GP100 in .41 Mg.?
- Thread starter joecrab
- Start date
NikA
Hunter
Clements Custom Gun used to do GP conversions to .41 Special. Fairly stout loads, IIRC, maybe 210gr at 1200ish FPS?
Last edited:
I would think that Ruger could theoretically produce a .41 Magnum GP100, and may already have 'run the numbers' for both engineering & marketing. Smith makes a medium frame .44 Magnum (Model 69), so I would guess it's feasible. I would also guess that most gunsmiths would avoid such a conversion for liability reasons.
As always, FWIW, YMMV, IMHO, etc., etc.
:)
As always, FWIW, YMMV, IMHO, etc., etc.
:)
While we are talking, I will just throw this out there for the sake of discussion: What, in your mind, constitutes magnum handgun velocity? To me if it won't hit 1200 fps from a 6" bbl, it is not a "magnum." As to the "special" moniker, I don't think any cartridge that won't yield 1000 fps from a 6" bbl. warrants the special designation either. Now I am fully aware of the reasons for the 'special' and the 'magnum' designations and I am not starting any campaign to change anything, but am only talking about what's 'big' and what's 'little' in the minds of y'all. :unsure:
contender
Ruger Guru
The addition of the wording "Magnum" was more of a marketing thing to try & sell the new caliber(s) not a way of measuring what a cartridge would do or not do.
Oh, I agree to that, especially in the case of the .357 Mg., since there was no cartridge that was simply called a .357 as a frame of reference. The .38 Special was called a 'special' to separate it from the .38 LC and, I suppose the .38 S&W. But what I am getting at is not so much the reasons for the "honorific" as it is to how do those terms strike you when you see, or hear them as a matter of semantics.
rkrcpa
Single-Sixer
To my mind a "Special" (really only two exist, the 44 and the 38) runs a standard weight for caliber bullet between 850-900 fps. . Modern firearms and powders have extended these velocities to what could be called "Special Magnums" commonly known as +P. To be in magnum territory the same bullet should exceed 1200 fps.
The discussian of cartridge names reminds me how much I like some of the old ones! For example:
.375 Belted Rimless Magnum Nitro Express
Now THAT sounds like a cartridge you can bet your life on!
:)
.375 Belted Rimless Magnum Nitro Express
Now THAT sounds like a cartridge you can bet your life on!
:)
Sugar River
Buckeye
As mentioned above the 41 Special was a "simple" rebore of the barrel and chambers. And
a 220 grain at about 1200 is achievable.
However the original GP cylinder is too short for the magnum case except with shortest bullets.
I suppose a custom long cylinder would be possible but I've never heard of it being done.
a 220 grain at about 1200 is achievable.
However the original GP cylinder is too short for the magnum case except with shortest bullets.
I suppose a custom long cylinder would be possible but I've never heard of it being done.
"
I suppose a custom long cylinder would be possible but I've never heard of it being done."
Another user once mentioned to me that Clements was able to get the velocities he quoted on his .44 SP conversions by using an extended cylinder with a shortened projection of the forcing cone into the cylinder window so as to get the smaller dia. forcing cone (i.e., barrel shank) of the barrel on the .44's to stand up (compared to diameter on the 10mm GP's).
I suppose a custom long cylinder would be possible but I've never heard of it being done."
Another user once mentioned to me that Clements was able to get the velocities he quoted on his .44 SP conversions by using an extended cylinder with a shortened projection of the forcing cone into the cylinder window so as to get the smaller dia. forcing cone (i.e., barrel shank) of the barrel on the .44's to stand up (compared to diameter on the 10mm GP's).
Last edited:
rkrcpa
Single-Sixer
I can get all the performance I need from a mid sized revolver using the 41 special case. I tried the 250gr in a mid sized frame and I can tell you it was not fun.
contender
Ruger Guru
"how do those terms strike you when you see, or hear them as a matter of semantics. "
If you truly study the naming of caliber & cartridges, it can be an exercise in frustration trying to figure out everything. It's one of those topics that can confuse & upset new people in firearms.
There was no "standard" method of naming stuff decades (or even centuries) ago. So, when I hear the word "magnum," or "special" I just figure it's another name for a different caliber. I know that as a "new" caliber,, it has to be able to be different than a previous caliber,, even when it's close to one.
I guess I'm saying, to answer your question, personally I don't even consider it at all.
"If you truly study the naming of caliber & cartridges, it can be an exercise in frustration trying to figure out everything. It's one of those topics that can confuse & upset new people in firearms.
There was no "standard" method of naming stuff decades (or even centuries) ago. So, when I hear the word "magnum," or "special" I just figure it's another name for a different caliber. I know that as a "new" caliber,, it has to be able to be different than a previous caliber,, even when it's close to one.
I guess I'm saying, to answer your question, personally I don't even consider it at all.
FYI: GP100, something old, something new and what we could expect?
https://www.rugerforum.com/threads/...omething-new-and-what-we-could-expect.298775/
"I totally forgot that the 10mm version of the GP already has a larger barrel shank. 11/16" compared to 5/8" on the .357 and .44Special. Which is a hair bigger than the .670" of the N-frame. The Redhawk, by contrast is 3/4", so 1/16th bigger."
From https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/lipsey-ruger…ask-for-a-gp100-in-41-magnum.898006/page-5
This opens opportunity not just for 41 caliber, but also for 44 Magnum, 45 Colt and 45 ACP. The only thing I wish that cylinder lengths are equal to those on NMBH, large frame.
https://www.rugerforum.com/threads/...omething-new-and-what-we-could-expect.298775/
"I totally forgot that the 10mm version of the GP already has a larger barrel shank. 11/16" compared to 5/8" on the .357 and .44Special. Which is a hair bigger than the .670" of the N-frame. The Redhawk, by contrast is 3/4", so 1/16th bigger."
From https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/lipsey-ruger…ask-for-a-gp100-in-41-magnum.898006/page-5
This opens opportunity not just for 41 caliber, but also for 44 Magnum, 45 Colt and 45 ACP. The only thing I wish that cylinder lengths are equal to those on NMBH, large frame.
contender
Ruger Guru
While the concept of a .41 mag & other bigger calibers is a nice idea,, we have to look at PRESSURES generated by these calibers. And don't forget,, good old "Bubba" who reloads w/o safety concerns who WILL try & get "more power" out of his gun. This type of stuff is why Ruger can build a lot of good guns,, but won't build the stuff that pushes the safety envelope. It's called "LIABILITY!!!!!!!!!!"
Jon406
Single-Sixer
The GP100 in .41 Mag would have a good following I think, but it would probably have to be a five shot then.
We have a 41 mag Redhawk, 5.5" barrel, that is favorite and a keeper. It is a strong revolver that is comfortable to shoot. A favorite load is a 210 SWC at about 1079 fps that shoots lights out @ 25 yards. The picture to the left is the 41 and a typical 25 yard target.
We have a 210 XTP and a 240 FP gas check SWC in the 1350 and 1250ish range but they are no more accurate than the 210 SWC load.
We have a 210 XTP and a 240 FP gas check SWC in the 1350 and 1250ish range but they are no more accurate than the 210 SWC load.
"how do those terms strike you when you see, or hear them as a matter of semantics.
If you truly study the naming of caliber & cartridges, it can be an exercise in frustration trying to figure out everything. It's one of those topics that can confuse & upset new people in firearms.
There was no "standard" method of naming stuff decades (or even centuries) ago. So, when I hear the word "magnum," or "special" I just figure it's another name for a different caliber. I know that as a "new" caliber,, it has to be able to be different than a previous caliber,, even when it's close to one.
I guess I'm saying, to answer your question, personally I don't even consider it at all.
As far as 'new' cartridges go, it looks like marketing plays a big part in selecting a name - nobody wants to invest a bunch of money in bringing a new cartridge to market, and have it bomb. One great example is the 6.5 Creedmoor, which would likely have been called the 6.5/.250 Savage Improved under common/traditional wildcat naming conventions. Another example is the 350 Legend, which could have been named the 9x43mm. The new names probably contributed to success in the marketplace.
:)
A lot of information to digest. I have been day dreaming all winter about a new cartridge to be between the .357 Mg. and the .41 Mg., and shooting a .384 or so diameter bullet. The stopper is that suitable brass to base the cartridge on is unavailable and also bullets would be a problem. If I had deeper pockets, I could get the brass made and probably also the bullets too, but the .41 Special would, I think, do what I want it to do and with a considerably lower outlay of cash. To those of you who have had a GP100 converted to .41 Special, my question is who did it? I have a .357 GP100 w/6" full underlug BBL that I would sacrifice. I see that Starline is making .41 Special brass, so that would likely be the best option.
Sugar River
Buckeye
Dave Clements did the one in the pic above, but I understand he is retired.
Try calling Jack Huntington, I seem to recall him building 41 Specials.
Try calling Jack Huntington, I seem to recall him building 41 Specials.
Sounds like 10mm is not an attractive option for you. I've always liked "wildcats", but there is something to be said about factory cartridges/chamberings, from the cost perspective!
:)
I explored the 10MM when I had a Buckeye Special in 38/40-10MM Auto. It will produce performance better in the Blackhawk than in a semi auto because the pressure can safely be raised higher than factory pressures, but in a DA revolver I much prefer a rimmed case over clips.
I'm guessing somebody has made rimmed 10mm cases, based on shortened .30-30 cases. You might have to inside ream the cases if the brass is too thick, and maybe reduce the rim diameter (if there are interference issues); not sure if the back of the cylinder would need any changes (might be fine "as is", since there's room for a moon clip). On the plus side, the brass & bullets are commonly avaible, and you could probably use off-the-shelf dies and load data!
:)
Another individual that does conversions is Gary Reeder in Arizona.
contender
Ruger Guru
"I'm guessing somebody has made rimmed 10mm cases, based on shortened .30-30 cases."
You mentioned that the brass is commonly available. Right now,, it's NOT commonly available.
I have a GP-100 MC in .10mm. Moon clips are not an issue at all TO ME! I used to think they'd be a problem,, but after I got into using them, especially in USPSA competition, I saw how easily they are to use.
And it's easier to recover brass (as opposed to the shell shuckers out there,) about the fastest way to reload a DA revolver too. And in USPSA,, at bigger matches,, (State, Regional & Nationals,) once brass hits the ground,, it's considered "lost" & the RO's get to recover it during down time or after the match is over. BUT,, with moon clips,, I get all my brass back because I need the moons.
You mentioned that the brass is commonly available. Right now,, it's NOT commonly available.
I have a GP-100 MC in .10mm. Moon clips are not an issue at all TO ME! I used to think they'd be a problem,, but after I got into using them, especially in USPSA competition, I saw how easily they are to use.
And it's easier to recover brass (as opposed to the shell shuckers out there,) about the fastest way to reload a DA revolver too. And in USPSA,, at bigger matches,, (State, Regional & Nationals,) once brass hits the ground,, it's considered "lost" & the RO's get to recover it during down time or after the match is over. BUT,, with moon clips,, I get all my brass back because I need the moons.
Skeet 028
Single-Sixer
I have a S&W 57 in 4 in. Used it for 2 grizz a moose and an elk. The 1st grizz kinda made me pucker but a 245 grain bullet at about 1150 shot completely front to back on a grizzly(DRT) and the (Alaska/Yukon)moose. The other grizzly the bullet was under the skin of the off side rear ham. ..the elk was side to side in and out. I quit guiding stupid hunters in grizz areas. Too far to Fairbanks hospitals. What more can you expect from a handgun bullet? A 225 yr 41 bullet is easily achievable in a 41 special
smith1961
Blackhawk
I really LOVE this topic. I am the nut-job who started the ".41 mag Vaquero thread. Based on that long running and famous (cough cough) thread, I think it's safe to say Ruger isn't going to jump on this idea either. Definitely in the custom realm though obviously! Oh BTW, somebody go over and bump the thread
https://www.rugerforum.com/threads/41-mag-vaquero.176975/page-14
https://www.rugerforum.com/threads/41-mag-vaquero.176975/page-14
