Ruger Redhawks in .41 Magnum

Ruger Redhawk

Modern Ruger Redhawk revolvers are known for their big bore cartridges: .44 Magnum, .45 Colt and .45 ACP. While these cartridges are clearly powerful, none has the niche appeal quite like the latest caliber being offered in these guns: the .41 Magnum.

Ruger teamed up with Davidson’s to offer a pair of revolvers in this powerful cartridge. One is a service sized weapon, while the other is more suited for concealed carry.

The larger of the two guns has a 4.2″ barrel, a large ramp front sight with a red insert and an adjustable rear. Ruger fitted the gun with a Hogue Monogrip to fill the shooter’s hand. It is not a light gun at 48 ounces (unloaded,) but it is a true sixgun. As with other Redhawk revolvers, this gun has a satin stainless finish. The suggested retail price is $1,085.

The more diminutive of the pair sports a 2.75″ barrel and thin wood grips. It also uses a ramp front sight with insert and adjustable rear sight with a white outline. This version of the gun is only slightly lighter at 47 ounces unloaded. Make sure you have a sturdy belt if you plan on carrying this. The MSRP is also $1,085.

For readers not familiar with the .41 Magnum, it is a revolver cartridge introduced in 1964 by Remington. At its introduction, the cartridge was paired with the Smith & Wesson Model 57. While many people were involved with its development, and some trace the origins of the cartridge to the 400 Eimer, most people acknowledge that Elmer Keith had an influencing role in the cartridge’s development.

The .41 Magnum was intended to offer improved performance when compared to the .357 Magnum for law enforcement and self-defense. It uses a true .410 caliber bullet, and has developed a good reputation with hunters. While I have known people that have carried a .41 Mag for defensive use, many more use it in the field.

While most folks shooting the .41 Magnum are probably handloading rounds, the major manufacturers still produce ammo for it. Bullet weights tend to run from about 180 grains to 210 grains. There are lighter and heavier bullets available.

The Barnes VOR-TX load pushes a 180 all copper HP to 1,520 fps (923 ft-lbs) while the Remington HTP loads a 210 grain JSP to 1,300 fps (788 ft-lbs.) The shorter barrels of these guns would likely bleed off some of that speed.



Richard Johnson

An advocate of gun proliferation zones, Richard is a long time shooter, former cop and internet entrepreneur. Among the many places he calls home is http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/.


Advertisement

  • Anonymoose

    I predict they will sell a lot more of these than their .480 Super Redhawks.

    • Jwedel1231

      Lol, for sure. I saw .480 Ruger ammo in a Bass Pro one day and I had to go home and google what the hell I was looking at.

    • I freaking LOVE .480… but alas – it’s just not around enough.

      • Travis

        I think 480 is a sweet cartridge, if the price would come down some people would probably shoot it more in their 45-70s as more of a practice round.

        • Amanofdragons

          You can shoot 480 out of 45-70? That’s news to me. How’s the accuracy?

          • Travis

            To be honest, I have never done it, but from what I understand the 480 is a shortened 45-70 so I would imagine that it would be like 38 special in a 357 mag.

          • Vizzini

            But the .45-70 case is slightly tapered. How does that work out?

          • Travis

            So… After doing some reading, I found out that I am dead wrong about being able to shoot 480 in a 45-70. I had made the assumption because it was a shortened 45-70 that that was the case, but as proven again, it is wrong to assume and I hope that no one takes my previous comment as fact and tries to do so because it would be very dangerous! Vizzini, you hit the nail on the head, because it is a tapered cartridge that is why it does not work, the 480 uses a larger diameter bullet. My appogies everyone!

          • Travis

            Also, the rim is smaller on the 480 to allow for 6 shots in the super Redhawk revolver.

          • Amanofdragons

            I don’t think it’s a good idea to push a .475 bullet down a 458 bore. I just googled it. I like big booms, but, not turning a nice rifle into an explosive banana.

          • Travis

            You are correct, again, very sorry for any confusion I might have caused.

          • Amanofdragons

            It’s alright. always do your research

  • Edeco

    OK, good try, but I’mma need more barrel, 6.5-8.5″, and ideally the smaller GP100 frame.

    • Anonymoose

      A 5″ 5-shot GP100 would be nice.

      • You mean like what S&W rolled out that had all the buzz at shot show a couple years ago? I’d like that. I’d buy that.

      • greasyjohn

        Gary Reeder was doing conversions. Haven’t checked that site in a long time though.

      • Edeco

        Yep, that would be close enough with the smaller frame I guess.

    • Paul White

      and significantly cheaper too. 1085, ouch

  • Dickie

    Whats the benefit over .44magnum? Not being scarastic btw.

    • Anonymoose

      Less kick but still much more power than a .357 or 10mm.

      • Tim Pearce

        In my experience, not much less kick than a .44 Magnum.

    • Jwedel1231

      Like Moose said, it was created to fill the gap between .357 and .44 mag. Intended for police officers who wanted more punch than a .357, but didn’t/couldn’t use a .44. Basically the same reasoning behind the widespread adoption of the .40S&W, coincidentally a similar projectile diameter also, but for revolvers.

      • Tim Pearce

        Yeah, and it cracks me up that to fill the gap they made something that was almost a .44 Magnum. A .400″ bore would have made more sense, IMO. .410″ is fairly close to the .429″ bore of a .44 Magnum, and a .375″ bore is just as close to the .357 Magnum.

        • Edeco

          Yep, a .39 Magnum would be the bees knees. Hey, maybe that’s how Remington could turn their luck around 😀

    • Tim Pearce

      The positives have been explained. Now, for the negative. Go to a gun shop and ask for .41 Mag ammo. Chances are, they won’t have any, and half of the people working there will tell you there is no such thing as .41 Magnum.
      Yes, plenty of companies still make it, but not much of it.

  • Michael A. Pickle

    Didn’t Taurus do something like this a few years ago? Five shots with about a 2″ barrel?

    • Tim Pearce

      I don’t recall them doing a .41 Magnum with a 2″ barrel, but they did one with 4″ and 6″ barrels. They did a 5-shot .40 S&W snubby, though.

    • DaveP.

      Yep. They did a whole series of big bore snubs, .41 mag and .45 LC, and .44 Special. They even did a 5-shot .44 Magnum snub… but the one I looked at locked up so loose so as to be dangerous right form the factory. They don’t produce them anymore and haven’t in a while- what they make now is a full-size 6-shit with a 2″ barrel, which is not the same thing.

    • Billca

      The Taurus Model 415 and the lightweight 415T (Titanium) snubby revolvers. The 415T wasn’t as terrifying to shoot as it sounds since it was ported and the ribbed rubber grips Taurus put on the gun really worked to absorb recoil.

  • Tim Pearce

    While I like the idea of trying to rekindle interest in a defensive revolver that’s bigger than a five-shot .38/357, but isn’t chambered in a grizzly-defense cartridge, I think it is simply an idea whose time has passed.
    I thought S&W’s “Nightguard” series was a bundle of great ideas. It seems I was one of the few who did.
    With more and more state governments getting out of the way of open carry, I’d like to see this concept return, but I think it’s an uphill fight.

    • Billca

      I would disagree. There are big-bore defensive revolvers that aren’t Bruin bashers. Look at the popular S&W 625 in .45 ACP. The 3-inch Model 24 .44 Special continues to be a favorite for many who like the big bore wheelgun. The .45 Colt remains a popular cartridge especially for those who reload. The .41 Mag is not much different except for one thing. Ammo.

      There’s a big opening in the ammo market for defensive .41 Magnum loads. I can find plenty of commercial “range ammo” with 210 grain FMJ @1000 fps but almost nothing in terms of a defensive JHP or even a LSWC bullet. A nearly ideal load, IMO, would be a 200-220 grain bullet at about 1050-1100 fps. The sectional density of most .41 bullets is very good, better than the .44 or .357, meaning better penetration even at lower velocities. I wouldn’t feel undergunned with my 3-inch 657 loaded with a defensive load that ran a 210 grain gas checked LSWC-HP about 900-950 fps from the muzzle.

      • JodyVol

        170 and 180 grains are both defensive loads, don’t you think?

        • Billca

          Those will certainly work. The 210 has about 23% more sectional density though. That means penetration which is a Good Thing™.

          • JodyVol

            Penetration? You’re concerned with penetration? I’m concerned with over penetration with a .41 mag against a person.

          • Billca

            Winchester’s 175g Silvertip performs just fine on pigs and even at 1250 fps goes about 12 inches and stops. From a 4″ it chronos about 1100-1110 fps which, with that gaping hollow point, shouldn’t exit a two legged aggressor either. Expands to about .68-.70″ too. My preferred load is a 210 LSWC running about 930-975 fps from a 4″ barrel. Stout enough to do the job with lower recoil than most factory food.

          • JodyVol

            From what I understand, bullet weight has an greater impact on penetration than velocity. And, wouldn’t velocity have an even greater impact than bullet weight? My chosen rounds for personal defense are large caliber but low weight and with high velocity in the hopes that a round wouldn’t over penetrate yet would cause organ failure from shock of impact.

  • Vizzini

    If I need more power than a .357 magnum in a defensive gun, I need a rifle.

    • Anon

      No arguments there.

    • Billca

      You’ve never hunted in Grizzly country, have you?

      • Vizzini

        Nope. But that’s a different kind of defensive gun, and rounds suitable for bear are well-covered in other calibers.

    • JodyVol

      After a cop told me he unloaded his .357 at the windshield of an incoming car. None of the rounds penetrated, I decided to buy a .41.

  • HenryV

    You lucky, lucky Americans………. 🙂

    • JodyVol

      yep

  • HenryV

    I was surprised to see that Henry are now offering .41mag. Is it making a comeback?

    • Lt_Scrounge

      I had a nickel plated Model 57 that I carried when I was bow hunting in bear country. I loved shooting that thing, but unless I was reloading for it, it was expensive to shoot.

      • HenryV

        How common is .44spl on your gun store shelves over there?

        • Lt_Scrounge

          44 Special isn’t common around here, but is readily available in the larger cities. 44 Magnum is available in almost every Walmart. Walmarts are all over the place.

    • JodyVol

      Depends on what you call a “comeback.” The round never really was in, so how can it comeback? It does continue to survive however, due to fans like myself. Manufacturers make a run of a .41 model every 10 or 20 years or so.

      • HenryV

        It’s an unsung hero. 🙂

  • Edward

    Alright well let’s see a 6 shot 10mm GP100 now

    • Wanderlust

      you beat me to it, thats exactly what I was going to post. I would love a 10mm wheel gun with moon clips

      • Giolli Joker

        Like a S&W 610?

  • Per Underwood’s Specs:

    41 Magnum: 210gr @ 1560fps / 1135 ft/lbs
    44 Magnum: 200gr @ 1650fps / 1209 ft/lbs

    I think it would take a very discerning shooter to notice much difference in recoil between those two rounds.

    • Lt_Scrounge

      You’re comparing apples to oranges there. You’re using a lighter weight projectile in the larger caliber round to get the muzzle velocity and energy level up. Yes, the recoil would be similar, but the down range impact on anything but targets would not be. The 41 would have a higher ballistic coefficient and sectional density translating into better down range performance. That means that penetration would be better with the 41 firing the heavier round than it would be with the 44 firing the lighter one. I’ve owned both. I wish I hadn’t sold either one. The nickel plated Model 57 would be a collector’s item and the 44 Tracker was just a fun gun to shoot. I would have to have a reloading bench set up to fire either of them much with today’s ammo prices though. Even when I was reloading, I don’t think I ever got anywhere near 1500 FPS with a 210 gr projectile though. That was beyond the recommended loading velocities in the mid 80s.

      • Those were simply the loads with the closest projectile weights for comparison offered by Underwood. Given that it’s a .41 vs .429 projectile I think it’s a pretty fair comparison.

    • JodyVol

      My .41 is noticibly lighter felt recoil than my .44.

      • What are the specs of the respective loads you are firing out of them?

        • JodyVol

          various in both

  • ElderAmbassador

    WAAAY too heavy for a .41 Mag or a .45 Colt!

  • Mazryonh

    If Ruger can bring back revolvers in this caliber, why not put one out in .40 caliber that can handle both .40 S&W and 10mm Auto in moon clips, like the S&W 610?