Okay, my first impression was "why?". But I like to keep an open mind and obviously someone figured there was a market for them so I will ask for answers.

Why this in .41 and .44 Magnum...? (I'll grant the .41 has a certain cool factor just because you don't see a lot of three pound snub nose .41 Magnums)




...when one of these in .41 Mag, .44 Mag or .45 Colt seem like they would better serve whatever purpose one wants to serve with a large, powerful revolver like the Redhawk.

No shizzit... 45 Colt or go home, and that's at the low end. That thing needs some metal hogged out to lighten it up a tad.

I have little love and no use for 40+ cal revolvers with barrels shorter than 4", and find 5 to 5 1/2" to be the preferred length.

I dunno, that round butt, 3 inch N frame 44 from smith sure looks sweet

I agree.

Fishing pistol in bear country maybe? I dunno, just a SWAG.

It'll for sure bark louder...

I can sure understand the need or want for a powerful and packable handgun in various parts of the country, but I have to scratch my head as to why a 2 3/4" barrel is better in that category than a 4" barrel. It's not like you're going to conceal it, right?

"Hey, BooBoo, see that fisherman? He looks pretty good to eat."
"I dunno, Yogi, lately a lot of those guys have been carrying concealed .44 Magnums. Better we go raid some pick-a-nick baskets..."

"Why?" was my response when I was handed one the other day.

I think they're made for guys that collect 41's and that's about it.





Clark

Sub 4" magnum revolvers suck, simple as that.

I would think that 3 inch smith would.make a great 44 special

It does indeed!!! How fast can you say 696 Smith?

What I want is a 5" GP100 44 special. Clements wants $1250.00 for the conversion and that would just be reboring my 4". At that kind of price I might be able to learn to like a Smith.

Agreed! I love my 696.

For some reason this just screams cool

Oh it's for damn sure loud!!! Your welcome to shoot mine Barry.
I bought the 3" Ruger .44 Magnum last year when they were first released by Davidson's.

WHY?????? Because I can!

Those are fun too, Gitem! I mostly shoot .44 Special ammo in mine. Very accurate, too.
And it's only 5 ounces lighter than the Rugger .44 snubby.

No point to the snubby in a .44 mag, actually dumb in most aspects for what one is trying to achieve with a .44 mag.

I bought a snubby .44 mag Redhawk a long time ago. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a waste of money. At least it is a Redhawk, so I could use it as a hammer or boat anchor if the need arises.

Edited to add: It probably was cheaper than a hammer or dinghy anchor bought by the U.S. government, but not by much.

Slightly off topic but, I can still almost visualize the picture from an article, I believe it was Guns & Ammo?, from the late 70's? when I was almost a teenager, of a Mag-Na-Ported 2 1/2" 629 being fired at dusk and reading that it was still loud with plugs & muffs and thinking, "I gotta get me one of those someday!"

Never did, but saw a pair in .44 mag and .44 special, used, for sale once.. passed on it. Not that I wouldn't like to have them, just can't afford to buy one of everything I'd like to have.

I fired the second Ruger pictured in the OP a few weeks ago and it was one of the smoothest, pleasant shooting 44's I've ever fired.

I was impressed by it.




Dave

I'm not a Ruger fan, but the Redhawk itself is one of their best offerings and this one looks good to me. The .41 caliber version...Well it's up to consumers as to whether or not the caliber is worthwhile.

Who doesn't have at least one pistol or revolver of, should we say, questionable utility? Me? I've got a .500 S&W. It's all about the "big boys, big toys" thing.

Well....have to kinda agree with Jim...

Being a 4T1Fanatic I bought both when they became available. I had a 5.5" many years ago and always regretted selling it. The 4.25" handles much better than the 5" and has an excellent DA pull.


First six rounds out of the gun at 15 yards DA...




This is the tightest standing DA group at 50 yards I have ever shot...the sixth round missed the 6" plate by a 1/2" at 7:00 o'clock.




When the gun came out I had wished that Ruger had made it a round butt like the .45 Colt/ACP model...after buying the 2.75" version was very glad Ruger had made it a standard square butt.

I have no complaint with the 2.75" except for one thing...the DA breaks noticeably later than the 4.25" and as a result pinches my trigger finger between the trigger and the triggerguard. If it had the same DA trigger pull as the 4.25" I have no doubt groups would be half of what I can do now.

As to the round but...it isn't shootable except with target level loads with the wood grips. It will hoever accept most of the rubber grips that fit the square butt..





Lower group is before moving the sights....





This the same load DA from both guns at 10 yards... I shot some 210 Keith SWC with 8.0 grains of Unique after these and the 2.75" shot a better group...so I think I am going to go back to a 1000 fps load vs. the 1300+ these 180s are doing...





I've had four of the S&W 657 3" guns and they are wonderful shooters.





So the 3" Magnums aren't "useless"...just less than "usefull"....

Bob

i looked at that ruger, but still can't quite justify it, if it even needs justification, having a 3inch smith which i prefer better anyway.
And i probably wouldn't gain anything in running a hot load in that short a barrel ruger anyway.
having said that justification probably has little to do with it.
what i am kind of liking more and more in the 41 is the 260gr load plus/minus at about 1000fps.

i have fired a lot of stuff through 4inch and 6inch 41's. I have to say i like the balance for some reason on a 3inch. thats on smith's tho. given the original barrel length on a 357magnum when they first cam out, i think some of the same thing is lost on these when you start cutting down the barrel length. It is a tradeoff between packability and what that longer barrel gives you.

Then you have a special, not a magnum. But yeah, you're right.

When you get sub-4" velocity loss in magnums becomes very big per inch, while recoil and muzzle blast increase proportionately. At some point you reach a point where the whole thing just stops making sense. Each has their preference, but for me it's 4" when we're talking magnum revolver cartridges.

As a defensive revolver, the sub 4" guns make a lot of sense when used with Specials because they handle so well.

you should have gotten my email by now, enabler.
i have been debating this for some time. but pushed the button tonight.
what does need or justification ever have to do with it?
I'm thinking a 265grain bullet at about 1000fps.
kind of like a smith 696 but six rounds.
I am so easy.
what kind of grips did you put on the 2.75inc?
i have had the 4.2inch version sitting on my desk for a while.
i did reduce the spring weight, and have been cocking and releasing the hammer regularly, kind of like one of those exercise balls for your grip. And the action is getting better and better.
few months ago i picked up an early 3screw blackhawk in 41, still haven't shot it yet. It looks brand new after some restoration on my part, bought at a landmark liquor store in flagstaff, and carried in northern arizona since the 70's. But not shot much from the way it feels.
one can't have too many 41's after all.
i would like a little wider hammer spur gonna have to figure that one out.
i will say one more thing tho, the lockup on the 4.2inch version and a 45colt 4.2version i have is just right on, no wiggle at all.

i keep looking at those german nills grips. expensive but they sure look good on a redhawk.

i think you will be eating your words at quemato when i bring a couple of these short barreled guys up. i have a 3inch lew horton in 41 that has been breathed on. You try the trigger and i will have witnesses present.

...you need some sleep....

I think your reasoning is about the same as mine...it's a .41 and not many are going to be made...

The rubber grips on mine are Uncle Mike's. Not sure if they are made any more but GUN PARTS CORP. had them a few months ago.

the camo grips are cool, nice guns!

My minimum barrel length is 4" for anything that could be used to take game because that is the minimum legal in Iowa and would believe some other states as well. I find 5-5.5" about perfect and 6-6.5" not bad either. As to cartridge, I believe anything 10MM to a 480 is workable for most hunting situations. I've hunted the X framed magnums. Had fun with them and enjoyed the experience but see the downsides and have that out of my system. I will likely never part with a 454 Raging Bull as it's too accurate to sell, I shoot it well (enough for me), and I will probably never have anyone I would care to give it to, who would want it.

some more depravity-----ordered some 41special brass today too.

If you can carry a 2.5 inch 44, 41, or 45 with no problems then you can carry a four inch just as well. Short barrel big bore handguns suck

I spent three days with Ruger earlier this month. I begged for a 5 shot 44 special on the GP100 frame. We'll see....

i picked up that .41mag 2.75 inch barrel redhawk. it actually balances pretty well in my hand, and the action is a lot smoother than the 4.2 inch version i got earlier. I am going to like it. One can always load up or down in one of these things.
rjm, have you ran any loads through weight wise from light to heavy?

I've been shooting the 180 MeHic FPs with 14.0 grains of Blue Dot...going around 1300 fps. I think however I am going to go back to a 210 with 8.0 grains of Unique. The last cylinder full I shot this past session was a 210 Keith with 8.0 and it shot a little softer and more accurate than the lighter bullet.

I have some of the Accurate 41-215V with the .37 meplate that I am going to try next..

Me 3.

Run across 3" big bore revolvers fairly frequently down here. No interest. Shot em. Hate em. Done.

Like my Dad used to say.. They bought them, and now they want somebody else to pay for them.

I bought one of those short barreled 44's when they first came out. Grip is just too small for my hand. I don't mind a short barrel, like the 3" 629 and such, but I've got the Ruger Alaskans in 454 and 480 so I see no real purpose for the short barreled 44 Redhawk. The grip on the Alaskan is much better IMO. Plus I've got a 3-3/4" Super Blackhawk Bisley that is pretty sweet. So I'm covered when it comes to short handy guns, other wise nothing wrong with the 4.2" Redhawk in 44 Mag and 45 Colt. Don't get much better than those.

i came back to this. I guess thats why that smith 696 three inch 44special is trading at about 1000 bucks these days.
and the three inch model 57 lew horton i have is probably a dog too.