Why so little love for .41 Mag??

[Road_Clam]

the .41 mag is interesting to me currently. I have a GP100 in 357 mag, and then my next step in power is a Desert Eagle in 44 mag. I love the DE but it's a finicky bugger to shoot proficiently. Big, heavy , expensive , but puts a BIG smile on your face. I'm looking at a 41 mag revolver 7" bbl for higher velocity accuracy but I don't really need another 44. I like the Ruger super Blackhawk hunter in .41 . I also handload so ammo is not a purchase concern.

[Mike Irwin]

I love my .41 Mag., a Model 58 S&W.

I've never had any interest at all in the .44 Magnum. Love the .44 Special, though.

At one time in the US .41 caliber cartridges/handguns were EXTREMELY popular.

The .41 Short Rimfire was one of the most popular self-defense cartridges in the United States in the 1800s, being chambered most famously in the Remington Model 95 derringer and various other small revolvers (Colt Cloverleaf) and pistols.

Colt also offered a more powerful .41 Long in the New Line revolver.

When centerfire started to take over, Colt brought us the .41 Short and Long Colts. The .41 Long Colt was particularly popular, so popular that S&W for a time investigated bringing out their own .41 round to compete with the Colt, but never did.

Elmer Keith considered the .41 Long to be a good defensive cartridge, but when the .41 Magnum came out I believe that he questioned why S&W didn't simply go back to loading 200-gr. bullets in the .38 Special and .357 Magnum for police use, which he felt would give much the same results.

[Buckeye!]

Charter Arms has come out with a 23 OZ 5 shot revolver.... It is being built on the same frame as the 45 ACP & 45 Colt ... The barrel length is 2.5 inches ... I think this would make a solid self defense option ....
I own a few Charter revolvers one being a Bulldog in 44Spl ... Which pretty much fills my need for a small frame big bore niche revolver...

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by Elliottsdad

It seems it is a goldilocks cartridge: more power/reach/lead downrange than the .357, but less of the violent recoil of the .44. Why is this cartridge so obscure? On paper at least, it seems to fill quite a useful niche.

Similar to the 16 ga. shotgun, it too fills a useful niche, especially for someone who only has one shotgun. But, like the .41 mag, you have two other popular gauges that can overlap 16ga. performance , while being better in the other extremes. Like the .41 mag, factory ammo availability is what really kills the 16 ga.

[PatientWolf]

For me, the case against the .41 mag is as simple as walking into a store and looking at what is available on the shelf and what it costs.

Of course that doesn’t explain how I ended up with a .454 Casull.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

.410 Supermag

There is a .414 Supermag. Same bullets, 3/10 of an inch longer case. It is what I shot IHMSA with for a while, still hunt with it at times. 210 grains at 1900 fps, 265s at 1600.

[Drm50]

I bought both 58 & Ruger BH when they first came out. The 58 was outstanding
for a fixed sight revolver if you shot factory 210s. Nothing wrong with 41mg, it
was just the 16guage shotgun of pistol cartridges. Not enough bigger than 357
or smaller than 44 mag. I really never noticed much difference in recoil between
41 & 44 mg. That might be because I shot SA, so control is not a factor to me.
I have a couple 57s, just because I collect S&Ws. Hardly ever shoot them. The
41 cal has never caught on for some reason. Herters had a 401 power mag but
was based on old 41 Colt not the magnum case.

[GeauxTide]

I've got a 657 and a Bisley. 44mag performance with a lot less recoil.

[JohnKSa]

Probably the main reason is that the .41Mag didn't really fill the spot it was intended for. It was envisioned as a happy medium between the .357Mag and the .44Mag, primarily for police and self-defense work. Instead it ended up being a competitor with the .44Mag.

Once it became viewed as a competitor for the .44Mag, it was clearly the loser in the comparison. The common guns available for the original purpose were pretty much just rechambered .44Mag revolvers. The loadings couldn't quite compete and ammunition was generally less widely available and often more expensive.

The people who wanted a .44Mag sized revolver could buy one and feed it for less and more easily. There simply wasn't any really good reason to choose the .41Mag over the .44Mag for people who were looking for a carry revolver more powerful than the .357Mag.

Add in the fact that there wasn't any .41 Special ammo to shoot when you wanted some really light loads to shoot for fun or for reduced cost and that made things even harder on the .41Mag.

Finally, when the 10mm came out, there was talk about how the 10mm was more powerful than the .41Mag. Although that isn't even close to being accurate, it's still often repeated as truth. Anyway, one more reason not to buy a .41Mag for those who accepted the assertion at face value.

It was a good idea that just wasn't implemented as well as it could have been--that coupled with some bad luck was enough to keep it from being mainstream.

[rodfac]

A great caliber, but over-shadowed by the mighty .44's. It's a handloader's proposition now, ammunition being prohibitively expensive unless you've hit the lottery big time.

But by handloading, it comes into it's own...Lyman's Keith replica 410459, if memory serves, is a superb bullet for hunting or defense if you don't mind toting a 48 oz. revolver.

My Smith 57, a 6 incher, bought new in 77, then tweaked at the service shop in Smith's old plant up in Springfield, has always been a tack-driver. Most any reasonable load will do at less than 2" at 25 yds from a seated, back rested position, and that covers lead alloy (Lyman's venerable 410459 if memory serves), which was a Keith inspired design It's posted sub 2" gps all the way out to 50 yds when I had the eyes and wrists to steer it properly. I kept these at 1200 fps or below to allow exclusive use of wheel weight alloy, and 50-50 lube, but most were for fun target shooting at just below 1000 fps. It was and is a great bullet, every bit the equal of the standard for the .44's (Lyman's 429421 or it's equivalent.) Good powders abound for this velocity spread including: Unique, 231, Herco, WST, and WSF. All will fill the bill.

Too, Sierra's 170 & 210 gr JHP's, are equally superb and probably better for hunting with their greater velocity. I've had them at better than 1300 fps over the chrono and with the accuracy mentioned above. Better handgun-hunting bullets, at least here in KY, are hard to imagine. 2400, Ac#9, and Win 296 all give about equal accuracy and that kind of velocity.

I also worked with Speer and Hornady offerings at ~210 gr weights and found them equally good. I especially like the Hornady XTP at 210 gr for deer. It's done the job several times in the past 20 years or so.

HTH's but the .41 Magnum IS a reloader's caliber, but offset that with the chance to find a truly great condition gun at less than you'd pay for a pristine Smith or Ruger in .44 Magnum. Lastly, I'd second a previous poster's wish for a Smith M69 (L frame with a five shot cylinder) in .41 Magnum. The gun's lighter weight, and the .41's 15% less recoil than a .44 Mag. would make it a natural for back country carry.

Lastly, if you go the .41 route, I'd recommend laying in an apple supply of brass to last through the future. It's unique as far as I know, and not easy to find on occasion. Starline is what I use now. It's listed at $100 for 500 pieces this evening.

Best Regards, Rod

[krunchnik]

I have 2 examples of why I like the .41 Mag




Henry Big Boy and my Ruger Redhawk

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Drm50

I bought both 58 & Ruger BH when they first came out. The 58 was outstanding
for a fixed sight revolver if you shot factory 210s. Nothing wrong with 41mg, it
was just the 16guage shotgun of pistol cartridges. Not enough bigger than 357
or smaller than 44 mag. I really never noticed much difference in recoil between
41 & 44 mg. That might be because I shot SA, so control is not a factor to me.
I have a couple 57s, just because I collect S&Ws. Hardly ever shoot them. The
41 cal has never caught on for some reason. Herters had a 401 power mag but
was based on old 41 Colt not the magnum case.

Pretty good comparison, but the 16 gauge is a better middle ground between 12 and 20 gauge than the .41 is compared to the .357 and .44 Mag.

.41 is so much closer to .429 than it is to .357, so it never was going to be comparable to .357 much. Maybe had it been a little smaller and K frame .357's had been chambered in a smaller theoretical .39 or .40 caliber with a 5 shot cylinder, that middle ground between .357 and .44 would have been achieved.

That time has long passed. I think if such a revolver were to be made today and be a success, it can't be for a .41 caliber; the lack of popularity for the .41 Magnum just makes it difficult.

What I think can work is the 10mm Magnum and given that it's just a lengthened 10mm Auto and can't be used in semi pistols, there's no reason not to slap a rim on that case and call it a 10mm Auto Rim Magnum. Then you don't need to use moon clips for it, you could still shoot 10mm Auto or .40 S&W with a moon clip, and it uses the same bullets as the .40 and 10mm use, possibly with some heavy 200+ grain lead bullets for use at 950 fps.

Any 10mm revolver can be modified to 10mm Magnum and the difference in bullet size, .01" is insignificant, just as .410 to .429 is.

[458winshooter]

My lack of interest in the 41 mag is due to the fact that I already own 44 spl and 44 mags and handload for both. I can do anything the 41 can with one or the other and their components are more readily available. Charter arms is now offering a 41 mag in their bulldog so maybe it will start a revival of the 41. Now if they start offering a 41 in their Target model with a 4 or 5 inch barrel I may have to give one a home in my safe. I think it would give the S&W 69 a good run for the money.

[Road_Clam]

The .41 mag is of even more interest to me as I stated in my above post, and furthermore I got into casting about 2 years ago. There are several mould configs available for .41 . As long as new brass is available as is the case with Starline , I think i'm going to pick up the SRH with the 7.5" bbl.

[jetinteriorguy]

I keep reading about Charter Arms offering a .41 mag, but it's not on their website and I'm wondering where to find one. I've been banging away with my .41's since the mid 80's and loving it, would really like to add a snub. My 6"&4" Model 57 no dash and my Henry BBS need a little brother. I think a nice SWC at 220gr at around 700-750 fps would be very affective.

[Dave T]

Having owned several .41 magnums and being old enough to remember and shoot the two commercial loads, the jacketed bullet load was very good for hunting, but the problem with the "police" load was that it was still way to hot (read, muzzle blast and recoil), for self-defense and police use. If they had toned down the police load (a soft lead, gas checked bullet), a little more, it may have generated more interest by police.

In early 1974 my original duty gun, a M28-2 S&W, was developing problems from a year of steady DA practice with Magnum hand loads. I found a 4" M-57 for a good price and started carrying that instead. The Remington factory police load was terrible. Way too hot (over 1000 fps) and leaded something awful. I came up with hand loads which I carried but was not able to find dump pouches for anything but 38/357. Speed loaders were still in development stage at that point and not for the 41 Mag cartridge. I was not at all satisfied with just a belt slide ammo carrier. In April of that year I got off probation and qualified with a Colt MKIV Series 70 Government Model. Never looked back at the revolver for law enforcement, except when I trained deputies and corrections officers shooting revolvers.

I later played with a M-58 and a Blackhawk 4-5/8" 41 but they were just toys at that point. They too went away as I was concentrating on competitive shooting with the 1911.

Dave

[rclark]

As a reloader, there just isn't any place for the .41Mag in my stable. I have the .357, .44Spec, .44Mag, and .45 Colt. Fills every niche I can think off. In fact the .44Mag even has lost its appeal as I enjoy my .44 Special revolvers much more now. And yes, I could even drop the .44 Special, as the .45 Colt really does it all.... But I just enjoy shooting the .44 Special too for some reason. I suppose that is the same 'reason' people like the .41 ... cause they like it . Nothing wrong with that!

Now I did say the same thing with the lowly .32 a couple years ago ... But did find a niche for that caliber as it became my 'reloadable' .22 during the .22 ammo crisis. I could reload .32 H&R mag cheaper than what .22 was going for and components was always available made the case for me. Load up some 78g round nose at .22 velocities and voila... Now that the .22 is back, I don't shoot the .32 revolvers as much. The o' Single Six .22 is back in action.

[Real Gun]

A couple folks have alluded to it, but I think the 44 is more popular than 41 because there is a commercial 44 Special but no 41 Special, although off the shelf 44 Special is not easy to find either. Brass for the reloader is available for both 41 and 44 Special. Bullet offerings seem sufficient.

Even Clint Eastwood fired 44 Special in his Dirty Harry gun.

The advantage of 41 Special is that it will fit in a 357 platform at 6 rounds, while the magnum requires the larger frame, stouter gun for the pressure levels. While police might have carried 41 Speical in a minimal weight gun, they didn't like the early N-frame 357 magnums either. They got 6 rounds in a smaller, lighter gun. They didn't get that in a 41 because the 40 S&W auto was being developed at about the same time, with revolvers in general about to fade away in LEO use except for bugs in 38 Special.

[44 AMP]

While police might have carried 41 Speical in a minimal weight gun, they didn't like the early N-frame 357 magnums either. They got 6 rounds in a smaller, lighter gun. They didn't get that in a 41 because the 40 S&W auto was being developed at about the same time, with revolvers in general about to fade away in LEO use except for bugs in 38 Special.

The .41 Magnum debuted in 1964. They could have made a ".41 Special" then. They didn't.

The .40 S&W showed up in 1990, over a quarter century later. After the 1986 shootout in Miami, the FBI went looking for something "better" than the "failed" 9mm (which met every requirement at the time) and decided the 10mm would do the job, and then some. The "and then some" was gun size and especially recoil that was too much for some of their people to manage well. So, they asked for (and got) a reduced load for the 10mm. (aka 10mm Lite).

S&W realized that they could meet the requested ballistics with a shorter case, one which could be fit in their 9mm frame size pistols, and the made the .40 S&W. This met the desired performance levels, had recoil easier to handle, and came in a gun size that about everyone could manage well enough. Instant winner!!!

[TruthTellers]

^ An instant winner for 1990, but today that .40 is just "too expensive" even though when bought in bulk, I've seen that the prices are maybe $10 more for 1000 rounds when buying .40 over 9mm.

I think the reason .41 Special never came about was the .41 Mag case itself, with the right powder and amounts thereof, was capable of that 950 FPS with a 200 grain bullet all the writers of the day were clamoring for. So, why make a new cartridge when guns chambered in .41 Special would never be made? Just use the .41 Mag and load it light.

Problem is it has Magnum in the name and people always feel the need to push it to the limits. Somebody buys a box of that "reduced power" .41 Magnum and it feels like shooting a .38, people go around and spread the word that that hot new .41 Magnum is about like shooting a .38, so everybody goes on thinking .41 Magnum is a bunch of hooey.

Back in the days before the internet, word of mouth spread fast. There are still people that believe the .45 ACP is the greatest pistol cartridge ever made, even though all the ballistic evidence of today shows that 9mm and .40 are equally capable of stopping a threat.

[agtman]

It's the 10mm Auto of the revolver world.

Controversial ... loyal following, ... accurate, ... versatile, ... effective.

That said, I love my Model 58 anyway.

[Real Gun]

The .41 Magnum debuted in 1964. They could have made a ".41 Special" then. They didn't.

That sounds perfectly logical, except that significant time had to pass for demand for a smaller, less punishing gun to be generated. And few things happened with double action development without interest by LE.

[Real Gun]

I think the reason .41 Special never came about was the .41 Mag case itself,

I think you've missed that 41 Special does not have the pressure to demand the larger gun platform. It is very much its own thing...big bore in a mid size gun, holding six rounds.

[Charlie98]

Charter certainly does with their .44 Special that costs half as much as what that theoretical Smith revolver would sell for.

The Model 69 is a five shot .44 Mag on the L frame already. Why anyone would want a .41 in the same gun is alien to me.

For the same reason they make a .41 on the N-frame, and people buy them... because some people like different things. Also, the .44SPC is not a .41 Magnum, although you can probably handload it there... for a while.

Henry also brought the .327/.32 H&R Big Boy out last year, but the .32 has a lot longer of a history and, IMO, a larger following than .41 Mag does.

The .32 has a longer history than the .41? You'll have to explain that to me...

I'm not sure what, if any .41 revolver could be made that would make me buy one. A 10mm Magnum revolver OTOH, that immediately has my attention and the ballistics are essentially the same between the two.

So, you aren't interested in a .41 Magnum revolver, but you are interested in an autoloading cartridge in a revolver that almost mirrors the .41 Magnum? Uh, ok. As I said above... some people like different things.

[44 AMP]

That sounds perfectly logical, except that significant time had to pass for demand for a smaller, less punishing gun to be generated.

The "demand" (such as it was) was already there. It was what the gunwriters (who had police experience) had asked for. They felt a 40-ish (.41) caliber, 200gr-ish bullet at 900-ish fps would be very good for police work, and superior to the .38 Special. That was what they were asking for, but what Remington gave them was the .41 Magnum, and only the .41 Magnum.

Remember the era, late-50s, early 60s, semi-autos for police use (and the 9mm Luger) weren't even seriously considered. Another 20+ years had to pass (and the US military adopting the 9mm in the mid 80s) before the semi-auto began to dominate the police market.