41 vs 44

In what frame size? Both of them N frame then No.

In my admittedly limited experience the .41 is just right for the N frame. The hot heavy bullet .44 Magnum loads are I think just a tad much for the N frame - see the endurance modifications etc. FREX I find it much easier to load to the same point of aim in the .41 with different full power loads. To me this says better balanced.

That is, I wouldn't push the .44 in the N frame so why bother unless I'm going to a bigger frame and then I'd go to cartridge that's bigger than the .44 Magnum as well.

None of this applies to carbines.
 
Ive heard numerous people praising the 41 mag, in fact I dont think Ive heard anything negative about it, Im seriously considering getting that calibar, it really apeals to me now, in fact the more I read and ask about it the more I want it. Smith and wesson 41 mag here I come

The Revolver
Not as clumsy or random and the semi-auto
An elegant weapon for a more civilized society
 
Chindo18Z - I have a similar article here in an old Law Enforcement Handgun Digest by Dean Grennell and Mason Williams (circa 1972). The cars used were a 1953-1955 Ford (Victoria it looks like) and a 1956/57 Fairlane. The .41 Mag made swiss cheese out of the Victoria's heavy steel bumper and they put 3 shots through both sides of the '57 Fairlane.

44mag@ucnsb.net - Your handle reveals your bias :) , but you are right about the case-capacity issue. :cool: The .41 doesn't have the same case capacity and thus it will never equal the .44 head-to-head in terms of the same powder/bullet weight and velocities. However, at a given load for both guns, it seems that the .41 does penetrate better than the .44 and that's a distinct advantage.

m0ntels -- The Taurus 415 snubbie is a pretty awsome little gun. I fired a Ti model and was prepared for a wrist-breaker. Actually not bad as it was ported and had rubber grips. As for a loading, in factory fodder, I'd probably opt for the 175gr WW-Silvertip JHPs (rated 1250fps in 6") as these are what I fired and were controllable. Optionally, a 210 LSWC like the original Remington "police load" would be like shooting fence posts at someone. Those were rated IIRC at 1050fps in a 4" barrel (figure 900-950 in a snubbie).

The .41 Magnum was actually a request from legendary U.S. Border Patrol agent Bill Jordan in collaboration with Elmer Keith. What Jordan was looking for was something with more power than the .357, less recoil, good auto penetration and good knock-down potential. The original idea was a round that we'd likely call the .41 Special -- a 200gr LSWC at 900-1000 fps in a 4" revolver. Jordan would have accepted a 5-shot K-frame revolver for its ease of all-day carry (the L-Frame wasn't even a concept then). When S&W was approached they were lukewarm until the guys in marketing :barf: saw that by "magnum-izing" it they could capitalize on the success of the .44 Mag which was a brisk seller. S&W and Remington up-rated the cartridge and put it into the large N-Frame. Jordan was a little disappointed that it wasn't a true "police gun". However Keith suggested they go hunting bighorns with Keith's 6" Model 57 and Jordan found he liked the gun's handling & power. Unfortunately, as a police gun it failed. Not because of any shortcoming of the gun, but that there were only 2 ammo selections - 210gr LSWC "police" loads and a 210gr JSP "hunting" load. Cops being "macho" loaded the JSP's and their ability to qualify with them dropped markedly. If they had marketed a 175gr JHP this gun might have done much better!

The only 2 police shootings I know of involved the 210gr LSWC "police" loads and both turned out fine for the officers. One was in Honolulu HI, were a motorcycle officer was fired on and he returned fire through the driver's side rear window, penetrating the window, car seat & suspect (fatally). The other was in S.F. and the officer (Hooper I think) was shot twice in the vest with a .45. He landed on his posterior while drawing and fired 4 rounds through the car door (a stolen '65 Ford) hitting the suspect 3 times with one round blowing the inner door handle & mechanism into the rt. front seat. No trial was necessary.

.41 vs .44? Flip a coin. I can find good things about both. I like the .41 because it is unique in handguns. But then, I like the .32 H&R Mag for the same reason. :D
 
Sectional density?
Click to expand...
The cross sectional density of a given bullet.
SD= weight/dia. squared
A bullets SD is the main factor in expected penetration. Bullets with similar sectional density will usually deliver similar penetration. <- note usually.

Say for example you want to work up a .45Colt load which will perform the same as a 265gr .44mag load.

The 265 gr .44's SD = 0.205

Using a "standard" 255 gr. in the .45 Colt, the SD is only 0.179. You need to go to a 300 gr bullet to approximate the same desired performance (.021)

You can use the reverse also ( which is what Majic is saying)
A 220 gr .41 mag has a SD of 0.186
A 240 gr .44 mag has a SD of 0.186
For most purposes a 220 gr .41 = a 240 gr .44.

The .44 can be driven harder, but the result is often an increase in frontal area (expansion/deformation), which will lower the SD and decrease penetration. (note - this is a desirable feature)

Bottom (short) line is you can drive a .41 slower using a slightly lighter bullet and often get the same terminal performance as using the larger faster .44.

*Also please note that I'm omitting ballistic coefficient here. Usually the .41 will have a better BC than the .44. So even at a lower initial muzzle velocity, downrange (ie - where it counts) the .41 will often "catch up" to the .44. It's because of the usually better BC that the .41Mag has a reputation for "flat shooting".

** Also please note this is a very, very, very abbreviated "explanation". There's volumes written on the subject. In short, it's something I understand well enough to appreciate, but nowwhere near well enough to explain. (if that makes sense?)
 
If you use enough math and science, an elephant can hang off a cliff with it's tail tied to a daisy, and Oswald's bullet can do as the Warren commision say's it did.

But that does not make it so.

Beside all the math, go .41 just b/c it makes sense.
 
spare me the details about Elmer Keith. while he was a LOT better shot than the rest of us will ever be , even Elmer admitted that there was some luck involved with some of his shots. he also blew up a number of guns in his experimenting
Click to expand...

So I had to respond to this one. First let's talk about Elmer Keith. He had a distinct shooting style that dealt with shooting positions and modifications to his front sight that allowed him to accurately shoot the ranges he did. While he may have made some "lucky" shots, you are talking about a drop in the bucket of what this man did in his lifetime. Those of us who have read his books and applied his style of long range shooting regularly make long range shots that apparently "the rest of us" are not capable of or as you put it will ever be. I am positive that if you take the time to learn the lessons he taught you will at the very least greatly increase your probability of hitting a long range target. And one final note... If Elmer hadn't blown up a number of guns and gained those experiences I doubt that we would have the 41 or the 44 Magnum.
 
Well since somwone brought up Elmer Kieth -

The .41 Mag was what Kieth, Wilson, and other great shooting minds of the time suggested as the perfect fighting man's revolver. Right ?

Old Elmer being the 44 fan he was probably would'nt have said it to Smith and Remington if he did'nt mean it.
Click to expand...


After reading this statement, and being a huge Elmer Keith fan, I feel a need to provide some correction. Actually, Elmer Keith, Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton claimed the .41 Police, which was closer to a .41 special case, as the Perfect Fighting Gun, it was intended to be a 200 grain 950fps round in a medium frame Smith & Wesson, instead because of the magnum craze of the 60’s, it became the .41 Magnum and was loaded as a 210 grain 1400fps round in the larger N frame Model 57. Smith & Wesson marketing people struck again, as they did with the .44 Magnum earlier. Having said all this, and being a devoted Elmer Keith fan, I would also point out that these statements were made in the 1960’s, almost 40 years ago. Just imagine the cartridges we would have available to us today if Elmer had been working these last 40 yrs. I would also point out that only a few law enforcement departments every picked up the .41 Magnum, and even they moved back to the .357 Magnum a few years later. I am not saying this was because of performance issues, it is just that the .41 Magnum was not the .41 Police that Keith, Jordan, and Skelton envisioned, it had too much recoil and required a larger framed gun. And on one final note, Elmer Keith did not work with Remington on the .41 Police or .41 Magnum, he worked with Norma, who eventually backed out. Keith was hesistant to use Remington again after they changed his original load for the .44 magnum. Smith & Wesson decided to have Remington make the first .41 Magnums, not Keith.
 
Please give me some advice on this same subject

My needs are a bit more on the practical side, I do alot of snowshoeing and traping here in the frozen northwoods. Unfortunatly, our illustrious Dept. of Natural Resources decided to igore the will of the citizens up here in the sticks and planted several wolf packs about 20 years ago :mad: . Well they have grown in leaps and bounds in number. Ranchers have had problems with the wolves killing livestock for about 8 years now.

For the past couple of years the problem has gotten even worse. For example, a couple of months ago, Wolves attacked and killed, then ate, a small dog that was in a yard a few miles from our home.

Also, just south of us, (a month and a half ago) a mother had to rush her children in their home when some wolves attacked (in broad daylight) a calf that was penned up by their garage.

Of course we also have the lone cougar show its head now and then, but they have only attacked livestock once every few years, not really a big threat.

The other concern I have is that while snow shoeing, I have come accross (by accident) a couple of small caves (openings about 3-5 feet around) this year and last. While I have never noticed tracks near these caves, I would consider it very rude of myself to disturb a black bear in it's slumber while I'm snow shoeing. Especially if it is a sow with new cubs :eek: .

So here is my question...
For years, I carried a .357 with me while snow shoeing, but lately I'm not feeling too confident in it's ability against a 150 - 200 lb wolf who is hungry, much less against a blackie.

I recently picked up a beautiful S&W mod 57 (6 inch) and planned on carrying that instead, but I can't bring myself to carry the lovely old girl out in the snow (you get wet stringing trap lines, I can't stand the thought of that happening to this beauty).

So I have decided to pick-up a Ruger Black Hawk in 4 5/8 bbl.

Do you think a .41 Mag is sufficient for my needs or should I opt for the .44 mag?

I'm a handloader, so ammo availability isn't really an issue, I only want to have "enough" gun.

I am falling in love with the .41 and never considered a need for a .44 before, so I would prefer to pick up another .41, but if it is insuffecient....well....

Thanks for your advice.
 
Cayoot,

A .41 Mag has enough power for wolves and will generally exit the far side of a wolf under 50 yards. I'd probably want a JSP for that duty. Loading a 210gr JSP to about 1200fps should give enough whomp-um to do the job.

For bear, I'd opt for something like the Federal 250gr cast-core, but these are, in a word, stout loads. But having been surprised by bear in close quarters, I'd feel under-gunned with a bazooka. The trick with bear is to get enough penetration, especially if they're still wearing a lot of winter fat.

You'd want to experiment with loads that will allow you to fire accurately one-handed (in the event one hand is busy) and also allow for rapid follow-up shots. I hunted boar with the .41 and it did very well. Unfortunately my partner was using a 4" Python with 180gr JHPs and missed 5 times due to long recovery after each shot. He learned there is no "minor" goring. Luck and a 210gr JSP through foreshoulder won the day.
 
That's kinda what I'm thinking Bill

I don't think that the blackies are a real concern for me. Although we have some behind my home, I've never heard of a bear taking any livestock (and we have lots of horses and cattle around here). In fact last year, when one of my mares was foaling, I was more concerned about the coyotes attacking the new-born foal than bears (although last year I was also concerned about the wolves).

The only problems I have ever had was 10 or 12 years ago when a blackie came into my yard in the middle of the night and tore apart some of my rabbit cages to get a snack (I guess it was sorta like me raiding the fridge at night :p ). Other than that I never see them, and I spend alot of time out there especially in the fall and winter. The only real sign I see is scat and black hairs in the flattened areas of wild blueberry patches. Also now and then I get one of my honey bee hives torn up. That is to be expected though.

So really, I think that bears are a very low threat for me and I should not give them quite so much priorty. Like I said before, for many years now I have felt comfortable with just a .357. Great little cartridge, and I carry some very low velocity .38 wad cutters in my pocket for finishing off traped animals, doesn't cause much more damage to the pelts than a .22lr, but the .357 is much more comforting on my hip. :)

Wolves are my bigest concern I suppose, since I do deal with carcasses while trapping.

I thought about getting a .45 LC in a 4 5/8" Blkhwk, I really like the cartridge and I deer hunt with a 7 1/2 " .45 LC Blkhwk (much too long for all day carry while on the snow-shoes :( ). But I guess I just think that the .41 is such a cool cartridge (maybe it's just the "new cartridge syndrom), I was hoping that it would be good enough for my needs/concerns.

Do you think that the .41 mag will develop enough velocity in a 4 5/8 " bbl to offer full penetration? I don't have access to one to put over my pro-chrono.

Thoughts?
 
Magnum anxiety...

Does the 44 have any real advantage over the 41? I reload so ammo availability isnt a problem.
Click to expand...

Look at it like this... if you see the .41 as a significant step up from the .357, then you have to attribute a similar value to the to the .41/.44 comparison.

In raw horsepower, it works out something like this; what the .357 will do with 180's, (around 1250 fps) the .41 will do with 250's- and what the .41 will do with 250's, the .44 can do with 325's. Any of them will shoot through the Big Bad Wolf and his uncle Fred, and a good .41/210/JHP will cleanly kill all the wolves (and deer) you'll ever cross paths with.

In your shoes, I'd start practicing hard with that 57. (Well, not really- because I already have a 4" Model 29) Stop worrying about that gun's finish, and start worrying about your own- which is what we're talking about here. Defense. If things get ugly up close, you'll be glad for the DA trigger. If you get harassed by a pack, it'll be comforting to know that you can speedload your Smith a hell of a lot faster than the Ruger.
 
Unfortunately my partner was using a 4" Python with 180gr JHPs and missed 5 times due to long recovery after each shot. He learned there is no "minor" goring. Luck and a 210gr JSP through foreshoulder won the day.
Click to expand...


Bill.. sounds like your buddy needs some range time... I wouldn't use that as a reason to pick a .41 over a .44 though.. it was obviously shooter error. Shooting any pistol accurately and correctly is a matter of practice and a clear head. Both the .41 and the .44 can be loaded heavy or light. So how rapidly and accurately a follow up shot can be made with a given pistol has to do with more than just the caliber, it depends on the ammunition used, the physical makeup of the shooter, the shooting prowess of the shooter, and the mental condition of the shooter. I am sure that you know this, but I don't want uneducated shooters making assumptions based on that statement. And as we can see by this statement, you kept a clear head, were accurate, and your .41 sufficed for the situation. :)
 
If you can't kill it with a .41 Magnum, you probably shouldn't be shooting a pistol at it in the first place.
Click to expand...


I would have to say that I have read alot of your posts Tamara, and most I can agree with.. but come on.. A hell of alot more big game animals have been killed with a .44 than a .41.. if the .41 was the great game getter it's advocates claim it is, it would be alot more popular. In the end, the .44 just has alot more power available to it. Before the 454's and 500's of the world, the .44 was killing big game for decades and getting the job done. :)
 
44mag@ucnsb.net,

I would have to say that I have read alot of your posts Tamara, and most I can agree with.. but come on.. A hell of alot more big game animals have been killed with a .44 than a .41..
Click to expand...

I didn't say that .41 Mag was more powerful than .44 Mag.
I didn't say that .41 Mag was more common than .44 Mag.
I didn't say that .41 Mag was better than .44 Mag.

I did, however, intimate that if you shot a critter in the vitals with a .410" 265gr hard cast SWC moving at 1325fps, and it didn't drop, then maybe you should question the wisdom of shooting it with a handgun in the first place. If that load didn't do the job, mebbe one should switch to something belt-fed and crew-served. ;)

As tex_n_cal so eloquently phrases it:
With top loads & hard cast bullets, a .357 mag, .41 mag, .44 special, .44 mag, .45 Colt, .454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, .500 Linebaugh Maximum, and .500 S&W will all shoot through Bison. To select the gun, determine how big a hole you want to put in the Bison, and how much recoil you can stand :p
Click to expand...
 
Look at it like this... if you see the .41 as a significant step up from the .357, then you have to attribute a similar value to the to the .41/.44 comparison.
Click to expand...

I will agree that the .44 is a "step up" from .41 but the dispute (I guess) is just how big that step is. It _isn't_ equal in size to the step from .357 to .41. .053 of an inch is a lot more than .019! And that is reflected by the bullet weights. I really like the Beartooth 265 grain WLN bullet in my M57. You don't need to push it super fast to have it kill things right now. And great accuracy. They also make a 280 grain and 300 grain bullet but I haven't tried those. Those are MUCH heavier bullets than any reasonable person is going to be using out of a .357 and are breathing right down the .429" Magnum's neck.

I like both calibers perfectly well. I love my massive 9.5" Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 Magnum. I feel like I can load just about anything I want to in that gun. It would be a great deal of fun to compare it side to side to another one in .41 but Ruger never saw fit to give us that. I guess that puts me solidly in the "buy both" category. Maybe it doesn't make much sense to have a 4" M57 and then buy a 4" M29 but just vary the gun a bit. I've got the 4" in the M57 and the 6.5 in the M29. And the M58 in .41 and the RSR in .44. Different guns for different things!

(I like and reload for .32 Magnum as well. 4 5/8" Ruger SSM I bought in the 80's sometime.)

Gregg
 
Tamara

Thanks for clarifying your post... I also agree with what tex_n_cal said.. some of us believe we can just add bullet weight and velocity and kill that animal that the .41 can't. :)

Rifles have their place and so do pistols.. and luckily there is a good middle ground they both cover.
 
tulsa,

Unlike what most may assume by my handle.. I actually enjoy shooting the 41 as well. My comments on the 41 are more for those 41 fans who want to argue that the 41 equals the 44 in ballistics and power. I have loaded and shot some of the 300 grainers at 1000fps out of my Freedom Arms model 83, they are stout, I would be careful running them in the Model 57 or 58... occasional use might be o.k., but I would be worried about using them alot. I had alot of trouble finding published reloading data for the 300's as well.. I am sure the pressures are way up there.. as for my .44, I enjoy the hogdgen load of a 355 grain at 1247fps using lil gun powder for my heaviest load.
 
mOntels,
I did it a little different than you as I went from .357's right to .44 mags all the while wondering what the .41's were all about but passing them by along with my progress from K-frames to N-frames and skipping the L's.
A couple years back I tried some .41's and now own 4 of them, wish I'd not waited so long. I'm still a big fan of the .44 maggies and will always be. I'm just thinking they don't have much over the .41 in power and much more felt recoil to me although I don't object strongly to that aspect either in a properly designed gun for them.
I'll continue to find .41 and .44's that are must haves I'm sure as well as some possible .480 and .454's.
I long ago bought the guns I need and have purchased the ones I want ever since.
I figure if one pays the bills, puts food on the table, he or she should be able to indulge in a few gun purchases. If the social security thing falls apart, at least I'll have some trading material for beans and rice. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top