Replies

I shoot a lot of .44 mag as well. And some heavy loaded .45 Colt in a Casull .454 fitted with .45 Colt cylinder. My wrists and hands are beginning to show the effects of years of these rounds, so I have been looking at the .41 mag for a few years. The .41 is heading into obscurity. In fact, it probably was obsolete the day it was introduced, since it was immediately eclipsed by its bigger brother, the .44 Mag. introduced in 1956.

Still, in the Ruger Blackhawk, the .41 mag almost can be safely loaded up to .44 mag levels. The Hodgdon manual lists a 245 grain load for the .41 which is impressive. There is more metal in the revolver cylinders around the cartridge of the .41 mag vs the .44 mag; the .44 mag actually is .429" and the .41 is a true .410", so there is not much difference in the size of the hole, something to which I attribute a lot of importance. Even so, the .44 mag is on the "top of the heap", discounting the stout .45 Colt, the stouter .454 Casull and the "monster" rounds, the .475 and .500 Linebaugh (not to mention the longer Linebaugh Maximums) in terms of retail sales figures. I have recently ordered a custom Blackhawk chambered in .44 Special; John Taffin and some of the old timers still swear by this round (and probably some who swear at it)as being more versatile than the .44 mag; it all goes back to the same old "chicken and egg" argument, i.e., what's better, loading the .44 Special "up" to .44 mag levels or loading the .44 mag "down" to .44 Special levels?

For me the argument is unimportant, the better to have one of each in the safe. On an esoteric level, one could say that it is not a good idea to shoot a lot of .44 Special in the guns chambered for the .44 Mag since it could lead to a build-up of residue in the chamber just behind the chamber mouths and that this could lead to difficulties when subsequently chambering .44 mag rounds. Shooting the shorter .44 Special round in guns chambered for the .44 Mag means that the bullet has to jump further to reach the lands and this, in turn, could effect accuracy. But, then, we are talking about pistols with 7 inch or less barrel lengths that have an effective range of less than 50 yards.

I know what you mean, although I haven't done that much shooting in the last few years.

My Model 57 is a really sweet revolver. A friend and local gunsmith did a terrific action job on it. I consider myself very lucky, because a number of the guys I used to shoot with are close friends of Ron Power, and they "got me in" to have him do action jobs on some of my other revolvers after he officially retired.

I only really use my Redhawk for heavy loads in .44Magnum... I've got a S&W Model 629 that Ron did his magic on (though I bought it used... He didn't build it for me), but he did do a great action job on my 625-5. I don't like putting heavy loads through my "worked" S&Ws.

I can't remember the exact load I used, but I loaded a terrific light .44 mag load using Scott Powders... Although the Royal Scott was good, I really liked light loads with the Solo powders. I don't remember which one, but the load I used for shooting bowling pins had a 240gr LSWC bullet moving at about 750 fps. It was a really light load, with almost no recoil, and the Scott Solo powders were very clean burning. It was a great "pin" load.

Although shooting pins (slowly) with a 180gr SJHP and (IIRC) about 29 grains of H-110 or 296 was quite exciting, both at the revolver, as well as at the pin!

Although this photo isn't of my Grand Master (and it's a .357 too), mine is pretty close...

Mark