I'm considering a switch and need some inputs:

[C. Latch]

A couple years ago I bought a Ruger Bisley blackhawk .45 Colt with 5.5" barrel.


I've enjoyed shooting the Ruger, despite a few bugs, and killed a deer with it, and have holster, dies, numerous molds, tons of brass....everything a .45 shooter would ever need. With one problem:

The gun has begun to bore me. I've never liked the front sight (even the one I had made for it as a replacement for the factory blade) and there are other things I have grown critical of....barrel needs to be a hair longer, etc, etc.

I have considered selling the whole pile of .45 stuff and getting a different hunting handgun.

(At this point, I should confess....my days of shooting deer with open-sighted handguns are drawing to a close before they've even begun well. But I'd still like to have a revolver suited for the job).

Anyway, the whole thread comes down to this:

The .45, loaded with hotter loads, is a bit more recoil-wise than I want. I have every confidence that on deer-sized critters a .41 Magnum could do just as well as the .45, and, in the particular case I'm thinking of, could do it with a slightly heavier and therefore lighter-kicking revolver.

So I'm thinking of selling of the .45 and buying a .41. Specifically, I'm thinking of buying a S&W 657-2 classic hunter as a more-or-less twin to my old 6" 686.

So here's the question:

For deer hunting and occasional plinking, if it came down to a .45 Colt, ruger Bisley 5.5" versus a 657-2 with 6" or 6.5" full-underlug barrel, which would you go with, and why?

If I switch, other than the monetary risk of selling one gun to buy another (possibly more expensive) gun, are there any issues I should be aware with about the 657s? I have other smiths and know the actions can be tuned very well. Any issues I should expect shooting cast bullets in a 657?

[Deep Six]

I too rely on my 5.5 Bisley 45 for killing deer. I know what you mean about longer barrel though. I've considered picking up the 7.5" 45 Blackhawk just to see if I could extend my useful hunting range past about 50 yards.

I also have a 41 Blackhawk, but I've never taken it afield (yet). I can't say it's much less recoil than the 250 gr class of 44 mag loads. All things being equal, the 45 makes a slightly bigger hole and will bleed out that much faster.

I have one Smith (a 629), and while it's a sweet gun that I shoot a lot, the N-frame grip shape just isn't as good at handling recoil as the Bisley frame is. In fact, for me anyways, I'd rather shoot 300 gr Ruger only loads out of a Bisley than full spec 41 magnums out of a Smith N Frame.

My suggestion: buy the Smith and see what you think. If it truly replaces the Bisley, then sell the Bisley. However, if you're like me, you'll find a use for both of them.

[5.7 MAN]

Have you tried loading the 45 colt to around 1000fps? That should be plenty for deer to 50-70 yards or so.

[skeettx]

I have a wonderful red dot sight on a Blackhawk
No gunsmithing and when you want just take it off and replace the rear sight
Use the 45 Colt, load it down a bit, say 8 or 9 grains of Unique
And the 5.5 barrel will not be a concern.
You can try these cheaply enough to make up your mind.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Weaver-48638-301-1-Piece-Base-Gloss-Ruger-Blackhawk-WV48638-/311492690879?hash=item48866943bf:g:vj4AAOSw7FRWVL0 M

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Red-Green-Blue-Dot-BSA-30mm-rifle-pistol-Scope-sight-20mm-Weaver-mount-RD30-/331290742962?hash=item4d227790b2:g:i2YAAOSwEK9T7YF T (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Weaver-48638-301-1-Piece-Base-Gloss-Ruger-Blackhawk-WV48638-/311492690879?hash=item48866943bf:g:vj4AAOSw7FRWVL0 M)

[Blackwater]

5.7 gives a good option. I have a friend who's shot a truckload of deer with .45 LC, and none of them have been with Ruger-only loads. Most have been with Unique or Red Dot, his two favorite powders for that caliber. I think the nose shape (SWC or WFN or WLN) matters more than how fast the bullet is going. Thus, you at least have this option. He got hurt badly some years back, and couldn't handle recoil for a long time. His deer rifle wound up being a .223, with a .243 as his "big gun" when he thought he's need to possibly make a shot over @ 200 yds. He never lost a deer with any of them, but he can shoot and places bullets well - always a prime consideration.

It's very much the same with handguns. Place a well shaped bullet well, and it really doesn't have to be supersonic at all. That deer won't go very far at all, if not straight down. Just another something to consider, anyway.

[shoot-n-lead]

C.Latch...there is something about gun guys that makes them thing that more is better. So, the hotter loads naturally become the in "thing" for them...if they gun won't shoot the hottest loads, it is not worthy of having. But, I have been around and shot more than a few rounds through handguns. And, I have found that it does not nearly take rip snorting handguns loads with 350gr bullets to kill deer and hogs. Matter of fact, I have developed a love for the Italian SAA clones and they have become the revolvers that I reach for when going afield...whether for hunting with them or as my sidearm that I always carry when out and about. These guns, all 44 special, will kill anything that I am hunting or that I am subject to come across in my neck of the woods. Also, I have divested myself of all of my 45 colts guns, except one as the colt does nothing for me that the 44special or 44mag will not do and I am not into the whole nostalgia part of that cartridge...like I said, I just have not use for it. So, give the 41 a try...it will probably do all you want and be more satisfactory to you.

[9.3X62AL]

I don't think there is a smidgen of difference between the field capabilities of a Ruger 45 Colt vs. any 41 Magnum. With either caliber you can load to any velocity level you want. There are A LOT more bullet choices in 45 caliber than in 41 caliber. After close to 20 years of use of my BisHawk 45 x 7.5", there is NO WAY I would part with it. I DID sell a Blackhawk in 41 x 6.5", though--because it offered nothing the 45 couldn't provide. Any difference exists only in minutae and/or the minds of their respective enthusiasts. Keep the Ruger, and if you want a 657 get one of those too. But you would be kidding yourself about any supposed advantage of one over the other for hunting/field usage.

[C. Latch]

I don't think there is a smidgen of difference between the field capabilities of a Ruger 45 Colt vs. any 41 Magnum. With either caliber you can load to any velocity level you want. There are A LOT more bullet choices in 45 caliber than in 41 caliber. After close to 20 years of use of my BisHawk 45 x 7.5", there is NO WAY I would part with it. I DID sell a Blackhawk in 41 x 6.5", though--because it offered nothing the 45 couldn't provide. Any difference exists only in minutae and/or the minds of their respective enthusiasts. Keep the Ruger, and if you want a 657 get one of those too. But you would be kidding yourself about any supposed advantage of one over the other for hunting/field usage.


What are your thoughts on the recoil-handling capabilities of the N frame grip versus the Bisley?


There are other factors at play here - my .45 has thread choke - after 150+ lapping shots - and if I want to shoot it much I need to have it taylor throated, or live with a lot of leading. I didn't want to get into that issue here in this thread. It exists and I don't want to hash it out here. I strongly suspect that if I buy a S&W the internal dimensions will be correct to make it a solid shooter with cast bullets. And as for bullet choices, I'm pretty sure I'd buy one 4-cavity hollowpoint LFN mold from NOE and that would be all the mold I needed.

The other issue is that I think the extra weight of an underlugged barrel might be easier to shoot offhand or from field rests.

[Mitch]

You mentioned the old 6 in.686 is it still in the stable?I to looked at the 657 for a long time.I hunted deer with both my 6 in.686 and 8 3/8 586.the 586 became my go to deer gun for many years.i never had any problem killing deer in the 50 to 70 yard range.I noticed the choices for the 41 mag were much more limited that the 357 or the 45 Colt.I now have added a 6 in Anaconda in 45.I have not shot a deer with it but would have no fear I using it with a lot less than full blown Ruger only loads.Just sayin maybe all you need is a visit to the safe and blow the dust out of the old 686.

[jmort]

A .45 Colt 255 grain SWC at 950 FPS will shoot through any deer on a broadside. That is a standard pressure load. I sold all my .45 Colt handguns and rifles and went to .357 mag for everything. I shot a lot of 255 grain SWC's at 950 FPS, and the recoil was minimal.

[ole 5 hole group]

A .45 Colt 255 grain SWC at 950 FPS will shoot through any deer on a broadside. That is a standard pressure load.

That is some good advice. HS-6 is one powder than you'll find handles 250 to 270 grain cast bullets very well - there are many other powders out there that will do the same. 270 grain cast in front of 11.0 grains of HS-6 will give you 910 fps with no noticeable recoil.

The other thing that has come about is powder coating cast bullets - they will not lead barrels, will give slightly more velocity without slightly more recoil and actually expand a bit on thin skinned game. Might want to look into that, either as a do it yourself project or just purchase them commercially.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

You will love that 657, I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.

I'm assuming you are looking at a used gun?
My first thoughts ...
While S&W has a bit of history, whereas some revolvers made at certain times are more precisely made (throat and barrel dimensions) than at other times. Those issues tend to follow the common calibers. I've owned several S&W 41 Mag revolvers and have experienced very little variation. The theory is, the more rare the caliber, the less the tooling is used and less likely to wear out...So when S&W had those periods where there seemed to have poor QC, that was less likely to effect 41 Mag.

Oh, and don't let anyone tell you the options are limited for 41 mag. Yeah, Lee only offers a couple options compared to the common calibers, BUT, we are in the golden age of casting, anything is available at a reasonable cost, from a myriad of mold makers.

[gmsharps]

I would keep the 45 Colt. It is to versatile to give up. Fairly easy to get brass and it can do a lot. The 41 is also great and can give you a bit of a boost in power. I have both and will not give up either one.

gmsharps

[Silver Jack Hammer]

I love the .45 but a magnum is easier to hit with a longer ranges for me as I am a poor judge of distances in the field. I'd get the Smith and some grips that cover the backstrap. Smiths have nice triggers and there are excellent molds for the .41. Don't even think about selling your .45 until you've had your .41 for at least a year and gone through a deer season. It's one thing to wish you had the other gun that's back home, it's quite another to wish you still had a gun you let go. If for some reason you don't like the Smith .41 you can sell it but I think you'll like it.

[Fernando]

Bolt on a red dot and reduce loads for pure accuracy.
Throating is not a big deal.
If that doesn't please, go with your other option - you keep the red dot for the 41.
57 hunters are a bit pricey regular 57 are in line with 29's
Just do what the guy in the mirror wants to[smilie=s:

[ShooterAZ]

My advice is to not get rid of your 45. In my experience, they both recoil about the same with similar load weights/velocities. They only reason to dump it...is if you seriously just don't like it for some reason. Never sell guns unless you have to!

[Blackwater]

One other suggestion that I've seen help on occasion, is to simply get some new grips for the old BHk. If your hands tend toward the large size, pick some that are thicker at the top. It's amazing how much a very little difference in thickness can make in how a gun feels in shooting and in recoil. It can literally make it feel like a whole new gun. Plus, it's a lot chaper.

And BTW, what grit did you use to try to lap out the constriction in the barrel? I ask because I've got one with the same problem, a .357 50th Anniv. model, and haven't gotten up the courage to try it yet. What grit, and how many rounds, and how did it work for you?

[9.3X62AL]

"Recoil-handling" is a lot more subjective than objective. I can't give a fair estimate that would apply to someone else. I have and use Blackhawks, Bisleys (both Colt and Ruger), and S&Ws in K-, L-, and N-frames--and both D- and I-frame Colts. If there is a commonality among these, it is the preponderance of aftermarket grips on the lot of them, usually made of neoprene. Hope that helps. I am no fan of gratuitous recoil in a sidearm, and if I need the power generated by some of the thunderguns like Casulls or their ilk, I reach for a rifle.

[Groo]

Groo here
If you get a 41,you will find they multply FAST.
I got a ruger,then an m58,then an m657 3in [ oh ya] then I hade a pair of custom 41's on new vaquero frames.
Next????????????

[rintinglen]

Unless you just have "new-gun-itis," a .41 Magnum and the .45 Ruger are simply peas in a pod and any difference in perceived recoil will be minor. Now to be fair, neither the 41 nor the 45 Ruger only plays in my stable these days. That sort of work gets done by a 44 Magnum.
The .45 ruger-only stopped being interesting when a redline Ruger load got into an Armi San Marcos belonging to a friend of mine. Given my own misassortment of revolvers, I don't care to risk duplicating that.
I've had 2 41's over the years, but neither stayed. Difficulty in finding components coupled with "meh" results quickly led to a loss of interest on my part. Not that the .41's were bad, but the M-57 was not any better than the M-29 and the .41 Blackhawk was not as good as the SBH, and I can usually find 44 components.

However, I KNOW the pain of new-gunitis and it may be that only a .41 will slake the symptoms...for a while.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Who doesn't have "new-gun-itis"?

[jmort]

A .45 Colt Ruger is way more gun.

Technical Information

Caliber: 45 Colt (Long Colt) +P
Bullet Weight: 325 Grains
Bullet Style: Lead Long Flat Nose Gas Check 21 BHN
Case Type: Brass

Ballistics Information:

Muzzle Velocity: 1325 fps
Muzzle Energy: 1267 ft. lbs.


Technical Information


Caliber: 41 Magnum
Bullet Weight: 265 Grains
Bullet Style: Lead Wide Long NoseGas Check 21 BHN
Case Type: Brass

Ballistics Information:


Muzzle Velocity: 1350 fps
Muzzle Energy: 1072 ft. lbs.

[9.3X62AL]

I agree with J Mort that the Ruger 45 Colt can be more handgun than a 41 Magnum, but I seldom run the BisHawk 45 much past its blackpowder envelope of 250-260 grainer at 1000 FPS. Such loads were spec'd t shoot through a cavalry mount and strike an enemy using said mount for cover. It may not be Dirty Harry cannon fire, but it would be (and IS) a very effective counter-measure vs. adversaries on either 2 or 4 feet. The 41 Mag--44 Mag--and 45 Colt can all duplicate or exceed this standard, and the 41s are both gone. I have 2 short and 1 long 44 Magnum, and one short 45 Colt. 1 of the short 44s might head north soon with my daughter in Anchorage, but the 45 stays. Period.

[robertbank]

8 - 8.5 gr of Unique under a 250ish cast bullet ought to take down any deer standing in N.A.. The load is all I need for recoil and works well in my BH and Italian SAA. I sometimes carry the Ruger BH in the bush to look after 4 legged creatures that might do me harm using the same loads. If I can hit it...it will fall to either loading. I don't find the recoil offensive but would not seek anymore either.

Take Care

Bob

[paul h]

If you just have to get a 41, I understand, but...

I'd stick with the 45. As mentioned you can drop your loads to 1000 fps with a 230-250 gr bullet and it,ll kill any deer alive. Loaded to the same level, the 41 will recoil more because it takes more powder to achieve the same power as the 45 and the extra powder produces higher pressure as the bullet leaves and hence snappier recoil.

I've taylor throated two Ruger's a 357 blackhawk and a 44 super blackhawk due to choked throats. The improvement in accuracy was phenominal, the 44 went from shooting 3" groups at 25 yds to 1 1/2" groups, the 357 from 5" groups to 2" groups. I'm surprised you're getting accuracy with the choked barrel.

There is no guarantee a new gun is without flaws and S&W's famed perfect hand fitting is from days gone by.

[9.3X62AL]

There is no guarantee a new gun is without flaws and S&W's famed perfect hand fitting is from days gone by.

The arms enthusiast's watchword. I assume EVERY new firearm I buy is a "work in progress", and expect it to require work to finish its construction. I am both surprised and delighted when my pessimism is unfounded.

[C. Latch]

I appreciate all the replies. I needed to hear a great deal of what was said.

I think there's a great deal of truth to the idea that I might have new-gun-itis. It seems that once infected with that disease, it might go dormant for a while but the next outbreak is always right around the corner.

[9.3X62AL]

I appreciate all the replies. I needed to hear a great deal of what was said.

I think there's a great deal of truth to the idea that I might have new-gun-itis. It seems that once infected with that disease, it might go dormant for a while but the next outbreak is always right around the corner.

Yes sir! When the Enthusiasm Bug bites, the resulting malady can be life-long. Relapses, transmissibility, all the fun elements.

[Whiterabbit]

So here's the question:

For deer hunting and occasional plinking, if it came down to a .45 Colt, ruger Bisley 5.5" versus a 657-2 with 6" or 6.5" full-underlug barrel, which would you go with, and why?

No question in my mind. The Ruger. Why? Single action, which I prefer for woods carry, hunting, plinking.

Now, if you were to ask me which would I choose (especially given your constraints), a Ruger 45 or another single action 41 magnum (ruger or anyone else), I'd be in a conundrum. I'd be more likely to switch to 41 (than go to a S&W).

[kgb]

I very much enjoy my 657 Classic Hunter (6.5" bbl, I think the only other 657 CH option was a 7.5"), and hope to get their .357 CH model as a matching piece some day. Recoil is easier to handle in the S&W than a Blackhawk, IMO, and I do shoot the 657 better. Agree I'd hold onto the known gun until any new one proved itself.

[C. Latch]

Recoil is easier to handle in the S&W than a Blackhawk, IMO, and I do shoot the 657 better.


How big are your hands? I ask because you're the first person who said that.




FWIW, I have considered that I could also solve most or all of my complaints about the Ruger by having it rebarreled. A slightly heavier, longer barrel would help with recoil, help with offhand shooting, could be given a new front sight of a better design, wouldn't have frame choke.........

I sent Gallagher customs an email last night. If their response is in a reasonable price range, I may go that route. I suppose I could trade for one of the new 5-shot .454s but I'd almost rather stick with the .45. I see no reason, ever, in my lifetime, to need more power than a blackhawk in .45 Colt can provide.

[kgb]

Not big. I fit a size 8 glove but it's snug and having said that I don't even know if that was just one company's scale or common sizing.

As far as rebarreling, I had a 7.5" barrel installed on my .41 Blackhawk and am very satisfied with it. I had actually bought a Vaquero in .45LC with a 7.5" barrel then after obtaining dies, cases, etc. realized I wanted a 7.5" Blackhawk more than I wanted another caliber and sold the Vaquero. Sent the Blackhawk to Ruger and they did the work.

[paul h]

To me the few tweaks I would do to perfect the 5 1/2" 45 bisley is a trigger job, roundbutt the grips/frame and have it taylor throated.

(random google image)
http://www.bogequinn.com/images/Post/Linebaugh500/02.jpg

Jack Huntington is pretty reasonable and does great work.

I wouldn't put on a longer or heavier barrel the 5 1/2" factory tube has perfect balance and sufficient sight radius.

[9.3X62AL]

Hijo la--that is a purty roller.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Jmort, I have to question your quotes for ballistics, how do you get a Ruger .45 Colt to throw a 325 gr boolit at 1325 fps? The original post referenced a Bisley vs N frame. Are you using a RedHawk? The Speer manual lists a Ruger only .45 Colt load of max 21.0 gr of 296 at 1203 fps with a 250 gr J-word boolit. My 4 3/4" Blackhawk clocks 961 fps with a 250 gr cast lead boolit with 20.5 gr. of 296. I had a RedHawk .44 mag I shot 300 gr boolits with at 1,100 fps. It was very pleasant for 40 and 80 round matches. Are you recommending trying to get the velocities you are quoting out to of the guns we are talking about here?

[44man]

It is a conundrum for sure but although I love the .45, a SBH Hunter in .44 would be my choice for a second gun but I would keep the .45.
I never got out of sorts about a .41. Yes, it is OK but I stayed away because of boolit choices that has been better but guns are lighter and still kick hard. I would rather shoot my .44 then my friends .41 any day.
The choice is personal but you might regret the loss of the .45. Only the .44 has worked better for deer. Forget the light loads, you need energy applied, never just a poked hole.

[ejcrist]

I'd stick with the 45 Colt. I like a little longer barrel w/7.5" preferred but the Colt is a lot more versatile than the 41 magnum in my opinion. Like others have said, no need to push it much more than 1,000 fps for most game.

[paul h]

Jmort, I have to question your quotes for ballistics, how do you get a Ruger .45 Colt to throw a 325 gr boolit at 1325 fps? The original post referenced a Bisley vs N frame. Are you using a RedHawk? The Speer manual lists a Ruger only .45 Colt load of max 21.0 gr of 296 at 1203 fps with a 250 gr J-word boolit. My 4 3/4" Blackhawk clocks 961 fps with a 250 gr cast lead boolit with 20.5 gr. of 296. I had a RedHawk .44 mag I shot 300 gr boolits with at 1,100 fps. It was very pleasant for 40 and 80 round matches. Are you recommending trying to get the velocities you are quoting out to of the guns we are talking about here?

Figure you'll loose 50 fps in a 5 1/2" barrel:


VELOCITY AND PRESSURE COMPARISONS SHOWING THE SUPERIORITY OF H-110 AND W 296 OVER OTHER COMMONLY USED POWDERS IN THE .45 COLT. 7" TEST BBL.


BULLET
POWDER
GRAINS
VELOCITY
CUP


260 GR. LEAD SWC
H-110
27
1459 FPS
30,600


260 GR. LEAD SWC
H-4227
26
1377 FPS
30,600


260 GR. LEAD SWC
# 2400
20.5
1294 FPS
29,800


260 GR. LEAD SWC
HS-6
16
1259 FPS
30,800


260 GR. LEAD SWC
UNIQUE
12
1199 FPS
30,000


310 GR LEAD SWC
H-l10
23
1330 FPS
30,000


310 GR LEAD SWC
H-4227
23
1176 FPS
29,400


310 GR LEAD SWC
# 2400
19
1172 FPS
29,400


310 GR LEAD SWC
HS-6
14
1119 FPS
30,400


310 GR LEAD SWC
UNIQUE
11
998 FPS
29,200




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

[MT Gianni]

If the eyes are going I have had more luck with target acquisition with scoped contenders than with scoped revolvers. I don't know why but Rem/TC is shipping G2 contenders again. Put a scope on a 357 Max and you won't need a second shot.

[C. Latch]

If the eyes are going I have had more luck with target acquisition with scoped contenders than with scoped revolvers. I don't know why but Rem/TC is shipping G2 contenders again. Put a scope on a 357 Max and you won't need a second shot.

When I put a scope on a revolver it loses every drop of its appeal to me.

Don't get me wrong, if that's what others want to do, that's great, but it just doesn't interest me.

[skeettx]

Thought you said "(At this point, I should confess....my days of shooting deer with open-sighted handguns are drawing to a close before they've even begun well. But I'd still like to have a revolver suited for the job)."

So if iron sights are on their way out, what does that leave, not pistol hunting??

And going from a 5.5" Ruger to a 6" Smith will have no lasting effect.

BUTTTTT, I have both so who am I to talk :)

Mike

[C. Latch]

Thought you said "(At this point, I should confess....my days of shooting deer with open-sighted handguns are drawing to a close before they've even begun well. But I'd still like to have a revolver suited for the job)."

So if iron sights are on their way out, what does that leave, not pistol hunting??

Mike


It just leaves having a revolver around that was suited for the job.

Such a revolver could still be packed in a holster on rifle hunts, and could still get pressed into service on easier shots. I killed a couple of does last week that would have been perfect candidates for shooting with a revolver.

[35remington]

It leaves a revolver with a red dot sight on it that is STILL suited for the job. Never give up!

Many dot sights are quite small and the gun is still very packable.

[44man]

It is what we old goats are stuck with. Red dot best. The Grinch steals those sights. Any he misses grows hair.
From the .45 down, a revolver will not suffer much with a short, pack able barrel. Only the very large will need at least 6" with very large like the 45-70 doing better at 10". Even the .500 JRH is amazing at 6". I like 7-1/2" for hunting because the noise is farther away.
Since I hunt with revolvers, the Ultra Dot is no hindrance since a shoulder holster keeps it out of the way. My rifle hunting friends appreciate me toting their rifle and cushion while they drag.
The deer I made a bad hit on was drug a good 300 yards and I could not have done it with a rifle, even slung. In and out of gullies, up hills and over logs and rocks. Why do they die in places so hard? She was a good 175# and I was waiting for the big one but made it out.
I don't like scopes because they lose light to your eye when dim out and the cross hairs dance the Saint Vida's dance, at my age the red dot also dances around. With a scope you need light and a rest. You youngsters that can hold will lose it faster then you think. Years flash by!

[gwpercle]

You sound like you need a change, trade in that 45 on that N-frame 41 magnum, they are fun. The challenge of a new round and gun will get you un-bored.
The model 58 in my avatar is my favorite (N-frame 41 mag.). It is surprisingly pleasant to shoot....I'm "older" too and no longer into heavy recoil. Reloading and casting for the 41 lets you tailor the loads to your level and still be a magnum of serious consequence.
Don't get rid of your 45 Colt reloading gear, never know when a rifle or something else might come along.
If I could get a lever action rifle in 41 magnum, mounted with a receiver sight, I might be able to hit things with it out past 25 feet !
Gary

[Markbo]

Check into the J Point reddot and mount for the Ruger. They are.really small and a big improvement over the "dang I cant see those sights anymore" itis. I am mounting one to my new .480 Ruger.

Besides, I dont understand either/or when it comes to handguns. Obviosuly the answer is yes to both. ;)

[C. Latch]

Check into the J Point reddot and mount for the Ruger. They are.really small and a big improvement over the "dang I cant see those sights anymore" itis. I am mounting one to my new .480 Ruger.

Besides, I dont understand either/or when it comes to handguns. Obviosuly the answer is yes to both. ;)

I can't really afford both. I can afford to spend part of what a new gun would cost, but not once I add in the cost of all the new dies, molds, and so on that come with a new gun.

I got the .45 (and my 686 .357) out and have done some shooting with both over the last few days. I have concluded that 1) I really do like the Ruger design, I just don't like the execution, and 2) trading for a .41, of any sort, would be a gamble. I could easily get one that was as much a headache as this one.

That leaves addressing the weaknesses in the Ruger's execution. Or, in other words, having a smith tweak it a bit. I have some clutter I'm getting rid of and in the last few weeks have sold about 3/4ths of enough money to pay for the things i'd like to have changed on the Ruger. The other 1/4 isn't a burden. I've contacted two smiths in the last week or so (I actually contacted three but one apparently doesn't respond to emails) and both have given me about the same estimate for a new barrel (which would cure my desire for a longer barrel, desire for a heavier barrel, and the stupid frame choke), new sight, and target-length ERH.

Now I have to convince myself that this is what I want to do. This isn't a new idea; I have considered this since not long after I bought this revolver.

[C. Latch]

I've been meaning to log in and update this thread.

The gunsmith that was going to let me know when he was ready to do the work.....never got back to me. So, I ended up putting some money into other projects.

A few weeks ago I got the Blackhawk out and decided that, being a rainy saturday, I was going to tackle the front sight that I'd never really liked even though I paid a lot of money for it. I went and bought a sheet of 1/8" steel stock and spent the rest of the afternoon cutting, filing, and bluing (well, heating and quenching in a salt solution, anyway) a new front sight. I'm sort of proud of it, actually.

Then I decided that I wanted to knock out the remaining frame choke, once and for all. I bought some 120-grit lapping compound (yes, 120) and dug out my old, dirty brass from the last lapping exercise.

Fifty shots later (it may have been 48 or 49, I forget) the choke is gone. I took three bullets of the same alloy (I'm convinced that different alloys influence the measurements you get when you slug the barrel) and pushed one through from muzzle to breech. It started hard but got progressively easier as it traveled, indicating a tapered bore, with no constriction felt at the forcing cone. None. Measured .4499".

I then used a primer-only load to stick the next two bullets deep into the forcing cone (base of bullet maybe a half-inch out of cylinder). Both measured, best I can tell, around .4511".

Top-end loads with 296 still show a bit of leading. This may be because of my lube. But hot loads with 2400 show zero leading now, even after several cylinders.

To top it off, I finally convinced NOE to make a mold to suit me.....as a cup hollowpoint it weighs 280-283 grains, has a .400" nose, and seems accurate enough, though I admittedly haven't benched it yet.

I am now content with the gun, for the first time since I bought it. Loaded a pile of ammo last night and hope to shoot it more through the winter. Here's a picture of the new sight:

188148

[bisleyfan41]

You mentioned the old 6 in.686 is it still in the stable?I to looked at the 657 for a long time.I hunted deer with both my 6 in.686 and 8 3/8 586.the 586 became my go to deer gun for many years.i never had any problem killing deer in the 50 to 70 yard range.I noticed the choices for the 41 mag were much more limited that the 357 or the 45 Colt.I now have added a 6 in Anaconda in 45.I have not shot a deer with it but would have no fear I using it with a lot less than full blown Ruger only loads.Just sayin maybe all you need is a visit to the safe and blow the dust out of the old 686.

I was also going to suggest trying the .357 in that role. Light recoil even with 180 gr loads. But I'm glad to see you made your 45 fit your needs.

[9.3X62AL]

Nice work, sir. My BisHawk 45 came with zero discernible barrel thread choke, but Ruger didn't cheat me out of entertainment--not at all. Cylinder throats were at .448"-.449" for a .452" groove-diameter barrel. I shot mine quite a bit, and got one bullet to do OK--Lyman #454490, a Thompson-esque SWC/GC. After about 3 years of messing around, I borrowed a piloted reamer and corrected the throats to .453". Now I run .454" plain-base castings with zero leading and good-to-excellent accuracy, depending on the bullet used.

[Mossy Oak]

You sure did a nice job on the front sight, and the BH is a fine looker. I believe you made the right choice to keep the BH.

Joe