Can anyone say anything about 41 mag?

[GeauxTide]

I've owned 57s, 657s, and Blackhawks since the 70s. It is my upper limit of recoil in a Smith revolver. I currently have a 4" 657 and a 5.5" Bisley Blackhawk. It is a reloading dream with 220 Cast and 210 JHP.

[Jim Watson]

“Power” is usually advertised by energy, recoil is conservation of momentum.
Algebra so
1/2mv^2 (41) = 0.95 * 1/2mv^2 (44)
and
mv (41) = 0.75 * mv (44)
is left to the claimant.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

“Power” is usually advertised by energy, recoil is conservation of momentum.

Algebra so

1/2mv^2 (41) = 0.95 * 1/2mv^2 (44)

and

mv (41) = 0.75 * mv (44)

is left to the claimant.

2 equations for 2 variables. Theoretically possible, but practically may not be always doable. You will see if you include the propellent mass to the equation.

Lighter bullet and higher speed. The latter requires more powder. To certain point the target may become unreasonable.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Jim Watson]

Rather than an analytical solution, look at plain vanilla Remington factory loads.

.44 shows a 240 at 1220 fps, 793 ft lb. f 292
.41 shows a 210 at 1240 fps, 717 ft lb, f 260

So .41 is 90% of .44 energy, 89% of .44 power factor.
True recoil computation includes powder mass and gun mass but i doubt it will bring the ratio down to 75%.

[black mamba]

I ran the numbers in GRT and comparing 240 gr .44 mag to 210 gr .41 mag, both at 38.5 kpsi in 6" N-frame S&Ws, the .41 gets 89% of the muzzle energy with only 72% of the recoil. So I was off a slight amount, but the gist of it is true. Nearly the same power with a considerable reduction in recoil.

[Jim Watson]

So there is a computational difference. Interesting.

[Mike Irwin]

" I don't see how that can be true, and square up with the established laws of physics."

Agreed.

I'd love it if it were true, or even possible, but it's not.

[JohnKSa]

I ran the numbers in GRT and comparing 240 gr .44 mag to 210 gr .41 mag, both at 38.5 kpsi...

Why 38.5kpsi instead of SAAMI max of 36kpsi?

[ammo.crafter]

S&W mod 57 41 mag is the most accurate handgun/calibre that I have been hunting with for more than 30 years.

Yes, I do reload.

More than the 357 and less recoil than the 44.

The 41 is a pleasure to spend the day with at the range.

Get it you will not regret it.

[disseminator]

I'll leave the math to others, but I agree there is no free lunch in physics, or anything else.

In my experience with my Dad's Model 58 I do not enjoy shooting full power loads at all and neither does he. (anymore, he's 81) I have a nice hand-load of a 210 SWC powder coated at about 800 that's a blast to shoot at the range and will still get the job done if needed.

As for the comparison to the 44 (.429) magnum: the 41 does not equal the 44 at any bullet weight and so the comparison is flawed from the start.

Physics doesn't change, but felt recoil is highly variable and somewhat subjective.

The 41 is a fine cartridge, get one if you like it but don't fool yourself that it equals the 44 mag.

[tangolima]

It isn't free lunch per se, but a meal that is already stored in the fridge. The angle to play is the role of MV. ME increases faster than momentum. A faster but lighter bullet gives you the same muzzle energy with less recoil momentum (power factor). Unfortunately there is overhead to pay in order to get to the meal prepared in the fridge, so much so that it offsets the benefits.

The increase in propellent for reaching higher MV has very noted impact on recoil. It is because the speed of exiting gas is way faster than the bullet. A possible counter measure is faster burning powder and higher chamber pressure.

In my early years of handloading I was told slower powder gives a gentler push so the felt recoil is less. Quite on the contrary.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[orionengnr]

Count me in. I had a 6" and then a 4" M57. Beautiful revolvers, accurate and fun to shoot.
Of course, I am a handloader, so the negatives were non-existent for me.

All that said, I reached a crossroads. Had to choose between the .41 Mag and the .45 Long Colt. Given my advancing age, at a certain point, .45LC made more sense to me, and that's the direction I went.

Still miss the .41, and every time I see an M57, I get a twinge.

But at the end of the day, the M25/.45LC allows a wide range of loads, everything from woodchuck fart (not quite mouse fart) to buffalo killer.

If you are younger than 70 (give or take), and your wrists have not been beaten up over the years, then the .41 Mag is an incredibly versatile, enjoyable and viable cartridge.

As long as you are a handloader.

[gwpercle]

I'm a long time member of the fan club .
Mid 1970's obtained a model 58 S&W in 41 Magnum .
It is an amazing shooter ... it will do anything I need / want a handgun to do .
I cast my own bullets and reload for it ... With Bullet moulds from Lyman , Lee and NOE I can produce ammo from Target loads (41 Special) to deer & hogg hunting loads .

The worst gun buy I never made was I passed up a chance to buy a Three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 Magnum because I thought I could find one cheaper ... I never did ...
Dang It !
Gary

[rodfac]

Like this one Gary...a 4-digit Old Model built in 1966...Sporting my own stocks. Best regards, Rod

[Ajiel]

It is an AWESOME caliber! I have three 41 Magnums and no plans to acquire any 44 Magnums.

[jmr40]

My 1st center fire handgun was a Ruger Blackhawk in 41 mag. I liked it a lot, but this was in the late 70's. I was a college student with limited funds. I only paid $175 for the gun, but the last box of cartridges cost me $30. In the 1970's that was simply more than I could afford.

I sold it and bought a 357 mag. Later when money wasn't as tight, I've owned a few 44's but never revisited 41 mag. Not due to lack of performance but simply because 44 was available and cheaper to buy.

I don't care what the numbers say, no animal will ever notice the difference between a 41 Mag and a 44 Mag. The actual bullet diameters are .429 for the 44 mag vs .410 for the 41 magnum. That's .019". About 1/3 the thickness of a dime or a few sheets of paper.

I think performance and recoil is close enough to call it a tie. If someone just wants to be different from the masses 41 mag fills that niche. If you want to push the easy button 44 mag is the easier answer.

[rclark]

Count me out. I have .429s (specials and Magnums)and .357s and the bigger .45 Colts. No need for a .41 in 'my' stable. I reload, so I can use any bullet/powder/primer combination that fits 'my' shooting needs. IMHO, the only reason to own a .41 is 'just because' ... and that is ok too .

[TruthTellers]

Not much because of all the revolver calibers the .41 interests me the least. Now, the Ruger Blackhawk is pretty neat, seems like that's as small as you're going to ever get the .41 Mag in a 6 shooter.

Other than that, my opinion of the .41 is that at the time it was a neat idea that was executed horribly. The idea of a low power load suitable for self defense and a high power magnum for hunting or dangerous game defense makes sense, but one need not look back far to see how that worked out for .32-20 revolvers. At least with the issue was the revolvers could not shoot .32-20 intended for rifles while the .41 Mag revolvers in the 60s and 70s were built for the full power loads.

IMO, the mistake was Remington didn't make concurrently a .41 Special and a .41 Magnum. Could have gotten the .41 Specials made in K and L frames and kept the Magnum in the N frames. Would that have been the difference maker? Probably not, but the .41 would have been more popular. The bottom line with .41 is it was never going to be as popular as .44 was.

I don't think the concept of an in between .357 and .44 revolver caliber is dead, I believe it can still become a thing and one that can eclipse even .41 in popularity and it's to take a 10mm Auto, put a rim on it, and make the case the same length as .357 Mag. We have a 10mm Magnum that is rimless, so call this the 10mm SuperMagnum. Cut the revolver for moon clips so .40 and 10mm Auto can be used in it and that's important because in order for this new 10mm SuperMag to have any chance of success it has to be compatible to shoot with common and affordable ammo like .40 and 10mm.

For those who think having a revolver that has the ability to shoot a common rimless caliber isn't important to a new calibers success, ask yourself if the Ruger Blackhawks never had a .45 ACP cylinder if they would have become as popular as they did? The .357 and .38 didn't need 9mm because they were already established calibers, but for decades before the Blackhawk the .45 Colt was a dying cartridge.

Even today whenever .32 revolvers get brought up pretty much the first question asked is, "Can it shoot .32 ACP?"

The fact of the matter is in the 21st Century for any new caliber to have success it has to have the ability to shoot an available and affordable semi auto caliber and while .40 and 10mm aren't as cheap as 9mm, they're still a heck of a lot cheaper and more available than .41 Magnum or even .44 Special/Magnum are.

[radom]

I like the .41 myself. The main down is its a reloaders caliber is all. A 210 grain .401 slug vs a 220 grain .429 slug what ever it hits wont know the difference. And how or why no idea but the .41 does kick less as my wife won't shoot any of my 44s but loves the 41 factory loads in my 57 that go near 1500 fps.

[jetinteriorguy]

I’ll add two things that swayed me away from .44 to .41. The .41 is a little stronger and under prolonged use less likely to shoot loose, and if you’re the type that doesn’t follow the herd it has more appeal. Now, as to the validity of the first statement, due to slightly smaller diameter there’s more steel around the cartridge and more around the bore for a little added strength, and the recoil is less so not as much strain on the frame. I don’t know how true this is, but to some degree it made sense to me when I got my first Model 57 back in the early 80’s, and the action is still just as tight as the day I bought it but I have no idea how many rounds I’ve put through it.

[oldbear1950]

My deceased brother had a Ruger Blackhawk with 7 and 1/2 inch barrel, he was both a reloader and bullet caster, and said he could do anything a 44 mag could with less recoil.
But he was able to take advantage of reloading and casting.
When he passed 3 years ago, that was the only one of his guns I really wanted. I think one of his grandkids got it.

[black mamba]

I just added a Weaver 2-6x scope to my Ruger Redhawk in 41 mag. Gonna try out some heavier hunting loads.

[44 AMP]

For those who think having a revolver that has the ability to shoot a common rimless caliber isn't important to a new calibers success, ask yourself if the Ruger Blackhawks never had a .45 ACP cylinder if they would have become as popular as they did? The .357 and .38 didn't need 9mm because they were already established calibers, but for decades before the Blackhawk the .45 Colt was a dying cartridge.

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this opinion at face value. First off, the Blackhawk was quite popular for many years before they introduced any convertible models, so yes, I think the Ruger Blackhawk .45 would have been a popular gun without the ACP cylinder, though the extra cylinder does add to its appeal.

As to the .38/.357 being "established" rounds, sure. .38 Special in 1898, the .357 Magnum in 1935. But then there are the "established" rounds of .45 Colt in 1873, and .45ACP in 1911. I disagree that the .45 Colt was a "dying" round before the Blackhawk chambered it. Numerous SAA clones and original Colts in .45 Colt were sold in large numbers before Ruger chambered the round in the Blackhawk, and the 100 year birthday of the round (1973) reignited popular interest that the New Model Blackhawk .45 was able to take advantage of.

As to the need for a new revolver round to be able to shoot some popular rimless semi auto round, I suppose that might matter to some people, but the .454 Casul, .460 S&W, and the .500 S&W don't seem to need that.

Now, as to the validity of the first statement, due to slightly smaller diameter there’s more steel around the cartridge and more around the bore for a little added strength, and the recoil is less so not as much strain on the frame.

In engineering terms this is correct, but in practice generally, not so much. "Its stronger because there's more steel around the chamber/bore" in the same model gun, while true, seems like someone telling me that I'll get more miles from the 361 cu in V8 in my Desoto than I would from the same car with a 383 cu in engine. Possible, I suppose, but I've never seen it.

Perhaps if Dirty Harry had used a .41 Magnum it would be more popular today, but he didn't, and its history now.

[MarkCO]

I really like the .41 Magnum. Got rid of my .44Mags as well.

A 657 with some history that was carried by an FBI agent, a Blackhawk and a Henry lever action is what I currently use.

I load my own bird/snake shot for it and I have a lot of brass and bullets. Just got a jug of AA #11FS to try out as well.

It's not mainstream and ammo is more of a reloader's area than factory. And, contrary to popular belief, yes you can make .44 spl cartridges as well, just trim it to 1.145". Starline used to stock it, but they have not for years.

[disseminator]

Starline used to stock it, but they have not for years.

Graf's has some:https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog...roductId/71377

I saw it the other day while looking one last time for 500 special brass. I gave up and made my own from 500 magnum brass.