Why .41 Magnum?

[bigghoss]

Nothing wrong with .41 magnum but since it's chambered in the same sized guns as the .44 mag I don't see much point personally.

[nate45]

.410 vs .429

20-30 grains of bullet weight.

Those are the physical differences.

Like I stated in my first post, the .44 has a wider range of projectiles to chose from. For hand loading and especially commercial ammo.

I use 210 grain Gold Dots and the 230 grain Keith Type in my .41s. Which should take care of most anything. If I added the 180 grain Barnes and say a 280 grain LBT WLN, I'd have everything one could need, although perhaps not want.

So if you like the .41, go for it.


Model 57 .41 on the left. I also have a Model 58 S&W and a Ruger Blackhawk .41 Mag, so thats a few anyway.

[dahermit]

44 mag is going to be easier to find ammo for

To a hand loader, that means nothing.

44 mag has wider variety of loads both factory and hand loading

To a hand loader and bullet caster, that means nothing. We make our own. A hand loader has infinitely more "loads" available than he who foolishly pays the price for factory ammo.

44mag is going to be easier to resell should you have to someday.

Horse feathers. There will always be affectionados of the .41 Magnum who will be looking for a good used one.

There are more components available for the .44 than the .41 Magnum...

Not components, "commercial jacked bullets". But hand loaders and casters do not use these anyway. In short, the only "component" the hand loaders of the .41 Magnum need worry about are cases. However, there seems to be Starline, W-W, and Remington .41 magnum cases available from many mail-order firms, so that is not a significant problem for hand loaders and bullet casters.
When it comes to bullet molds, despite the fact that there are more available for the .44 caliber as opposed to the .41, there are sufficient .41's available for any purpose. Saeco, Lyman, RCBS, and Lee all produce .41 molds.
In short, the availability of specific "components" is a non-issue for those of us who are smart enough to have realized years ago that hand loading and casting eliminates such considerations. What? You cannot find a .41 Magnum primer?

[BlkHawk73]

For me, the .41 mag gets the nod over the mighty .44 mag, oh sorry, .429 mag because for my needs it'll do what is needed just as well and I won't be one of the "I got a .44 mag" chest puffers. Couple in that I prefer the different and not the chamberings of the lemmings. (not derogatory, but rather that of the "I follow" sense)

[RJay]

The .41 magnum cartridge was the result of several popular shooters in the 60's wanting a law enforcement firearm that was between the .357 and the 44 magnum. IIRC, Elmer Keith was one of those shooters, he wanted a lighter load for police carry and a heavy load for play. The .44 was considered way too much for the police ( the cartridge and the heavy gun ). When the cartridge came out unfortunately it was with a hot load and a hotter load and the guns S&W made for it were just as big and heavy as it's big brother. As A result, the cartridge never caught caught on with the police and a very excellent cartridge is falling by the way side. The facts are , in the hands of a capable shooter the 41 mag will do every thing but tap dance and bring you a beer. It does so will slightly lighter bullet and a little less recoil and a much flater trajectory. My Super Blackhawk is accurate and deadly on whitetail. JMHO and I have others

[kcub]

Show me someone who says a long barreled 41 blackhawk has the same recoil as a 44 super blackhawk and I will show you a liar.

[dahermit]

The .41 magnum cartridge was the result of several popular shooters in the 60's wanting a law enforcement firearm that was between the .357 and the 44 magnum. IIRC, Elmer Keith was one of those shooters, he wanted a lighter load for police carry and a heavy load for play. The .44 was considered way too much for the police ( the cartridge and the heavy gun ). When the cartridge came out unfortunately it was with a hot load and a hotter load and the guns S&W made for it were just as big and heavy as it's big brother. As A result, the cartridge never caught caught on with the police and a very excellent cartridge is falling by the way side. The facts are , in the hands of a capable shooter the 41 mag will do every thing but tap dance and bring you a beer. It does so will slightly lighter bullet and a little less recoil and a much flater trajectory. My Super Blackhawk is accurate and deadly on whitetail. JMHO and I have others

I remember the .41 Magnum "Police" load. It was an non-jacketed lead bullet (gas checked? Not sure...) that was in fact too hot to shoot with comfort. I remember the introduction of the .41 Magnum as a police solution and the controversy that followed...all played out in those days in the Gun Magazines. In short, you are spot-on about it and what happened to it. Except for deer loads, I fired a ton of 220 grain (Saeco four cavity mold), with 6.5 Unique for double action work. Most would likely recommend at least 7 grains of Unique, but I found that 6.5 was ideal for my shooting, plinking, Steel Bowling Pin work.
Owned several .41's including a S&W 58, S&W 57 with 8-3/8 barrel, S&W 657 with 6 in. barrel, and a 4-5/8 Ruger 3-screw Blackhawk.
Have since sold my last .41, still have a lot of 6.5 Unique hand loads, bullets, cases, speed loader block, etc., that I will have to get rid of. Will likely get around to pulling the bullets, salvaging the Unique, selling the primed cases and re-casting the bullets into either .45 ACP, 9MM, 38 Super, .44 Spl., .357 Mag., etc.

[1911Tuner]

The "Police" round consisted of a plain-base 210 grain LSWC loaded to an advertised 970 fps. Winchester and Remington loaded it. Chronographing a half-dozen different lots didn't bear out the advertised velocity claims, averaging about 900-920 through my Model 58...which the round was intended for...and pretty much the same in two 4-inch Model 57s. One lot of Remington in particular stood out, and was eliminated from the overall averages. 10-round average for that lot was around 850. Still not something I'd want to be in the way of, considering that brutal flat nose.

Felt recoil in the Model 58 with its small Magna stocks was comparable to 158-grain .357 Magnum fired in a 4-inch Model 13 with the Magna stocks, if a bit less sharp. Nothing exactly punishing, but it would get your attention.

For a handloader, a cast 210-215 grain bullet with 7.5 grains of Unique nearly duplicates the police load's advertised velocity, producing about 950 fps in my Model 58. Bumping up to an even 8 grains pushes it to over a thousand.

As for me, I very much like the .41 Magnum. I found that I didn't really have a need for a .44 Magnum, and no longer own one. I used a 4.62-inch Blackhawk and a 4-inch Model 57 for hog hunting. A 230-grain hard cast bullet, driven to 1250 fps would shoot through a big, mean pig lengthwise at the distances that I hunted, and usually anchored'em where they were hit. Given that, I can't see how a 250-280 grain .44 caliber bullet at a hundred fps faster could have done any better.

For the IMO part...loaded with a SWC...it's just a good-looking cartridge, proportionally. I consider it just about as close to a perfect revolver cartridge as one can get, balancing adequate power, recoil, range, and trajectory. Power-wise, it can be loaded up to within 5% of the .44 Magnum with standard bullet weights...210 and 240 respectively...and only cedes ground when the bullets get into heavyweight territory. If ever a cartridge and revolver were meant to be together, it's the .41 and the 4.62-inch Blackhawk. It just don't git no better than that.

[m&p45acp10+1]

I load my 210 grain cast SWC with a full case of Trail Boss. I am not sure of velocity. I do know that they hit the steel swingers real hard. The recoil in my Ruger Black Hawk is very managable. My wife loves to bang the steels with it.

[tahoe2]

That's like asking why a 308 vs 30-06 or 270 vs 280, because we can.
I have been shooting and handloading the 41 for about 12 years because in the same weight/barrel length gun the 44 hurts and the 41 does not,
and it will kill anything I am likely to hunt, that's why I like it. I'm still looking for a Marlin 1894 in 41 Mag to go with my two pistols.
The advantage of the 44 is the 44 spl, alas there was never a commercial 41 special, that certainly would have given the 41 a shot in the arm.
I load 41 spl (215 swc @ 1000 fps) class rounds for plinking and introducing others to the 41 mag

[buck460XVR]

It seems that the 44 will do anything and everything that the 41 will do and with more choices in loads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would I be better off with the 44 in the long run?

As been stated many times in this thread.......maybe.

While many here that reload scoff at the idea that ammo is hard to find and expensive, the truth to the matter is......if you don't reload, it is. A good friend of mine decided after shooting my revolvers with me, that he too wanted to handgun hunt for deer. The LGS had a .41 in stock and my friend jumped on it. Mainly because it was different.....and nobody else he knew had one. Fast forward a coupla years and it has been shot very little. Reason being, my friend does not reload metallic. Ammo is hard to find and when he does find it, it's expensive and not always what he wants. He has even tried to trade the gun to me for one of my .357s because of the ammo thing. His justification is....I reload so ammo would not be an issue. My excuse is....I don't need another caliber to reload. I have offered to let him use my press, all he needs to do is buy dies and components......but still the gun sits. Not the gun's fault....it's a nice gun in a good caliber. Maybe the ammo thing is just an excuse....I don't know, but I do know it is an issue that needs to be taken into account when considering one. Similar to my .460. You don't reload, you're picky about your ammo and your pockets are not bottomless....get something else.

Horse feathers. There will always be affectionados of the .41 Magnum who will be looking for a good used one.

I go to many estate type auctions, especially if there are firearms involved. The .41s don't bring the interest, the bids or the numbers that other more popular calibers do. While there are those that are fans, truth is, it is a niche caliber. The internet has done much to revive interest in it over the past few years, but not nearly as much as it has done for the .45 Colt. While it is a great caliber and there are many fine firearms out there for it, for many reasons, it is not the first one most folks go to look at when thinking about a new revolver. For many of those that are fans, like my friend, this is reason enough to have one.

Again as has been said many times in this thread. If you reload, the .41 is a viable choice. If you don't reload and don't intend to in the near future, there are better options out there. JMTCs.

[1911Tuner]

I go to many estate type auctions, especially if there are firearms involved. The .41s don't bring the interest,

That's a good thing. More .41 revolvers left for us to pick from.

Best-kept secret in revolverdom.

[GeauxTide]

The biggest difference, for me, is the recoil in the same platform. I can still shoot full loads in the 41 more accurately and longer than the 44. No longer have a Smith 44 for that reason. Have a 41 Bisley and 657 together with my SBH. If you don't reload, 44 is your choice.

[nate45]

Its just cool thats all, it has that indescribable something. Its really neat when someone has never heard of it. You say..."Yeah, there's .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum and the .41 Magnum."

Or, get out my 1965 Gun Digest and read the initial thoughts on the .41. Seems it was controversial from the get go.







Its a good article, I remember reading it when I was young. My Dad had that issue of Gun Digest, but not the whole collection from 1949 to present like I do.

[Fleabag]

I have S&W Classic Hunters in .357, .41 and .44. The .41 Magnum gets shot the least, but it's my favourite by far.

[Mello2u]

.40cal

Why .41 Magnum?

Why .41 mag? Why not a 44? It seems that the 44 will do anything and everything that the 41 will do and with more choices in loads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would I be better off with the 44 in the long run?

The 44 mag will do anything and everything that a 41 mag does. As others have said, if you are not a handloader/reloader you should choose the 44. The 44 throws a slightly heavier bullet at the same velocity as the 41. Max loads for either have stout recoil and will take similar game, if the shooter does his/her job.

Just "to stir the puddin", you may want to consider revolvers in .45 L Colt. Buffalo Bore has some heavy loads for the Ruger Redhawk and Blackhawk (260 gr. @ 1,500 fps).

I personally own a few .41 Mag revolvers.

[Bob Wright]

The big disappointment in the .41 Magnum came because it was not the gun/cartridge combination so desired by law enforcement officers of the time.

The gun they dreamed of was one to replace the .38 Special/.357 Magnum revolvers then in use, notably the K- Framed Smiths and Colt's medium framed Troopers and Official Police revovlers.

What would have been an ideal cartridge would have been a .40 or .41 caliber cartridge that could have been built on these frame sizes. Something just a like the current .40 S&W or similar round that maybe could be handled in, say, an L-Framed Smith.

The .41 Magnum was too much for urban police use, and the N-Frame too heavy for most daily police routine.

Fine as it is, the .41 Magnum just missed the targeted market.

Bob Wright

[Nanuk]

Funny thing is the N Frame weights the same as an L frame which I carried for many years. I laugh about big strong men complaining about carrying a couple more pounds. If you are recoil sensitive why are you shooting a magnum revolver?

[SIGSHR]

I am a .41 Magnum fan, but I agree with Jeff Cooper's phrase re another matter-"An ingenious solution to a non-existent problem." Like the 10MM Auto it was meant to fill that so-called "caliber gap"-which it did nicely-but really didn't fill any real need. Some people felt with demise of the black poweder 41 Colt an new smokeless powder was needed. IIRC there was a wildcat called the 400 Eimer in the 1920s and Colt experimented with a Colt 41 Special in the 1930s. What the gun writers really wanted was a revolver like the S&W L frame firing a 200 grain bullet at about 800-900 fps-sort of a 44 Special "Lite". Instead we got a 44 Magnum "Lite" built on the N-Frame. A great gun,but not quite what was envisioned.

[kcub]

The big disappointment of the .44 is the heavy recoil.
Too bad Remington boosted the velocity 200 fps beyond Elmer Keith's recommendation.

[Bob Wright]

The L-Framed Smiths were heavy, true, but not as heavy an an N-Framed gun with a full length lugged barrel.

The L-Framed gun appealed to law enforcement because of its K-Framed size grip. The N-Frame, good as it is, is often too big, with a too long backstrap to trigger length, for many men to be able to fire multiple shots DA with rapidity and accuracy.

Again, what the law enforcement community as a whole wanted was a medium framed revolver with better expected stopping power than the .38s then in use.

Bob Wright

[spacecoast]

The big disappointment of the .44 is the heavy recoil.
Too bad Remington boosted the velocity 200 fps beyond Elmer Keith's recommendation.

This is easily modified by handloaders. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain that available ammunition is too powerful, especially when you have the .44 special option also available. If that's too expensive, then you're going to have a problem shooting the .41 mag anyway.

[Nanuk]

The L-Framed Smiths were heavy, true, but not as heavy an an N-Framed gun with a full length lugged barrel.

Between a 4" 586 and a 4" 629 there is 1.5 oz of difference.

The L-Framed gun appealed to law enforcement because of its K-Framed size grip. The N-Frame, good as it is, is often too big, with a too long backstrap to trigger length, for many men to be able to fire multiple shots DA with rapidity and accuracy.

3.34" vs 3.68" = .34" difference. It is a little longer, proper grip selection can mitigate this, but we are already talking about an N frame with the 41. Rate of accurate fire relates more to the skill of the shooter. Most cops I have worked with are not what I would call skilled shooters.

[rclark]

I see no reason to get a 41 mag it serves no purpose for me.

My sentiments exactly. I have 22s, .357s, I have .44s (.429) and .45s.... The .41 just doesn't fit. I can load .44Mag up or down to meet my needs so 'recoil' isn't a factor as mentioned above. If you are not a reloader, you can still load .44Specials if recoil sensitive. Not so in .41Mag. There is no denying the .41 is a good cartridge (a reloader's cartridge in my mind).... It just doesn't fit into 'my' stable. In fact .... If the 22LR/Mag can't, the .357 can, if the .357 doesn't do it, I can reach for the .44Spec, if it can't handle it, the .45 Colt will . Big and slow is way to go... So where does even the .44Mag fit in? Hah! Another range 'argument' ....errr discussion!

[savit260]

What would have been an ideal cartridge would have been a .40 or .41 caliber cartridge that could have been built on these frame sizes. Something just a like the current .40 S&W or similar round that maybe could be handled in, say, an L-Framed Smith.

Took the words right out of my mouth... (or keyboard}

Seems to me the ideal platform for this caliber would have been the Colt .41 Frame size guns. (Official Police size.. pretty much L frame size)

O.K. The L frame S&W and Ruger GP-100 didn't exisit at the time, (the Colt did though) and it probably was a bit to much too stuff in a K frame.

Surprised the 41 Magnum, or a slightly lighter loaded 41 never ended up in a 6 shot heavy-mid frame size gun.