Wanting a .41 Long Colt - Cimarron? Ruger Single Six conversion?

[MatthewVanitas]

I've enjoyed shooting SA revolvers ever since the first gun I shot was my dad's Single Six, even if SAs aren't the current hot trend for guys in their mid-30s like me. I've since owned a few .22 SS's, a Bearcat, and a couple .32 SS's; I have a particular weakness for small-frame SA revolvers so always felt more drawn to the SS, Flattop Blackhawk, and the like rather than the clunkier .44-frame Blackhawks and Old Vaqueros that always just seemed unduly hefty.

For years now I've meant to get some kind of custom SA, but usually either I had the money but was too distracted with work, or was bouncing between jobs and needed to be careful with money. I've been working overseas a couple years with mixed success, and I figure to be back in the US later this year and by one manner or another back steadily employed but still making sure to take time for life's pleasures. Once I settle in that would be a great time to finally get a cool sixgun made to my tastes.

For a long while I'd just planned to get a good stainless .32 SS so I wouldn't have to fret about the finish, and the introduction of the Lipsey's Single Seven seemed a no-brainer for me since I like the less-common cartridges and things that are fun to handload. I'd also pondered something funkier like a .480 Ruger 5-shot Blackhawk, or a .41 Special SS conversion. The former seems a little less exotic now that Ruger actually makes those (albeit on a larger frame), and the .41Spl is apparently a real pain to make so most gunsmith's won't bother, or charge an arm and a leg for it since it's tough to wedge that case into the little frame.

I was pondering whether there's anything bigger than a .38Spl that can be wedged into a Single Six frame, started looking at the weird stuff like .401 Powermag, but then ran across an oldie I'd heard of but glossed over: .41 Long Colt. For those unfamiliar, it's a cartridge introduced for the early double-action takeoff of the Peacemaker, Colt Model 1877. It's a true-.40 bore, but with a narrower cartridge and a heeled bullet (it'd be a true-.380 bore with an internal bullet) that spills over the cartridge mouth like a .22LR bullet does. You can either load it with a .40 heeled bullet that fits the bore, or an internally-set slimmer .380 bullet with a hollow base that's intended to swell and obturate into the rifling as it launches.

I don't hunt with single actions, or compete with them (though conceivably might do IHMSA with a .327 Single Seven if it doesn't distract too much from my T/C Contender), so the practicality of the .41LC isn't a big deal to me. I just want something unusual and interesting, fun to load (with the challenge of either heeled bullets or undersized obtruding bullets in this case), and something with a large bore but mellow recoil.

Two main ways I see to go about this, that aren't crazy expensive and that keep me with the nice small-frame guns I enjoy.

Cimarron makes a "version" of the 1877, but in single-action only, basically just taking their 7/8-scale mini-Peacemaker frame and putting a 1877-style birds-head on it. Though this might seem a lazy ripoff, the original DA lockwork was a pain in the butt to work on and fragile, so replicating it would't have much practical purpose. I figure I could get the Cimarron Lightning sixgun in .41 Colt, pay a gunsmith $200 or so to slick it up fine, and then maybe pay more to get the finish "antiqued". I usually stick with stainless in modern guns, but for a fun character piece I figure I can go with the slow decay of blue, and with an antiqued finish I'd never have to worry about marring a pristine surface, so could just enjoy any further dings it picks up over the years.

http://i.imgur.com/KiUa7lG.jpg

For comparison, here's the original 1877 owned by the gunfighter John Wesley Hardin. (Notice how on a real 1877 the trigger rests further forward for the DA pull). I definitely dig the longer barrel and ivory grips on this one, but I'm not keen for nickel nor engraving.

http://i.imgur.com/Bn1LY3X.jpg

The .41 Special Single Six is right on the bounds of feasible, but when I'm looking at the diagrams of the various cartridges, it seems like a .41 Long Colt in a Single Six is a lot closer to the (relatively) common and easy .38Spl conversion than the tricky .41Spl. Maybe would getting a Ruger SS converted to .41LC would actually be workable without excessive effort?

- .41Spl: .492 at the rim, .434 at the case body
- .41LC: .43 at the rim, .405 at the case body
- .38Spl: .44 at the rim, .379 at the case body


So I guess what it come down to is either:
- The Cimmaron would be visually and mechanically closer to the 1877, including basically the correct grip, and would end up costing me maybe $800-900 total, after a tune-up and antiqued finish (plus maybe some extra for TruIvory grips). Not quite on the nose since it's not a DA, but I wouldn't feel the lack of it, and it'd be quite close to being the gun famous for carry by John Wesley Hardin and Billy the Kid.
- The Ruger would be mechanically more modern and durable though aesthetically not quite the same thing, but I could have one with adjustable sights pretty easily if that's useful to me. All told maybe $1000-1500 for a used SS and the gunsmithing?


Any thoughts on which would be the smarter way, or any alternative option that would be less-foolish than a .41 Colt in the 21st Century?

[Piedmont]

I think Uberti discontinued the .41s in the last year or so. There are probably some still in the pipeline. That is your most practical way of doing this and the cheapest way to a .40/.41.

The coolest way would be to get a custom single six (or small frame Uberti in .38 spl. ) then convert to .41 LC but go with tight cylinder throats, around .387" and a barrel with a .385 groove diameter. (Not positive on those dimensions, but do it like a normal revolver cartridge.) Then you would do away with all the problems of the .41 Colt with its odd dimensions and the necessity of heeled bullets or hollow bases. I have long wanted to do this but never will unless I win Lotto and I hardly ever buy a ticket.

A third option, the one I defaulted to, is to get a 200 grain mold for .38 Special and just load it slow. No it won't be a .41 but you are throwing a 200 grain bullet in readily available new and old revolvers.

For honorable mention you could get a medium frame Ruger flat top converted to .40 S&W. That will be heavy but once-fired brass is everywhere and cheap. Wally World stocks powerful ammo if you happen to be out, and hardly anyone owns one of these either. A friend made one like this and it is my favorite firearm of his.

Let us know what you end up doing.

[Harry O]

http://harryo.sixshootercommunity.org/

[MatthewVanitas]

@Harry O, I have indeed read your page extensively, and it played a big role in piquing my interest!


@Piedmont, thanks for the suggestions, gives me a few things to ponder. And now I know that the Lightning is no longer produced, factoring that in.

Re your ideas about converting a .38Spl P-Junior, I see where you're coming from on the bore size issue, cinching it down so that the internally-lubed bullet fits it neatly, but honestly the novelty of having the larger bore, and getting to deal with either heeled bullets or hollow base, is part of the appeal. If it weren't for those I'd just get a 38-40 on a medium frame or 32-20 on a small frame. So I grasp the idea (and it would indeed be easier and smarter) but it's the quirks of the .41 that appeal to me.

I have indeed pondered the 38-40/10mm convertible "Buckeye Special" Blackhawk, might still end up on my list someday.

So far as just loading a .38Spl to have similar characteristics, I considered that I could just play around with the .327 Fed with some heavy bullets and light charges to get a satisfying *thump* without much snap, which is the experience I'd want from a .41 anyway. That'd keep me on a small frame Single Seven and not require any gunsmithing (other than optional tune-up). In the short run, I think that the Single Seven will probably be my next SA revolver, but the .41 Colt is still something I have an eye to.

And if I do end up with the .327, and a .41 Colt, in the long, long run I have some odd desire to get a Peacemaker in .480 Achilles (http://www.leverguns.com/480/480_achilles.htm), which is sort of a modern take on the old .476 Eley (which the original SAA was chambered in), but a modern take where you take cut-down .45 Colt brass and load it with a .475 heeled bullet that sticks out over the mouth of the brass, allowing you to fit six rounds of .48 bullets into a .45 frame while removing very little steel (just removing the step in the chamber). The designers of the cartridge themselves admit it has no real purpose other than just being cool, but if I just wanted something that shot bullets I'd get a 9mm Glock, having something interesting and fun is what makes this a hobby...

Thanks for the info so far, I'll definitely post here should I eventually get a project figured out, though in the shorter term will probably be posting back here later this year for ideas on heavy and slow loads in the .327 to get me back and handloading boolits on brass.

[Piedmont]

The biggest downside to the .41 LC from my perspective is the outrageous price of the brass from Starline. It shouldn't cost that much but they are the only game in town.

Yeah, I've read that 480 Achilles information lots of times.

If you are open to a larger than Single Six sized gun, the .45 ACP is a great can roller with cheap brass, available ammo, stellar accuracy, and the ability to be downloaded without much airspace in the case.

Many times I have considered buying a .38-40 but I want to download and with the bottleneck that one is the opposite of what I want. There is some appeal to buying a .38-40 Uberti and shipping it right off to Andy Horvath with the instructions to make a .40 S&W cylinder. That conversion wouldn't need a new barrel. Any time you have to make a new cylinder the cost goes way up.

Have you given any thought to a .44 Russian or .45 Schofield conversion? Both cut down on the airspace for lighter smokeless charges. They are both classic cartridges and hardly anyone else would own one. The Russian even predates the .45 Colt (from around 1871 I think). Starline makes brass for both and it isn't inordinately expensive. I'd prefer the Schofield to the 480 Achilles. I hate trimming cases which would rule out the Achilles, and .41 Special for me.

You could also build a 10mm on a medium frame Ruger or Uberti. Single actions work fine with rimless cases (no clips or anything needed).

Larger diameter bullets knock plinking targets around better. You've probably shot aluminum cans with a .22 and sometimes couldn't even tell if you hit it because there was so little disturbance during penetration. You may run into a degree of this with a .32. Hit it with a .45 and there is no doubt, spotting misses is easy too. If you are on a structured range this won't matter because they won't let you do point shooting and other fun stuff.

Deciding what you want in a custom revolver is about the best kind of problem to have!

[robertbank]

I occasionally shoot my Great Grand-dads Colt in 41LC. I make brass using 38spl cases. They end up looking like the old style milk bottles. The result is a cartridge that shoots rather well given the age of the gun and the sights. Mine is a lot less than a tack driver but out to 15 yards hitting a man size target would not be difficult.

I have the three Lyman molds for the cartridge, well one was for the 41 Short but it works.

Take Care

Bob

[ironhead7544]

I like the idea of the 40 cal revolver. You could get the 41L Colt small Uberti and then get a 38 Special cylinder. My thoughts were to use the 10mm case as a wildcat cut down to 1/2 the difference between the 10mm and the 40 S&W. Then neither could be chambered. The 38 Special cylinder would then be chambered for the wildcat. 10mm brass is a lot easier to get and you could use 10mm/38-40 lead bullets. No special loading process would be necessary. Original 41L Colt loads could be easily matched. You could get a mold made to match the looks of the original bullet nose.

[StrawHat]

Another option for a 41 LC is to get a replica of the Colt 1851 or 1861 and get a conversion cylinder chamber for the 41 Colt using the inside lubed boolit.

About halfway down.

http://www.cartridgeconversion.com/SERVICES.php

Kevin

[Groo]

Groo here
Have a smith convert a Ruger New Vaquero from 357 to 41mag.
You can also shoot 41 special from it.
Small,compact and can be powerful if needed , bore the chambers and put in a new 41 barrel.
I have 2.

[Harry O]

I think the suggestions to have a cap & ball 36 caliber converted are best. The groove diameter of those is usually 0.375". That is only 0.011" smaller than the usual 0.386" 41LC inside lubed bullet. If the gun is set up for .38 Special, it will have a 0.357" groove diameter. That is 0.029" smaller than the bullet. With a soft lead 41LC bullet, I would not worry about the 0.011" difference. With nearly 3 times as much, I would worry.

[Wayne Smith]

I would get on the horn and see if there are any of the Cimmaron's in the pipeline. I got mine last year. I have no idea how many they made vs. sold.

[robertbank]

Harry O didn't you do a Cimmaron up in 41LC using the 38spl barrel? Post some pics if ou still have it.

Take Care

Bob

[MatthewVanitas]

Some good info here, but I see a lot of folks are looking for ways around the heeled vs. hollow bullet issue, but for me that uniqueness is part of what I actually like about the cartridge. If I get one, it'd be to stick with the .40 bore on the small frame, and the two trad bullet options.

@Harry O (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?950-Harry-O), so glad to have the expert here since I have a key question: your .41LC page seems to say that the heeled bullet tends to be the more accurate way, presumably because there are fewer random factors than when you squish the undersized bullet up to meet the larger bore on the hollow-base. Would a custom Ruger conversion, or a fine-tuned Cimarron, have significantly better accuracy because of better alignment, forcing cone, bore match, etc? Or is .41LC just inherently not an accurate cartridge and more just a short-range manstopper and historical curiosity and best appreciated only as such?

[hanover67]

I read this thread with interest because a while ago I passed on a Colt DA .41 because I wasn't prepared to spend the time and effort to develop an accurate load for it, given the issues with heeled bullets. So, I settled on the .44 Special as my favorite caliber of choice and now have 3 of them. I also have a couple of .32-20's (the first magnum) because I'm a sucker for old Colts in odd calibers.

[Harry O]

Harry O didn't you do a Cimmaron up in 41LC using the 38spl barrel?

Bob

Nope. I have converted three Uberti's that were originally 38-40 caliber to 41 Long Colt. The first one was a Bisley model. I only got that one because it was in 38-40 and I had been looking for a long time for one in that caliber. Later I bought two new Ubertis in 38-40 for CAS shooting. The groove diameter in all three was 0.400"-0.401", so I did nothing to the barrel. I also bought two cylinders in smaller calibers (one was .357 Magnum and one in 32-20) and had them bored out by a local gunsmith for the 41LC. I still have the two 38-40 cylinders if I ever want to convert them back. I did buy a 3/4 size 41LC from Uberti that was originally offered in .38 Special and .22LR. I did not do anything other than polish the chambers and change the springs on that one.

MatthewVanitas: Of all the heel-base bullets I tried, I had only ONE that was more accurate than the hollow-base bullets. That is the bullet from the Old West mould. I sold all the other heel-base moulds I had on Ebay over the last year to 6 months ago. They were not worth casting with, not worth shooting, and not worth keeping. They went for more than I expected. Although the heel-base bullets are not quite as accurate as that ONE heel-base bullet, all are close and are relatively easy to get to shoot. I would recommend that beginners start with a hollow-base mould.

I now have four different hollow-base moulds. The one that I am using for CAS shooting is a little bit more accurate than the other three and is almost as accurate as the Old West bullet. That one is the one that I modified a Rapine bullet mould into. Details are on the second part of my webpage.

The three Ubertis are not significantly more accurate than the best of my original 41LC guns. Lets face it. With the handicaps the 41LC starts with (wildly mismatched dimensions being the significant one) it will NEVER be a target gun. Beyond about 15 yards every 41LC is the same. Keith said that the 41LC was a better fight stopper than any 38 Special loading made (of course, that was back in the 1930's or 1940's) and did what it was supposed to do (short range self-defense) better than its paper ballistics would indicate. I don't know why I like the 41LC, but I think it is because it shouldn't work at all. But, it works and works better than is should. I am not handicapped with the 41LC in CAS when it comes to accuracy (speed is another matter, but that is not the fault of the caliber).

[MatthewVanitas]

Harry, some good insights there. Do you reckon you're the most prolific .41LC shooter in CAS? If you are, would that make you the most prolific shooter .41LC since maybe mid-last-century?

Re the Cimarron, so the fact that the Cimarron has a much closer bore match (at least for the heel-base) than most historical guns, doesn't necessarily make it notably more accurate? And as far as .401-groove sixguns go, with some slight refining is the Cimarron probably about as suited to accurately shooting .41LC as any gun made? That is, that even a custom-dedicated .41 revolver probably wouldn't be notably different? I'm not trying to turn .41 into a target gun, just pondering what accuracy-limiting factors can be addressed before accuracy maxes out, so it's helping a lot to have the go-to guy here.


I've feel like I've gone back and forth in my head a dozen times in the last couple weeks re getting a Single Seven in .327 vice a .41 Lightning. To one side the Single Seven would be more "practical", but again I don't hunt, and honestly for IHMSA/NRA Silhouette I'm probably just going to keep using my T/C Contender or long barrel Ruger MkII. So I don't really "need" my sixgun to be eagle-eye accurate or stainlessly durable, I just need it to be something fun and interesting. My mind may flop again by this afternoon, but my current gut is when I move back to the US this summer to try to get a .41 Cimarron, get one box of the loaded .41LC ammo ($75!!!) just to make sure I love it before going whole-hog on getting dies for it, and try it out for a bit. If I shoot up the box and love it, I'll get dies and store-bought cast bullets (don't have casting gear yet) and reload the brass I have. If I keep liking it, I'll get some cool grips, better springs, and if I just adore it and work is bringing in good money I might send it to a CAS smith to be smoothed-up and the finish heavily antiqued.

Casting my own bullets may be a bit down the road, but I have made paraffin bullets for my .32 Shorts before, and given that "splattering" into the bore is kinda what the .41 does, maybe casting some paraffin or other indoor friendly bullets, with some non-toxic/green primers, might make some fun (occasional) indoor shooting or casual plinking.

[Piedmont]

MathewVanitas, You state in post #16 that you will use store bought cast bullets for this .41 if you go through with it. Where can you buy the bullets and how expensive will they be? I'm betting very expensive because no machine cast bullets are going to work. Casting hollow base bullets is a labor of love. If someone paid me for the proper bullets, it would cost a lot. All this time I assumed you were a caster and bet the others did too.

[MatthewVanitas]

@Piedmont: Montana Precision Swaging and Buffalo Arms both sell .41 Long Colt-specific bullets (not just .401 in general). They aren't cheap, both 35-40¢ per bullet, but this isn't a round I plan to shoot thousands a year out of or anything, and if I'm ever at a point where I'm shooting more than a few hundred a year, I'll definitely be casting on my own by then anyway. Plus as mentioned I'm interested in making some paraffin or similar bullets for plinking.

@HarryO, quick question, do you know the barrel length for the vintage Lightning that's at the top of your 41LC page, with the white grips resting on the cartridge box? I like the longer barrels on the Lightning repos, so would be more inclined to 4.75" or 5.5" barrels, and just trying to gauge what length the Hardin photo I posted above, and the vintage one on your homepage, are at. Do you happen to know if the ejector rods are longer on the longer-barreled models to avoid the ejection issues you mention with your shorty?

[Wayne Smith]

Harry and others, the Lee special order HB heeled mold that Harry sent me is very accurate in my Uberti. From my limited experience the heeled boolits tend to have too little bore contact to be very accurate. I sent my old NEI heeled mold to Rick (Buckshot) to have the heel reduced and the bore contact increased. They are much more accurate now. The Lee boolit is big enough (210gr) to not have this problem. I'm using the Lee boolit exclusively for now.

[Harry O]

MatthewVanitas: I don't have any idea who has shot the most 41LC's, but I shot about 5,000 of them before deciding to shoot them in CAS. I have been shooting that with the 41LC for about 10-12 years now at about 1,500 to 2,000 rounds per year (including practice). It is accurate enough for CAS shooting, which is not setting the bar very high. Most of the CAS handgun targets where I shoot are 5 to 7 yards away.

As far as the bore/groove dimensions, the heel-base bullets I have cast range from 0.400" to 0.408" in diameter, as-cast (the most common is about 0.404"). Anything over about 0.406" is sometimes difficult to chamber. I have a 0.406" sizer that I run the larger ones through. The hollow-base bullets are 0.385" to 0.386" in diameter. Both heel-base and hollow-base are usually a long way from the 0.406" to 0.408" groove diameter that most 41LC revolvers are made at. The latest revolvers made, and some of the larger framed older guns have a 0.401" diameter groove, which is closer with some heel-base, but not much closer with the hollow-base. Like I said before, the 41LC will never be a target gun. Wayne Smith is correct that the bearing length on the outside of the heel-base bullet is the most important thing when it comes to accuracy. The Old West mould I have has the longest bearing surface of any of the heel-base bullet moulds I own or owned. I have not modified any of them, so that left the Old West the most accurate.

Your guess on the barrel length on the Thunderer is as good as mine. I have never owned one. Always too expensive. I took a picture of that on a gunshow table that the person selling was kindly willing to set up for me. The length of the barrel had nothing to do with the ejection problems I had with the 3/4 scale Uberti single-action. The chambers were rough when I got it brand new. I could not hardly move them with the existing ejector. I polished the inside of the chambers and they slide out relatively easy now. I would recommend a longer barrel though. The one on mine will still not eject them all the way out. That makes it more difficult to eject them after shooting a few cylinders full, particularly when using Black Powder like I do.

When I got started with the 41LC, I bought my bullets. After shooting a couple of thousand, I decided to get into casting. I paid for everything with the next couple of thousand I cast. I don't think anyone can afford to shoot it very much unless you reload and cast. I have the 41LC to thank for getting me into a completely different hobby 20 to 25 years ago. And, thank it I do.

[MatthewVanitas]

@HarryO: so the most accurate bullet you're saying is the Old West one they call ".41 Colt 200gr .403dia heel target type mould"? Makes sense with the long bearing surface and just slightly overbore size.

Thinking out loud to myself here: all things being equal, even though clearly lacking the historical value, would a tuned-up Cimarron Lightning be mechanically as good or better than any revolver previously made for the .41, and with somewhat better modern steels? And even a custom Single Six in .41LC (if such is even possible) is unlikely to be any more accurate or in many ways "better" than a Cimarron given that you don't need that Ruger ruggedness since nobody looks to hot-rod a .41LC? The Cimarron doesn't look *exactly* like an 1877 in terms of having the exact same subtle contours of frame and hammer, and of course it's SA only, but broadly speaking an 1877 "pretty much" is a small-frame Peacemaker roughly along the same lines, it's not like it's a totally false facsimile...


I guess at the base of it I'm just looking for a cool sixgun to own for pride of owning something unusual and firing a couple hundred rounds a year, tops. Fundamentally, I like small frame guns, I like big bores (and I cannot lie), and I like unusual cartridges with a backstory. .41LC seems to be about the fattest cartridge you can fit into a Single Six-sized frame (38-40 and .40 S&W would require going to a 5-shot cylinder), and it's certainly unusual. I haven't fully gotten to the "mind made up" stage, and I am prioritizing my re-acquisition of a 6.5 TCU T/C Contender to be my "pocket rifle", but that aside I'm leaning heavily to calling up distributors maybe next month to see if I can have a 4-5" .41 Lightning waiting for me at my LGS when I return to Austin from West Africa.

[Harry O]

MatthewVantis: That is the one. It is on their DC heel-base mould page 2 almost all the way down on the page. I also have the mould just above it, the 160gr one. It is the same except for a slightly shorter heel and it is not as accurate. Stick with the 200gr one. No other heel-base mould I have tried is as accurate.

I have never been able to compare my "Model P Jr" side by side with an original 1877 Thunderer. I have handled them separately, many years apart. However, the Model P Jr does feel much like what I seem to remember about the Thunderer. I have looked at a number of Thunderers through the years. Most were in poor shape or broken -- a lot of them were broken. The very, very few that were in decent shape and working had collectors prices on them. And, they have gotten rarer over the last 30 years or so. That is why I never actually bought one.

If you do decide to get a Model P Jr, you will have to do some work. Not a lot, but know that in advance. The mainspring is WAYYYYY to heavy. There is no lighter spring available for the small frame, however, I did find that the lighter spring for the full-sized P Model will work. It is readily available. Very little fitting is needed and it improves the trigger a lot. While I was in there, I also changed the trigger/bolt spring to a wire one. The leaf spring that Uberti uses is not up to CAS shooting. I had two of them go within the first couple of years of CAS shooting on a full sized P Model. I have not had a failure with the wire springs since then.

Then there is the problem with the chambers. I only have a sample of one to draw from, but I think that when Uberti made these, they were using a bad reamer. If I am right, you will need to polish them to get the cases to eject. Getting a longer barrel will help a little bit, but it will not solve the chamber problems by itself. Expect to polish them. Time consuming, but not difficult. The barrel is 0.401" groove diameter, so you have that going for you.

The Uberti Model P Jr was available pretty cheap back when I bought mine. I have no idea what they cost now, or if they are even available. It was also available with regular "hogsleg" grips. I wanted mine to mimic the Thunderer, though. There can't be too many of them out there. Remember that the Lightening looked the same, but was in .38 Colt caliber.

[Wayne Smith]

Harry, mine has smooth chambers. It is late production and is a Cimarron, fit and finished by them. They have discontinued the model, I don't know if Uberti has.
Remember the Uberti is an undersized P model and is internally as strong as the P model. There is no real comparison with the original.