Oh yes, there is definitely a point and advantage to a smaller .41 mag.
I have been shooting .41 Magnum for many years, using out of a Ruger Blackhawk with a six-inch barrel or S&W Mountain Gun with a four-inch tube.
I picked up a Taurus .41 mag with the 2-1/2" barrel because i like the cartridge but wanted a lighter gun (30 ounces) for CCW and sometimes for backpacking. I think the frame size and reduction to a five-shot cylinder gave me most of that, and I would I have liked a three or four-inch barrel. (Even with a small-frame .38, I like the longer barrel and the extra two inches hardly detract from concealability; barrel length is a poorly-thought out bug-a-boo - I've carried 6" K-frames concealed, and it was the frame size that made for difficulty, not the barrel!)
That said, this Taurus delivers good performance - i can't lay my hands on the chronograph results at the moment (I will look), but the velocities were still good and made me feel I was getting good performance with full expectation of expansion with any good bullet. While the shorter (2 inch) barrel .357 mags barely give more than a hot .38 special gives out of a 6-inch barrel, the .41 Magnum offers more to begin with and thus continues to deliver more.
If you don't need to be concerned about weight or size, small magnum revolvers don't make much sense. But if I am going for a snubby, I'll go for the .41 over the .357 any day. It is as easy to carry as my m65 S&W with a 3" barrel.
If one can get the velocity, why is a smaller magnum carry gun silly? Inefficent use of powder, yes. But still they perform. At the very least, this Taurus will give something a bit better than a .40 S&W gives out of a semi-auto. Are they silly?
The Taurus also offers more - porting for excellent control, great recoil-soaking grips, and reasonable size. I can control it well with any load.