed, the 357 would be more practical and compact.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Where do people come up with this stuff??? The GP and L-frame are the same weight, given a comparable configuration.
As for the ubiquitous cast vs forged nonsense, forgings are only stronger in one direction. Castings are strong in all directions. The idea that a Ruger has to be twice as thick to be just as strong as S&W is not founded in reality. It takes a minute amount of added material to make up the difference between the two. Not to mention that strength does not come from material alone. The Ruger's solid frame design is measurably stronger than S&W's sideplate frame. That said, the cylinder is what must contain and withstand chamber pressure and in that regard, the guns are equals.
Further, there have been reports of X-frames shooting loose in just a few thousand rounds. Mostly these are range rental guns because most individuals don't shoot them enough to find out. Look at how massive an X-frame is compared to the Super Redhawk (20oz heavier!), compare the cartridges they chamber, cylinder capacity and see if you can make a valid argument for forgings over castings. S&W's massive and purpose-built 5lb X-frame, which has the same sideplate design, is not faring so well compared to Ruger's adaptation to 65,000psi cartridges, the Super Redhawk, which is still a six-shot.
Arkansas Paul
Member
^^^^^ This.
And if you cast, it's even more negligible.
I load .44 magnum and .45 Colt for less than $100 per thousand (not counting brass).
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
I can't figure out why anyone would make this choice. Its like picking between two things you love. Like grapes and oranges. I like and keep them both around.
OP
OP
Mr. Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Messages
- 2,111
Can't afford but one.
desmobob
Member
The darn budget is what keeps most of us from buying LOTS of guns, or special guns, or lots of special guns...
OP
OP
Mr. Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Messages
- 2,111
I want a Ruger Redhawk/GP100, but I'm pining for a Colt 1903.
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
If you can't have but one, grapes or orange, get which one that you can afford that is the more expensive. Don't break the budget, cause then you resent your purchase. That way its easier to get the other one at a later time when good fortune arrives. I do love the 45 colt so. But do understand the predicament.
RealGun
Member
The question would be whether it does either one well. I believe the either/or gun is best as a single action, each cartridge with its own cylinder.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Brass gets reused so many times, I don't even count it as part of the expense.
Comparing commercial cast bullets, the kind I use for plinking, practice or deer sized game, those from Missouri Bullet are $35/500 for 158gr .357's and $48/500 for 255gr .45's. So the .45's are two and a half cents more per each.
Comparing commercial cast bullets, the kind I use for plinking, practice or deer sized game, those from Missouri Bullet are $35/500 for 158gr .357's and $48/500 for 255gr .45's. So the .45's are two and a half cents more per each.
Logwood
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2019
- Messages
- 80
I've tried several customized DA convertibles in DA/SA. Wasn't all that impressed. The Ruger Redhawk Convertible I tried performed excellently in both calibers. I have always had a special liking for DA .45 Colt revolvers. I have a model 25 that is extremely accurate in DA, one of my favorite revolvers. I do a lot of shooting with .41 mag and .44 mag revolvers; the recoil of the .45 Colt from a heavier gun has never been a problem for me. For me, the .45 acp capability is just an extra advantage of the gun. The GP-100 is usually easier to find than the Redhawk. If you can get one at a decent price, I'd say jump on it. I've been looking for one, but haven't seen any in our local gun shops.
Had the same thought while perusing this thread...you must have a great mind!You know what, .357 mag vs .45 Colt? If you're gonna reload for it anyway, (and aren't likely to face down too many Grizzlies) split the difference and find a .41 Magnum.
Great shooting mcb...no doubt in my mind that you'd do better than most if the shtf with a bear, even with your puny 44 mag (but leave the hollow points at home for that one).
RealGun
Member
Add that the 41 Mag Redhawk is the one with the compact grip that helps with trigger reach (did for me anyway). I wonder if there is an appreciation for how the skinny wooden grip on the 4", 45 Colt/ACP is going to be adequate only with milder loads. It seems intended for concealment with a round butt/small grip, but who would want that in a gun that size? No wonder they are hard to find in common gun shops.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
I see it as doable if you can open carry.
- Status