41 vs 44

Reloading the .41

If anyone is interested you can get custom made .41 bullets that are as heavy as the offerings for .44. With tungsten involved in the construction it is possible to get heay bullets as short as the standard offerings. This would afford you more powder room. They are expensive. They would make your gun recoil more. But what the hey if it don't hurt when you pull the trigger your not having fun.
Waddy
 
Montana.... Would love to see a link to those bullets.. Do they carry 44 too? I load both calibers, just curious. I am also curious, have you loaded these bullets yourself? It was my understanding that there are issues with tungsten related to it being so hard. I know the military found issues with their tungsten bullets wearing rifling out quickly in their M-16's. I know that Nylon was applied as part of the mix to help with this, but in the end, they dropped the project anyway. Just curious what you might know, given your post. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
With all the ballistic comparisons, merits and demerits, pros and cons, etc., of each round--very well chronicled in this thread--I choose the .44 for its versatility...can shoot .44 specials all day long for target or defense, saving the mag for the obvious (large game/dangerous animals)....also .44 mag/.44 special availability in lever guns and auto loader rifles. These reasons alone... My .02
 
I personally love the tried and true Elmer Keith load of 17 grains of # 2400 with the 250 grain Keith bullet #429421,
Click to expand...
Well my friend, you aren't alone there. 17 to 17.5 gr of Hercules 2400 ( I know, it's Alliant now - it'll always be Hercules or just plain 2400 to some of us old farts ;)) under a 240 to 250 cast lead, and primed with a standard LPP (no Magnum primer - thank you very much!) is as close to perfect as it gets.

Sometimes I wonder how many rounds Elmer went through to get to that load?
I know I tried to "reinvent" the .44Mag,,,and ended up right back at 17.5 gr of Hercules 2400 under a cast or swaged lead 240 gr. :D
 
enough gun

If I face potential 'biting creatures' my enough-gun is the 45 Colt.

I have a 41, and a 44, but the 45 Colt allows me more bullet at, for me, a lower recoil level ('cause I can poke along with a 335g rather than a 44 320g; know what I mean?).

FWIW, the 360g in 45 is all there, and I'm happy with it at around 1000fps (more impressed but much less happy with it at over 1100fps --- ouch).

IF I'M FACING NON-BITERS then I'm all for the 41 Mag; why I got one, ay?
 
If the handloader is up to it, I can't think of a practical application for the .44 that can't be done with the .41. You can get heavier bullets for the .44 that is true, but has anyone heard of sectional density? The .41 will give you equal SD (Penetration) at lower weight than the .44 and there are heavyweights for the .41 if you are willing to look for them. There is also an interesting bullet from Hornady that I haven't seen load data for yet, so if anyone has I would like to hear about it. The 300 gr. .411 FP that is made for the .405 Winchester and loaded in a Redhawk or other .41 Magnums that will allow the slightly longer OAL could be worth a look.

Neither the .41 or .44 Magnums are Grizzly guns, so staying below that size of animal, the killing effectiveness is most likely to be determined by the shooter. ;)
 
Hal said:
Well my friend, you aren't alone there. 17 to 17.5 gr of Hercules 2400 ( I know, it's Alliant now - it'll always be Hercules or just plain 2400 to some of us old farts ) under a 240 to 250 cast lead, and primed with a standard LPP (no Magnum primer - thank you very much!) is as close to perfect as it gets.

Sometimes I wonder how many rounds Elmer went through to get to that load?
I know I tried to "reinvent" the .44Mag,,,and ended up right back at 17.5 gr of Hercules 2400 under a cast or swaged lead 240 gr.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? 17.5 grains of 2400 under a 250 grain bullet was Elmer Keith's fav load?
LOL, that's funny, because when I started loading .44s, I used a hardcast 250-gr Keith-style bullet over 17.5 grains of 2400 with a LPP. . .Found HOTTER loads, but not more accurate loads, and that's my favorite .44 load.
Great minds stink alike? :D
 
What really sets the .44 mag above the .41 mag, is not the cartridges, but the guns they are chambered in. The .44 mag is chambered in some BIG revolvers that have a long cylinder to accomodate the .454 Casull length ammo. These would be the Ruger RH, SRH, Taurus Raging Bull, and Dan Wesson DA. Because of the extra long cylinder, these guns can accomodate Buffalo Bore's .44 mag +P load which drives a 340 cast bullet at 1478 fps for 1649 fpe as measured in a real Ruger 7.5" RH. I like the .41 mag too, I have an old Ruger Blackhawk from the early "70s, but compared to the guns listed above that can take the BB .44 +P ammo....it's no contest. No matter how much horsepower a 350 cu.in. engine can make...a 396 cu.in. motor can make more... loyalty and sentiment can not change physics....
 
Cayoot,

I wanted to check in and see what you bought. In the meantime since I lasted posted to this thread I have purchased the .44 Magnum Tracker in it's 4" configuration. I will be posting a range report soon with photos and perhaps video. Have a great day.

.44mag
 
mbartel, welcome to the forum BTW. You made some good and honest observations. The analogy of 350 to 396 is not quite fair, since we are talking about bullet differences of .410" and .429", so I could live with a 409 to 429 engine comparison, depending if your a Ford or Chevy man. The Buffalo Bore load is impressive, but they don't make a load in .41 that stretches the envelope like the 340 gr. 44 load, there simply isn't enough market for it. One common thread of .41 magnum shooters that are hanging with it today is that the majority are handloaders. What animal would you shoot with this load that a .41 magnum handload with equal pressure, less weight and higher sectional density, couldn't handle also. I am sentimental towards the .41 and I would have no problem carrying a .44 for the same uses, but neither are going with me into grizzly country.

"Loyalty and sentiment, can not change physics" That is absolutely correct. If loaded to equal pressure the .44 is faster than the .41, but there are other physical considerations as well, like sectional density, especially with hard cast bullets, that translate directly into penetration. For the same bullet effectiveness, the .44 because of it's greater weight, will need the additional velocity to penetrate to same depth that a .41 would. Bullet diameter also favors the .44, but only by .019" of diameter, but that will still give it a slight edge in wound channel, but again reguires higher velocity to penetrate because of the larger diameter.

I tried to find an apples to apples comparison with current load data between the two where the current SAAMI pressure rating for both is 40,000 PSI and even then the comparison is flawed. Using Accurate Arms data for #9 the .44 is loaded 1000 PSI higher for the .44 than the .41 even though both can be safely loaded to 40,000 PSI. The .44 Bullet was a 335 gr. hard cast lead and the .41 was a 290 gr. Sectional density is not listed, but would be very close, so the velocity edge of the 325 gr. .44 would be required to achieve the same depth of penetration of the 290 gr. .41 magnum load. I am not saying the .41 is superior, but if these two bullets were loaded to identical pressure, the .44 would still be somewhat faster and the advantage will be necessary for the same effectiveness on the animal, because of the greater weight and diameter of the .44 bullet. I already know which one I would rather shoot 100 rounds of, and that could be the tie breaker for me. BTW, the cylinder on the .41 magnum Redhawk, or Super Blackhawk Hunters, is identical to the .44 magnum versions of the same guns. ;)
 
First let me compliment Sturm on that last post, it was a well written post regarding this often emotional subject. I would only add one thing to his examples, and that is the muzzle energy of each loading. The raw force of a particular load needs to be equated into it’s effectiveness as well. Let’s break it down a little. The .41 magnum 290 grain loading using Accurate #9 is going 1218fps, has a SD of .246 and 956 foot lbs of energy. The .44 magnum 325 grain loading using Accurate #9 is going 1322fps, has a SD of .252, and 1,262 foot pounds of energy. In this case it would appear that at least on paper that this .44 magnum loading is more effective than the .41 magnum load it was compared to. As Sturm commented earlier it is hard to find truly comparable loads to use as examples.

As to recoil, I would agree that the .44 magnum load is going to kick more than the .41 load used in the example, but let’s keep something in mind about this. Most people are not going to plink with these loads as Sturm’s 100 round comment would suggest. Most people will dial in their hunting load and practice with it enough to be accurate, after that it will become a staple of their hunting gear and they will shoot one or two rounds of it at a time (at a deer or some other game). They may refresh themselves with a cylinder or two at the range, but very few people use these loads to plink with. Those who do plink with such loads are the ones that recoil does not bother. : )

There will always be a debate as to effectiveness, this trait is often misjudged due to circumstance. The first time you see an animal run away from a hit from a particular caliber (44 magnum for example) you usually get disheartened about it. To add to the misconception you pick up another caliber (41 magnum for example) and it drops another animal in it’s tracks. Were the circumstances the same in both incidents? Would the second caliber have worked in the first incident? This is the quandary we deal with as there is no definitive answer to these questions, only supposition and conjecture. As the old saying goes "in a perfect world". I hunt with both guns and recognize the limits and advantages of both.

In the end, I find that my love of the .41 magnum is much like my love of the .45 Colt, they are both great calibers to reload. In the world of convenience the .44 magnum is easier to feed with different factory loadings as well as the .44 special. Most shooters will never know the joy of reloading and will find the .44 magnum a better choice in this regard. Good luck and have a great one.

.44mag
 
Hal & Magnum88C,

Hey guys, apparently great minds do think alike. Elmer Keith used that load to hunt almost everything on the North American Continent. I am in the same boat as you guys, I have been up and down the loading charts but I have circled back to old faithful. Have a great one.

.44mag
 
Sturm-

Thank you for the warm welcome to the forum. It's nice to converse with a well informed enthusiast such as yourself. Yes the engine analogy you provided is more consistent. .410" is 95% of .429" and 409 ci. is 95% of 429 ci. However as for the possibility of a .41 mag Buffalo Bore SUPER long loading...probably won't happen...not because of little demand, as they already load 3 HEAVY .41 loads, but because there is not a single current production .41 mag revolver with a cylinder long enough to chamber it. In my previous post, I named several .44 mag revolvers that do have long enough cylinders to take a very long c.o.l. No currently made .41 mag gun can handle the extra c.o.l to achieve this kind of performance.

The extra weight of the .44 bullet helps it to penetrate deeper than a .41 bullet....it's the larger frontal area and increased total surface area of the .44 bullet that hinders penetration. If you dove head first..arms pointed straight ahead from a ten meter platform you would penetrate the water easily and deeply...but the same dive holding a 12" x 12" board in your hands would slow your penetration way down...even though your sectional density was the same. Sectional density is a physical property that has diminishing returns... otherwise a lead sewing needle could penetrate an elephant lengthwise if driven fast enough...momentum is more important than sectional density when discussing deep penetration. Isaac Newton made it clear that a body in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another force. The greater the weight...the more resistance it takes to slow it down. It takes far more force to slow down a hot air ballon than it does to slow down a cue ball...even though a cue ball has a much better sectional density. MOMENTUM...

In the end though, the .41 vs .44 debate is similar to the rifle guys with their .270 vs 30-06 rantings....My bullet can do this...oh yeah, well my velocity can do that...so what!! my sectional density can kick your a** YADDA YADDA...with good bullet placement, no animal is going to know the difference...because they can't read ballistic tables, and they can't calculate sectional densities of bullets...so to the skilled hunter.....dead is dead...

Enjoyed our conversation....let's do it again soon...
 
44mag, thanks. I knew the SD's of the bullets in question were close, but I appreciate you taking the time to actually calculate the actual values, which were close enough for our discussion.

mbartel, likewise. I can't say that I agree with all of your comparisons in physics, but they were entertaining. Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunters are not regular production in .41 Magnum, but they are currently available, including a 5.5" model recently released as a distributor special. Anyway, thanks to all participants in a good debate. ;)
 
Sturm,

It's nice to have an educated debate on here. Often enough things turn into emotional frays. I have to admit I was surprised, but pleased to see Ruger come out with the Super Blackhawk Hunter in .41 Magnum with it's longer cylinder. I shoot a FA Model 83 in .41 Magnum, and would love a longer cylinder for loading my 300 grain .41 magnums heavier. Well have a great one.

.44mag
 
OK.....I'll try one more time to explain the 41 mag situation. There is no 41 mag chambered single action revolver that has a cylinder as long as the cylinder of the Super Red Hawk. There has never been a cylinder in .41 mag as long as the SRH cylinder, and there probably never will be. The Super Blackhawk Hunter has a standard length cylinder that is the same as the Super Blackhawk frame... If you go to the Buffalo Bore website and read about the LONG .44 mag load, you will see the guns listed that have a long cylinder to take this load. Now a standard .41 mag is the same length as a standard .44 mag, but the Buffalo Bore .44 mag is too long for any but the listed revolvers, so a .41 mag that is the same length as the LONG .44 mag can never be fired in a revolver because a .41 mag revolver with a long enough cylinder does not exist...never has....most likely never will. I don't understand why anyone would think the Super Blackhawk Hunter has an extra long cylinder....it does not...it is the same length as all the other big bore Ruger SA cylinders, except the new vaquero....(it is shorter than the rest)

Whew !!!!!!! can we talk about something else for a while???? like which has more recoil...a .22 hornet or a 458 winchester? and why does it have more?

I gotta stop for now ......my throat is getting sore from all this typing...
Don't you guys talk while you're typing???

me either...
 
The Great Debate

One could filled volumes with discussions on this subject. Having owned
one Smith 4" model 57, and several Smith 29's in an assortment of bbl's,
I think the great debate rages on. With the price of .41 magnum factory
ammo rising steadily, and guns chambered for this round becoming even
more scarce; people with interest seem to be turning their attention to
the .44 Remington magnum. In my studies, I found that the .41 magnum
shot flatter over longer ranges than did the 44. Also, the .41 magnum
has only about 75% of the recoil and muzzel blast of a .44 with equal
barrel lenghts. Which do I like better? The .41, of course. Which do I
currently shoot, the .44 from a 5" barrel Smith & Wesson 629-5.

Best Wishes,
 
for you 41 mag fans

The 41 looks like a awesome caliber and I want a taurus revolver in that caliber one day but for personal protection. do you guys worry about over penitration at all. with speeds I would think it would be as fast as 357 with the power of 44mag and do they make a 41special? thanks for any info!!! :confused: :confused: :) :cool:
 
I had been drooling at the Taurus snubbie in 41 but kinda wondered on its practicality as well. I only have one because I load my own. I played with some target loads that felt like 38 specials, so if you make your own you can make them as gentle as you want. I wouldnt be running Keith loads in a Taurus anyway :eek: I guess most facotry loads would be pretty stout for hunting. I wouldnt know though, never shot any.

Randy
 
Since I haven't posted in this thread yet, I should add my .02 as I'm a big .41 mag supporter.

I like .44 mag, I have 3 guns in .44 and I'm looking for the 'one', but right now my fav in .44 is a performance center 629 trail boss 3" ported, etc, etc.
I'm afraid the biggest furball I've put down with it so far is a raccoon, but I see that changing sometime.

I like .41 also, I have at least 6 guns in that caliber at all times, and I can't really say I have a tangible need for any of them.

I have several blackhawks/bisleys/bisqueros/hunters, etc in .41 and they are the softest shooting magnums ever. I esp. like my .41 mag 5" stainless acusport.
I personally don't have a .357 mag blackhawk anymore, I got rid of it, now I need the 50th anniversary blackhawk.
I have a performance center snubby 657 in the mail, and it should be in my posession before june.

The secret to why the .41s shoot so good is the guns they are chambered in.
Heavy enough to take book loads all day, not punishing on the shooter (Unless you're shooting the taurus snubby!!)

So what is the point of my post?
I like e'm all, and so should you!
Stop arguing, and go shooting.
If it's raining, load some ammo!
If you run out of stuff to load, order more!!
If you can't decide which one to shoot, bring 'em all!
If you can't carry them all, get a bigger truck!
Sheesh, do I gotta think of everything.... :D :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top