silvermane_1
New member
Also there is the .41 AE(Action Express), it came out before the 40 S&W.
.41 magnum bullet - what happened?
- Thread starter chrisintexas
- Start date
The 41 Magnum was meant to fill that "caliber gap"-whatever that is. I am aficionado, treasure mine, though it probably doesn't really do anything the 44 Special/Magnum doesn't. It was introduced at a time when the large frame revolver had gone out of fashion, I suspect that for every N-frame S&W produces at least 5 k-frames.
I happened upon the .41mag purely because of a mistake. Back when Ruger announced the Redhawk in .44mag, I fell in love with the gun and went to the local gun store to add my name to a long list of those wanting one when they were available. Two full years later I got a call from them letting me know the gun had arrived. To say I was excited was an understatement. They pulled the gun from the cardboard box it was shipped in and realized it was not a .44mag but a .41mag. I was very disappointed to say the least but also curious about this caliber I had never heard of. I was about to walk out when the owner handed me a book from Skeeter Skelton talking about the caliber. I sat in a chair he had there and read the book and decided to buy the gun and three boxes of ammo in different configurations. This gun was a 7.5" stainless version with the integral scope rings. After taking the gun home and shooting the three boxes of shells I fell in love and the love affair continues for over 3 decades. It is a handloaders dream and 90% of what I shoot are my handloads. I have three Redhawks in the caliber, a Taurus 415 and a Henry Lever action. I have taken everything from feral hogs to a book Fallow Deer, and countless whitetail with the scoped 7.5".
this was true 10 years ago when I posted it in this thread and is still true today. As I see it, the main reason the .41 Mag never made it as a police round (ensuring a wide popularity) is because of what turned out to be another of Remington's "blunders". Rem's vision of what the round should be (MAGNUM!) and what the public wanted (police market, primarily) were quite different.
stagpanther
New member
tex45--looks like a super blackhawk hunter you got there--pretty rare, I wanted one back in the day but they were limited production IIRC.
Bob Wright
New member
For those who espouse the .41 Magnum as having "flatter trajectory" be reminded that trajectory is primarily a function of velocity. Simply put, the faster a bullet covers a given distance, the less time gravity will have to pull it down. So, depeding upon ammunition selected, the .44 often will cover the same distance over ground in less time than the .41. I have shot some 180 gr. .44s exceedoing 1700 f.p.s. and they were rather flat shootin'.
AND...............Remington did indeed produce a "Police Load" for the .41 Magnum. Loaded with a swaged 210 gr. SWC, it leaded the bore horribly and was a pretty sorry load in general.
I had a hard time comparing the .41 to the .44 as I had them in Ruger Single Actions. The .44 warsh a Super Blackhawk, 7 1/2" barrel, while the .41 was a 4 5/8" Blackhawk, so hard to compare fairly. And, at the time I owned the .41, bullet selection was very limited. So I never really warmed up to the .41 Magnum. And, having a battery of .44 Magnums and .45 Colts, never have miissed it.
Bob Wright
AND...............Remington did indeed produce a "Police Load" for the .41 Magnum. Loaded with a swaged 210 gr. SWC, it leaded the bore horribly and was a pretty sorry load in general.
I had a hard time comparing the .41 to the .44 as I had them in Ruger Single Actions. The .44 warsh a Super Blackhawk, 7 1/2" barrel, while the .41 was a 4 5/8" Blackhawk, so hard to compare fairly. And, at the time I owned the .41, bullet selection was very limited. So I never really warmed up to the .41 Magnum. And, having a battery of .44 Magnums and .45 Colts, never have miissed it.
Bob Wright
I think the police load may have used some of the bullets I bought in the late 70's. Soft and lots of greasy lube. Just a pain to handle.
Still not many easy to find bullet choices but I have bullet moulds for round ball, wadcutter, round nose, semi wadcutter and one hollow point at weights from 160 to 244 grains (can't remember what the ball throws, about 110 ).
Swaged lead bullets are always "soft". They have to be, due to the way they are made. This is not automatically a bad thing, it just means that there is an upper velocity limit (much slower than the one for harder bullets) beyond which they are not suitable and performance is poor.
Trajectory involves more than just velocity, it also includes bullet shape, wieght, & size.
I looked on a Hornady chart, choosing the closest match I could find, a .41 210gr JHP and a .44 200gr jhp at the same starting speed of 1500fps.
Sighted for 25m, drop at 50m was identical for both .6". At 75m, the .41 drops 2.6" and the .44 drops 2.7". At 100m the drop was 6.6" for the .41 and 6.8" for the .44. And that the end of the chart 125m, the .41 drop was 12.4" and the .44 drop was 12.9".
So, yes the .41 does shoot flatter than the .44 but not much, a tenth of an inch at 75, two tenths of an inch at 100 and a whole half inch at 125.
I am not impressed with how much flatter the .41 is, by the book.
Obviously with different bullets and loads the precise numbers will be slightly different, but I don't think the principle will change. The .41 does shoot flatter than the .44 by a tiny amount, but for me it's not enough to matter.
Trajectory involves more than just velocity, it also includes bullet shape, wieght, & size.
I looked on a Hornady chart, choosing the closest match I could find, a .41 210gr JHP and a .44 200gr jhp at the same starting speed of 1500fps.
Sighted for 25m, drop at 50m was identical for both .6". At 75m, the .41 drops 2.6" and the .44 drops 2.7". At 100m the drop was 6.6" for the .41 and 6.8" for the .44. And that the end of the chart 125m, the .41 drop was 12.4" and the .44 drop was 12.9".
So, yes the .41 does shoot flatter than the .44 but not much, a tenth of an inch at 75, two tenths of an inch at 100 and a whole half inch at 125.
I am not impressed with how much flatter the .41 is, by the book.
Obviously with different bullets and loads the precise numbers will be slightly different, but I don't think the principle will change. The .41 does shoot flatter than the .44 by a tiny amount, but for me it's not enough to matter.
As someone who reloads for the 41 Colt and in the past loaded the 41 Magnum I say they are very different. The 41 Colt is much more like a 38 Special. The 41 Magnum is a little toned down from a 44 Magnum. Big difference between the two. Oh, and the 41 Colt is .407" diameter while the 41 Magnum is a true 41 caliber.
I had a N Frame Smith in 41 Magnum for a while. I decided it was a more expensive and unusual cartridge than the very similar 44 Magnum so I sold it. The revolver at that time was out of production and it was worth maybe twice what a Model 29 would sell for. Brass was hard to get and expensive when you did.
If the 41mag had come 1st we wouldn't have 44 mag. Actual bullet diameter for 44 mag is .429 while actual bullet diameter for 41 mag is .410 so they are closer than most realize. That isn't really enough to matter on game, but on most revolver cylinders can leave a bit more metal for strength. Honestly, based on pure performance I'd prefer 41 mag over 357 or 44 mag.
In fact my very 1st centerfire handgun was a 41 mag Ruger Blackhawk. But at the time (late 1970's) I was a poor college kid and couldn't afford ammo for 41 mag. At that time it was even harder to find and very expensive. The last box of ammo I bought was over $30 for a box. That was a lot of money at the time.
In fact my very 1st centerfire handgun was a 41 mag Ruger Blackhawk. But at the time (late 1970's) I was a poor college kid and couldn't afford ammo for 41 mag. At that time it was even harder to find and very expensive. The last box of ammo I bought was over $30 for a box. That was a lot of money at the time.
The reason our .38s are actually .36s and our .44s are actually .43s comes from the early days of metallic cartridges, which were loaded with heel type bullets (the kind still used in .22 LR) where the full bullet diameter was the same as the outside of the case and a "heel" was inside the case.
When tecnology developed the inside lubricated bullet the bullet diameter was reduced to fit inside the case, but the original caliber names were retained. Cartridges developed after the end of the heel type bullet era typically have names much closer to the actual bullet diameter such as the .45 Colt round.
Cartridges designed after about 1900 are named both ways, some the actual bore/bullet size and some after the traditional "bore size" caliber they were descended from. And then there are some that are named after what ever the inventor though was a cool name.
When tecnology developed the inside lubricated bullet the bullet diameter was reduced to fit inside the case, but the original caliber names were retained. Cartridges developed after the end of the heel type bullet era typically have names much closer to the actual bullet diameter such as the .45 Colt round.
Cartridges designed after about 1900 are named both ways, some the actual bore/bullet size and some after the traditional "bore size" caliber they were descended from. And then there are some that are named after what ever the inventor though was a cool name.
I went to the 41 Magnum side of the force back in the 70s. I had a Rugger 44 Magnum, then a S&W but I fell head over heels for the 41 magnum and can't say why, its just suited me.
In the case of bears a gun is a tool. It would be effective against a black bear but so would a 357 and even a 38.
But, generally black bears are not hard critters to kill and then generally do not attack outright. Just a bang might be enough to run one off (keeping in mind habituated black bears are truly dangerous and you have to take that into account.
As for Grizzly, I carried the 41 on my into the woods fishing trips but I was under no notion that it was a good go to option. Purely noise as where I fished there were not habituated bears (either type).
I carried two complete sets of reloads and I would climb a tree to avoid a Grizzly and only shoot one from there and I was clearly stuck there (yes I might well not have made it to the tree or up the tree).
I have seen Grizzlies move and they are insanely fast. The Fridge of Chicago Bears fame was slow compared to how fast a Griz can and does move.
Being in Alaska I have always followed the wisdom closely on dealing with bears. My weapon of choice was a Semi Auto Shotgun with 4 double O buck and one slug.
I now of no sudden encounters that the guy with a gun no matter how prepared he (never knew a woman to be in that position) or she was, the bear was on them before they got a shot off.
Sight distances of course matter. Best view I got of a Grizzly was an open mountain meadow alongside a road as I was putting along slowly on my motorcycle (long story).
It stood up, took one look at me, whirled and was half way across the meadow before I could have spit.
The best tool for a Grizzly is bear spray. Proven over and over again.
And I know of one case where the guy had bear spray but it was in its holster and the bear was on him before he could get it out. At that point he just curled up and took his beating and fortunately the bear then ran off (fairly typical for a Grizzly encounter)
And that is where you have to play the odds, occasionally there is a truly predatory Grizzly and you are done for. If you can reach it the bear spray is your best chance.
I know of one reported case where a group of 5 hunters (Caribou out in Western Alaska) were headed back to camp and were taking a break on top of a knoll.
One of them looked back and a Grizzly was coming up the hill full speed. Ok, this is not a chance encounter at close quarters and its time to start shooting.
the 5 of them were experienced hunters and realized what they were dealing with, spread out and started shooting. They all had different cartridge files but all were 30-06 on up to 375 HH, almost all the shots hit and the bear died 5 feet in front of them. That what it took to put down a Grizzly coming after them.
they back traced the route and found where the bear had come across their trail and then had followed it for several miles. Clearly predatory.
Sans good circumstances like they had, you are toast.
My guess is a full on charging Grizzly that is after you would take a 20mm cannon to stop in its tracks. My take (passed onto me) with the 12 gauge was get at least one shot in with the OO buck and hope you hit it hard enough to distract it, shred its head with the other OO buck and a slug to kill it though all double OO buck might be a better choice.
I did some walking with my wife's family in serious Grizzly country (her sister, husband and two kids) and I told them how it would come down.
My job is to stay between you and a bear, your job (husband and sister) is to get the kids back to the truck. Do not try to do my job and I am sacrificial. You know where the keys are, go report it if I don't walk out of the woods after you. The kids are the priority here.
What serves you best is using your head, having tools and a plan of action.
In the case of bears a gun is a tool. It would be effective against a black bear but so would a 357 and even a 38.
But, generally black bears are not hard critters to kill and then generally do not attack outright. Just a bang might be enough to run one off (keeping in mind habituated black bears are truly dangerous and you have to take that into account.
As for Grizzly, I carried the 41 on my into the woods fishing trips but I was under no notion that it was a good go to option. Purely noise as where I fished there were not habituated bears (either type).
I carried two complete sets of reloads and I would climb a tree to avoid a Grizzly and only shoot one from there and I was clearly stuck there (yes I might well not have made it to the tree or up the tree).
I have seen Grizzlies move and they are insanely fast. The Fridge of Chicago Bears fame was slow compared to how fast a Griz can and does move.
Being in Alaska I have always followed the wisdom closely on dealing with bears. My weapon of choice was a Semi Auto Shotgun with 4 double O buck and one slug.
I now of no sudden encounters that the guy with a gun no matter how prepared he (never knew a woman to be in that position) or she was, the bear was on them before they got a shot off.
Sight distances of course matter. Best view I got of a Grizzly was an open mountain meadow alongside a road as I was putting along slowly on my motorcycle (long story).
It stood up, took one look at me, whirled and was half way across the meadow before I could have spit.
The best tool for a Grizzly is bear spray. Proven over and over again.
And I know of one case where the guy had bear spray but it was in its holster and the bear was on him before he could get it out. At that point he just curled up and took his beating and fortunately the bear then ran off (fairly typical for a Grizzly encounter)
And that is where you have to play the odds, occasionally there is a truly predatory Grizzly and you are done for. If you can reach it the bear spray is your best chance.
I know of one reported case where a group of 5 hunters (Caribou out in Western Alaska) were headed back to camp and were taking a break on top of a knoll.
One of them looked back and a Grizzly was coming up the hill full speed. Ok, this is not a chance encounter at close quarters and its time to start shooting.
the 5 of them were experienced hunters and realized what they were dealing with, spread out and started shooting. They all had different cartridge files but all were 30-06 on up to 375 HH, almost all the shots hit and the bear died 5 feet in front of them. That what it took to put down a Grizzly coming after them.
they back traced the route and found where the bear had come across their trail and then had followed it for several miles. Clearly predatory.
Sans good circumstances like they had, you are toast.
My guess is a full on charging Grizzly that is after you would take a 20mm cannon to stop in its tracks. My take (passed onto me) with the 12 gauge was get at least one shot in with the OO buck and hope you hit it hard enough to distract it, shred its head with the other OO buck and a slug to kill it though all double OO buck might be a better choice.
I did some walking with my wife's family in serious Grizzly country (her sister, husband and two kids) and I told them how it would come down.
My job is to stay between you and a bear, your job (husband and sister) is to get the kids back to the truck. Do not try to do my job and I am sacrificial. You know where the keys are, go report it if I don't walk out of the woods after you. The kids are the priority here.
What serves you best is using your head, having tools and a plan of action.
Guns and/or cartridges succeed or fail for various reasons and many of the reasons have nothing to do with performance. The 41 Mag from a performance standpoint is a good round but it was pushed as a LE round about the same time many departments were moving to high capacity auto loaders. I have most of the common revolvers that interest me and some of the more unusual revolvers as well. I had no particular interest in the 41 mag when a guy wanted to trade his 41 outfit; Ruger RH, dies, brass, bullets, for a 22 rifle I had. I made the trade and love the gun. I worked up a LE similar load, 210 cast bullet at 1079 fps and it shoots lights out. The revolver is a joy to shoot and I don't see me ever being without a 41 mag now. This is the LE load at 25 yards.
Actually it was pushed as an LE round about a decade before the big switch to semi autos.
Introduced in 1964 most of the LE testing was done by the late 60s or early 70s at the latest and the very first major PDs to switch to semis happened about 70 and the big switch didn't happen until the early 80s.
Remington (the only ammo maker at first) for reasons known only to the Rem people of the time focused on production of the 210gr JHP/JSP "magnum" ammo, and by the time they were making the 210gr SWC police load in quantity, most of the PD's testing the .41 Mag had done the testing with the magnum, ammo, and rightly, declared it unsuitable for police use.
If you're looking for someone to blame for the .41 mag never becoming a police round (or even having a fair shot at it), that would be the Remington executives of the 60s with their decisions about what load, how much, and when Remington would make.
jetinteriorguy
New member
Niiice, even though I don’t shoot my.41 mags much anymore I’d be tempted to add this to my collection.Guns and/or cartridges succeed or fail for various reasons and many of the reasons have nothing to do with performance. The 41 Mag from a performance standpoint is a good round but it was pushed as a LE round about the same time many departments were moving to high capacity auto loaders. I have most of the common revolvers that interest me and some of the more unusual revolvers as well. I had no particular interest in the 41 mag when a guy wanted to trade his 41 outfit; Ruger RH, dies, brass, bullets, for a 22 rifle I had. I made the trade and love the gun. I worked up a LE similar load, 210 cast bullet at 1079 fps and it shoots lights out. The revolver is a joy to shoot and I don't see me ever being without a 41 mag now. This is the LE load at 25 yards.