New to me 41 mag Blackhawk

[ammohead]

Went to a local gun show here in Fallon today and picked up a 41 magnum new model blackhawk with 4 5/8" bbl. No holster wear and very little other wear either.. call it 96%, but no box. Serial #41-007XX makes me believe that it is an older new model. Any blackhawk experts out there that can tell me anything about it. It looks like it should shoot well, but in the good shape it is in I will probably not carry it in a holster.

Any info appreciated about the revolver or any web sites that could tell me something.

ammohead

[Shooter6br]

Dad had a 4 5/8 in and a 6in model. The 6 in shot better but the 4 5/8 was a still nice

[felix]

Ammohead, my exact same 41 mag has serial 03947 to your 00700, and was bought in spring 74 in Hartford CT. ... felix

[ammohead]

Ammohead, my exact same 41 mag has serial 03947 to your 00700, and was bought in spring 74 in Hartford CT. ... felix

Hi Felix,

At the very least it is old enough that it doesn't have that damn disclaimer telling you to read the safety manual on the bbl. Does yours have the countersunk chambers in the cylinder? I noticed on gun broker that the newer ones don't have it.

ammohead

[GLynn41]

like most rugers they are tuff guns--light and easy to carry -like most short barrells we tend to shot the longer site radius of the 6.5 better - but that is different from person to person- not sure what you want --Felix I have a 4/58 and now you have me curious-- I will have to look at the S number --

[ammohead]

Any suggestions for a heavy for dia. plain base mould? Or would that be a Mountain Mould situation?

ammohead

[felix]

Yes, countersunk. Be careful about boolit driving band. Must limit to 0.9, and I would go even shorter, like 0.85 or less. Better yet, just go to a LBT type and forget it. 0.40 nose length is OK, though. This should be verified with Glynn's guns as well. ... felix

[GLynn41]

Felix is right -- about the driving band I had an LBT WFNGC and it will not chamber in the little bhawk -- the Lyman 410459 has a 400+ nose? I will measure-- a .9 driving band no problems my mountain mold has a .4oo nose and a .33 meplat .9 driving band --no problem-- a 240 LBT LWNGC .420 not sure of the driving again no problems but very blunt- and large driving bands are a problem for my 4/58 not my DWA or Redhawks-- also have some NEI Keith bullets and they have a true Keith design-three equal size driving bands at .100- they too give chambering problems-- My Mountain mold weighs 255 grains in the tangential design for nose-- but he will make what you design--he is good guy-- i also have some 305 with a gc LWN .80% meplat -- in the Tang design no problems I handgun hunt deer and for me 207 HP Keith 410459 // or the 240 -255 gr is all I want -- there is a group buy on going for a 200 grain Keith hP or (Iam guessing here) 220-225 in the solid--if that is heavy enough for you

[greg gremlin]

My 2 cents. Go to Ruger.com and in products section they have all the serial numbers arrainged by year. I also like shooting my 41 mag Blackhawk, but I prefer the 6 1/5 bbl. hth greg

[Blackwater]

They've gotten kinda' pricey, but a buddy had a 4-cavity Saeco Kieth type moulld for the .41 that threw SWC's at near 250 gr. when casting with straight WW's. Saeco makes fine moulds, and I really hate that they've gone up so high price wise. That bullet shot very well in his gun with both midrange loads with Unique and with max. loads and 2400. Wish I could recall the mould #, but it's the only Kieth type SWC available in .41 IIRC. Shouldn't be hard to find.

[Big Dave]

I have an old model 6 1/2 inch that I bought new in I think 1967, #11xxx. Had the factory conversion done in the mid 70s. I have Lyman 410610 hollow pointed semi wadcutter and Lyman 41026 full wad cutter. Both cast close on 200 gr. Personally I like the lighter bullets and a little more velocity for more energy than the 44 mag. The hollow point puts a deer down fine, but a head shot does that with anything. Never tried a body shot so can not say for that. For me the pistol is for close in, further than 30-40 yards I will pass and go for the 270 Win. Nice handling and quite accurate although with my eyesight these days a scope looks better all the time.

[targetshootr]

Minus one zero the serial number comes up 1975 .

http://ruger.com/Firearms/PS-SNH-RE-NMBhawk41.html

[9.3X62AL]

Cartuche Cabeza--

Congrats on finding a right fine revolver in a great caliber. My own tastes run toward plow-handle Blackhawks with 4-5/8" barrels, and the long barrels look and handle better with their Bisley grip. For me, anyway.

[bearcove]

Down in the vendor section Babore has a custom mold Thread BRP molds I believe. He has a cherry for a 220 Keith swc PB and a 250 RN FP. That's my description not his so there is room for error, all mine.

[deepwaterco]

Hey! Great buy, I love my 41's. I run an LBT true keith style 265gn .400 nose and they are awesome heavy hitters, also have saeco 220 don't know the #. I have shot thousands of these and they like any thing I push them with.

[GLynn41]

I forgot he has a good looking keith on his site-- and he supports the board

[Cayoot]

It seems (from my reading) that when going down from a 6 (ish) inch barrel to a 4 (ish) inch barrel length, the .41 gives up less of its velocity than a .44 mag.

I'm not sure why, but it seems (to me) that the .44 really begins to shine once the barrel length exceeds 5 inches. Any shorter than that and velocity loss is so significant that the .41 (with equal or nearly equal weight) actually has as much or more velocity. In my mind, the slightly smaller diameter (about 5%) of the .41, coupled with equal or higher velocity boolits of similar weight means that the .41 will penetrate deeper (5% less diameter = 5% less resistance to penetration).

I would like to get a short barrel gun for packin on snow shoes and X-country skis. I really love Mountain guns and have a glareing hole in my fire arms collection (no .44 mags). So I would really like to get a .44 Mag Mnt gun, however; I think I may be better served by a .41 Mag Mng Gun or Blackhawk with a 4 5/8" tube. I already have a .41 Blackhawk in a 6 1/2" tube and really like everything about the way it shoots.

What is the opinion of you who are more experienced/knowledgable than I? (That would probably include just about everyone here!)

[45 2.1]

I would like to get a short barrel gun for packin on snow shoes and X-country skis. I really love Mountain guns and have a glareing hole in my fire arms collection (no .44 mags). So I would really like to get a .44 Mag Mnt gun, however; I think I may be better served by a .41 Mag Mng Gun or Blackhawk with a 4 5/8" tube. I already have a .41 Blackhawk in a 6 1/2" tube and really like everything about the way it shoots.

What is the opinion of you who are more experienced/knowledgable than I? (That would probably include just about everyone here!)

Get the 41 Mag MG. Its much better than the 44 Mag MG having shot both. The 6 1/2" Blackhawk is a keeper also.

[felix]

41's are typically heavier, and therefore shoot hot loads better because of better recoil control. But, if weight of carrying is contemplated and the gun not shot often, then go for the 44. ... felix

[Uncle R.]

Went to a local gun show here in Fallon today and picked up a 41 magnum new model blackhawk with 4 5/8" bbl. ........ It looks like it should shoot well, but in the good shape it is in I will probably not carry it in a holster.

<
It's too bad that you won't holster it - because it is IMHO one of the best ding-blanged holster guns ever made. Small in size and light in weight, it won't constantly flop against your hip as you walk or make your pants fall down from the weight on your belt. Solid, reliable and accurate, it would just be there if you ever needed it. And oh, yeah - if you ever did need it a .41 Blackhawk packs some serious punch.
<
Oh well - now you can look for another in 90% condition to use as a holster gun. You can never have too many - and there's joy in the quest too.
<GRIN>
Uncle R.

[Cayoot]

Get the 41 Mag MG. Its much better than the 44 Mag MG having shot both. The 6 1/2" Blackhawk is a keeper also.


41's are typically heavier, and therefore shoot hot loads better because of better recoil control. But, if weight of carrying is contemplated and the gun not shot often, then go for the 44. ... felix
__________________
felix

As usual, I failed to express my point plainly. I was not concerned about the weight of the guns themselves, but rather the comparitive performance between the two calibers (.41 Mag & .44 Mag) in short barrels.
I know that in a longer barrel, with boolits of similar weights the .44 Mag will throw the boolit faster than the .41 Mag will.

However, when using short bbls (2 1/2" to 4 5/8") I am under the impression that the .41 Mag will actually out perform (or at least equal the performance of) the .44 Mag when using boolits of equal weight (220 grns to 265 grains, not the big 300+ grains...I have no data on that weight range).

Would you please give me your thoughts on this?

[45 2.1]

As usual, I failed to express my point plainly. I was not concerned about the weight of the guns themselves, but rather the comparitive performance between the two calibers (.41 Mag & .44 Mag) in short barrels.
I know that in a longer barrel, with boolits of similar weights the .44 Mag will throw the boolit faster than the .41 Mag will.

However, when using short bbls (2 1/2" to 4 5/8") I am under the impression that the .41 Mag will actually out perform (or at least equal the performance of) the .44 Mag when using boolits of equal weight (220 grns to 265 grains, not the big 300+ grains...I have no data on that weight range).

Would you please give me your thoughts on this?

I've found the 41 Mag to be better (recoil wise, performance equal to or better than the 44 with equal weight boolits) in the short barrels. A well balanced package. I had the opportunity to shoot the 44 Mag MG recently and did NOT like it in comparison to the 41 Mag MG. I've hunted with the 41 Mag MG for the last 9 years and like it very well. If I had the chance to buy another one, I would.

[GLynn41]

For what it is worth-- I used to shoot a M57 and and a M29 both with a 4" bl-- regardless of the bullet weight -- the M57 was much more pleasant- -- also a 7.5 41 and 44 and again the .41 was better- to shoot- am not talking about speed trajectory etc just shootablility all i own are .41's and that is not likely to change
like your quote Cayoot