45 colt vs 41 mag?

I love my 41 Magnums. I own a Blackhawk, a Redhawk and a Marlin Lever gun in the caliber. I reload so ammo isn't an issue for me.
If you don't reload, I'd go for the 45. The conversion that allows 45LC and 45 ACP looks very cool.
 
My understanding is based on other information, which says 40k for 44 Magnum and 20% less for 45 Colt (32k). That was Brian Pearce as I recall. My reference to substantially higher was relative to 45 Colt. I already have a Flat Top in 41 Mag and a standard Blackhawk in 41 mag.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the discrepancy comes from the fact that SAAMI list the Maximum Average Pressure for many cartridges in both PSI (pounds per square inch) and CUP (copper units of pressure). The MAP for .44 Magnum in PSI is 36,000 and in CUP it's 40,000. It is a confusing state of affairs because there is no direct conversion formula for PSI to CUP or vice versa. That being said, PSI is the more modern unit of measure and is used for most cartridges today.


I did not make a distinction for grip frames. The Super Blackhawk is a different gun as a result, and not all of them use the Dragoon grip frame, I gather.
Click to expand...

No, but I did in my original post. The standard Blackhawk in both .44 Magnum and .45 Long Colt are both listed as having aluminum grip frames on Ruger's website.

I still am not getting why Ruger needed a "Super" model, confined to 44 Magnum, if it is really the "same gun" as the Blackhawk.
Click to expand...

It's the same frame, but not the same gun. The Super Blackhawk is available with features besides the caliber that are not available on the standard Blackhawk including the steel, Dragoon-style grip frame, unfluted cylinder, square back trigger guard, different hammer profile, different barrel lengths, and Ruger's proprietary scope mounting system. Now, obviously not all of these features are available on every submodel of SBH, but enough of them are for Ruger to make a distinction between models.

Also, the "Super" model is not confined to .44 Magnum. Ruger also lists a .41 Magnum SBH as a distributor exclusive for Davidson's:

http://www.ruger.com/products/newModelSuperBlackhawkDE/specSheets/0863.html

It just doesn't make sense that the SBH was a result of "beefing up" the Blackhawk frame for the .44 Magnum because Ruger had already done that three years before the SBH was introduced. The original Blackhawk in .357 Magnum was built on a smaller frame more analogous to the 50th Anniversary .357 Blackhawks from 2005 and the flat-top .44 Specials that are cataloged now. In 1956, Ruger enlarged the frame of the standard Blackhawk to accommodate the .44 Magnum. Eventually, Ruger discontinued the smaller Blackhawk frame size and simply made all calibers on the larger .44 Magnum frame. This is why a Blackhawk in .45 Long Colt can be safely loaded to .44 Magnum ballistics while other SA revolver's can't. Unlike a Colt SAA or clones thereof, a .45 LC Ruger Blackhawk is built on a .44 Magnum frame.

If the standard Blackhawk was not stout enough to handle the .44 Magnum, it is doubtful that Ruger would have made them so-chambered for three years prior to the introduction of the Super Blackhawk much less continue to make the two models in .44 Magnum concurrently for another three years or reintroduce the .44 Magnum Blackhawk in 2006. The "Super" in Super Blackhawk does not denote a stronger frame but rather other features which are advertised as making it a better hunting revolver.
 
The 41 is a great cartridge but the 45 Colt is much more flexible in my opinion. If you don't reload you can go from Cowboy loads, traditional loads or some of the new High Performance loadings. If you hand load even better.
 
"I still am not getting why Ruger needed a "Super" model, confined to 44 Magnum, if it is really the "same gun" as the Blackhawk."

Apparently a significant number of people were requesting a Blackhawk with a bigger grip to better control recoil with heavy loads.

Ruger answered their requests.
 
Curious that they would stop at the 44 Magnum offering in the SBH, since boffo loads in 45 Colt, maybe 454 Casull, could benefit too. It then raises the question too why the Flat Tops were not broken out (from the NMBHs) as a separate model line.
 
I think the "Super" came from the fact that a one time the 44 Magnum was the most powerful commercial load out there. Something special, Ruger's flagship at the time.
 
If I recall correctly, Ruger actually came out with a 44 mag revolver before S&W once the caliber was introduced.

It was once considered the most powerful and "it will blow your head clean off" (Dirty Harry), and it is still a very powerful cartridge and the most powerful normal people can handle the recoil from. That said things along that line changed with the 454 Casull, 480 Ruger, 475 Linebaugh, 460 S&W, 500 S&W and so forth. But the amount of recoil has not changed. Just some people have learned to tolerate it better. So many 44's were bought and shot a few times, then shelved until finally re-sold back in the day and recoil was the dominant reason.
 
I'm not familiar with the .41 magnum, but thoroughly enjoy the versatility of my .45 Colt Blackhawk. It will fire very mild loads all the way up to loads pushing 30,000 cups. Recoil on the hot loads are stiff but not brutal. Top end .45 Colt loads will surpass .44 magnum ballistics and at lower pressures. All that being said, like most everyone else, most of my loads are in the 250 grain, 900 FPS range.
 
45 Colt, more Standard pressure defensive loads available in past few years with the release of the Judge and Governor, but reloaders can tailor either to suit their need
 
I reload lots for both 44 mag and 41 mag. I like to push warm loads for both. For over-all ease of holding, shooting repeatedly, and ballistic performance to intermediate ranges without pounding my hands to bits in a revolver (I actually prefer the lighter weight of the regular blackhawk) the 41 mag stands in a class by itself IMO.
 
In the "For What it's Worth" department.

Right now Grafs has 13 different handgun bullets in stock for .410". They have about 100 in stock to choose from in 45 caliber.
 
True the 41 mag is not readily available in big box stores or LGs where local preferences dictate what is stocked--but I've never had a problem finding both ammo and reload components for it if I was including the internet.

It is a great hard-hitting cartridge with stopping power similar to the 44 mag and ballistically flies great with moderate recoil transferred to the shooter. After years of reloading for it and firing through my blackhawk, I just don't think there is another cartridge that delivers that performance blend as well.
 
Here is but one more point that I'd like to add that has yet to be mentioned here. The .41 magnum is great cartridge that can stand on it's own merits and don't need to be compared to other cartridges. The other topic without fail that"s always brought up is one of bullet weight. Anymore it seems that the everyday shooter/plinker/hunter thinks it's necessary to load up with the heaviest bullet that they can stuff into the chambers of their sixguns and have at it.

The late great Elmer Keith never needed anything more than his 429421 bullet in his .44 magnum, and it always worked without fail. In the .41 a hunter using the .41 magnum version at roughly 1400fps poleaxed a moose at 65 yards. The bullet went between the the shoulder blades driving so deep that it lacerated the liver. The moose took a couple of steps got sick and fell over. On another occasion a 250gr .41 mag started at a pedestrian 1100fps sailed through both shoulders of a 700lbs cow elk at 74 yards dropping her were she stood. In the above two examples if that performance isn't satisfactory please explain how the above could have been improved upon.

I bring all of this up to point out that the average individual don't need 300+ grain bullets to kill the common deer/pig/black bear, which is most likely what the cartridges will be used on in a hunting context. Now if the user feels that they must subject themselves to the effects of such loads then so be it this a free country after all, but in reality they aren't needed. If you really need a heavy bullet there is the 295gr SSK bullet for the .41 if you have elephants in your woods. The bullets can be found at Bear Tooth bullets or Penn Bullets. Here is a great resource for the .41 magnum for the OP
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?276144-41-magnum-special-data-center

As far as the ammo situation is concerned it has never been better for the .41 magnum. There is more variety of ammo to choose from now than at anytime before for the .41. Sadly the old "Police Load" is gone and the only SD loading available that I'm aware of is the Win 175gr STHP. More folks really need to give the .41 magnum a chance you might find that you will come to really enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
I have several Rugers in 45 LC/45ACP convertible. Never considered a 41 Mag. Do run Ruger/TC Contender on handloads in 45LC at times.
 
For no rational, irrefutable set of reasons, my leanings are to the .45 Colt. It can be loaded to equal .41/.44 Mag specs, and factory loads that do the same are available, if somewhat dear. The .41 mag's supply problems can largely be overcome by casting, judicious purchasing, and husbandry of supply. I don't really see a task that one will successfully perform, of which the other 2 are incapable.

The platform whence these cartridges are shot may bear examination, as a S&W M57 is probably more tune-able than a .45 Colt Redhawk, while the latter is likely to last longer if subjected to equi-ballistic ammunition. I don't know how to gauge the strength of the $&W .45 Colt N-frames, but I'd be inclined to not expose them to pressures above 21,000 p.s.i. (and then only rarely), unless I hear on good authority that it's okay to do so.
 
Do we know whether the S&W N-frame cylinder is pushed to its limit with 45 Colt, precluding use of loads above SAAMI standard? I suspect that 44 and 41 are better suited to that gun in terms of powerful loads.
 
To follow up on my last post here is a link to the above mentioned elk, further down he talks of the moose that was taken too

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=69822&highlight=magnum

As for the S&W .45 that everyone is asking about here is what John Linebaugh has to say, scroll down to the bottom of the page.

http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/heavyweight_bullets.htm

Here is another article that he wrote on the S&W .45 Cot as well.

http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=12
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top