Why .41 Magnum?

.40cal

Why .41 Magnum?

Why .41 mag? Why not a 44? It seems that the 44 will do anything and everything that the 41 will do and with more choices in loads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would I be better off with the 44 in the long run?
Click to expand...

The 44 mag will do anything and everything that a 41 mag does. As others have said, if you are not a handloader/reloader you should choose the 44. The 44 throws a slightly heavier bullet at the same velocity as the 41. Max loads for either have stout recoil and will take similar game, if the shooter does his/her job.

Just "to stir the puddin", you may want to consider revolvers in .45 L Colt. Buffalo Bore has some heavy loads for the Ruger Redhawk and Blackhawk (260 gr. @ 1,500 fps).

I personally own a few .41 Mag revolvers.
 
The big disappointment in the .41 Magnum came because it was not the gun/cartridge combination so desired by law enforcement officers of the time.

The gun they dreamed of was one to replace the .38 Special/.357 Magnum revolvers then in use, notably the K- Framed Smiths and Colt's medium framed Troopers and Official Police revovlers.

What would have been an ideal cartridge would have been a .40 or .41 caliber cartridge that could have been built on these frame sizes. Something just a like the current .40 S&W or similar round that maybe could be handled in, say, an L-Framed Smith.

The .41 Magnum was too much for urban police use, and the N-Frame too heavy for most daily police routine.

Fine as it is, the .41 Magnum just missed the targeted market.

Bob Wright
 
Funny thing is the N Frame weights the same as an L frame which I carried for many years. I laugh about big strong men complaining about carrying a couple more pounds. If you are recoil sensitive why are you shooting a magnum revolver?
 
I am a .41 Magnum fan, but I agree with Jeff Cooper's phrase re another matter-"An ingenious solution to a non-existent problem." Like the 10MM Auto it was meant to fill that so-called "caliber gap"-which it did nicely-but really didn't fill any real need. Some people felt with demise of the black poweder 41 Colt an new smokeless powder was needed. IIRC there was a wildcat called the 400 Eimer in the 1920s and Colt experimented with a Colt 41 Special in the 1930s. What the gun writers really wanted was a revolver like the S&W L frame firing a 200 grain bullet at about 800-900 fps-sort of a 44 Special "Lite". Instead we got a 44 Magnum "Lite" built on the N-Frame. A great gun,but not quite what was envisioned.
 
The big disappointment of the .44 is the heavy recoil.
Too bad Remington boosted the velocity 200 fps beyond Elmer Keith's recommendation.
 
The L-Framed Smiths were heavy, true, but not as heavy an an N-Framed gun with a full length lugged barrel.

The L-Framed gun appealed to law enforcement because of its K-Framed size grip. The N-Frame, good as it is, is often too big, with a too long backstrap to trigger length, for many men to be able to fire multiple shots DA with rapidity and accuracy.

Again, what the law enforcement community as a whole wanted was a medium framed revolver with better expected stopping power than the .38s then in use.

Bob Wright
 
The big disappointment of the .44 is the heavy recoil.
Too bad Remington boosted the velocity 200 fps beyond Elmer Keith's recommendation.
Click to expand...

This is easily modified by handloaders. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain that available ammunition is too powerful, especially when you have the .44 special option also available. If that's too expensive, then you're going to have a problem shooting the .41 mag anyway.
 
Last edited:
The L-Framed Smiths were heavy, true, but not as heavy an an N-Framed gun with a full length lugged barrel.
Click to expand...

Between a 4" 586 and a 4" 629 there is 1.5 oz of difference.

The L-Framed gun appealed to law enforcement because of its K-Framed size grip. The N-Frame, good as it is, is often too big, with a too long backstrap to trigger length, for many men to be able to fire multiple shots DA with rapidity and accuracy.
Click to expand...

3.34" vs 3.68" = .34" difference. It is a little longer, proper grip selection can mitigate this, but we are already talking about an N frame with the 41. Rate of accurate fire relates more to the skill of the shooter. Most cops I have worked with are not what I would call skilled shooters.
 
I see no reason to get a 41 mag it serves no purpose for me.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly. I have 22s, .357s, I have .44s (.429) and .45s.... The .41 just doesn't fit. I can load .44Mag up or down to meet my needs so 'recoil' isn't a factor as mentioned above. If you are not a reloader, you can still load .44Specials if recoil sensitive. Not so in .41Mag. There is no denying the .41 is a good cartridge (a reloader's cartridge in my mind).... It just doesn't fit into 'my' stable. In fact .... If the 22LR/Mag can't, the .357 can, if the .357 doesn't do it, I can reach for the .44Spec, if it can't handle it, the .45 Colt will :) . Big and slow is way to go... So where does even the .44Mag fit in? Hah! Another range 'argument' ....errr discussion!
 
What would have been an ideal cartridge would have been a .40 or .41 caliber cartridge that could have been built on these frame sizes. Something just a like the current .40 S&W or similar round that maybe could be handled in, say, an L-Framed Smith.
Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my mouth... (or keyboard}

Seems to me the ideal platform for this caliber would have been the Colt .41 Frame size guns. (Official Police size.. pretty much L frame size)

O.K. The L frame S&W and Ruger GP-100 didn't exisit at the time, (the Colt did though) and it probably was a bit to much too stuff in a K frame.

Surprised the 41 Magnum, or a slightly lighter loaded 41 never ended up in a 6 shot heavy-mid frame size gun.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't go out and buy a 41 mag currently, but have owned a couple in the past. With the lighter 175 grain or so bullets it's a pretty flat shooting cartridge.
 
Had a modern 41 special existed, the 41 magnum may well have been more succcessful commercially. But then... the 41 mag is my favoritre big bore and I have no need for a 44 mag or 44 special. I have shot 41 mag cowboy loads and they simply don't do it for me.

It fits well into my caliber sequence in terms of power and practical uses.

It is a fine caliber for a revolver and one that has most of the utility of the 44 mag until as mentioned earlier you get in the 300 gr range of bullet wt in the 44 mag. But I personally see little point in loading the 44 mag with 300 grain bullets when I shoot the 480 Ruger with 325 gr bullets.

It is very difficult to "convince" someone to choose the 41 mag over the 44 mag. You just have to shoot both and make up your mind.
 
"I see no reason to get a 41 mag it serves no purpose for me."

My sentiments exacatly, but regarding the .44 Magnum.

I don't know why, but the .44 Mag. leaves me completely cold, while the .41 Magnum and the .44 Special both fascinate me.
 
I like all of them .357, .41, .44 and the Specials. You can even get .41 Special cases. I just loaded up some .41 Mags with 17 grains of 2400 and the 210 grain Sierra. I found an old box of them I had.
 
In most parts of the country, we currently don't have to choose but can have both. There may come a day when we may not be as lucky. Should that day come, give me a .41 and let me roll my own. I find those who prefer the .41 are those who have experienced it in depth.
 
This is much like the 38 special versus 9mm discussion except one is traditionally a revolver cartridge and the other semi-auto. At least for now, we can own both and that is a good thing.
 
You can never have to much fun, rabid fire double action at 15 yards with my old model 58. I'm still filing the sights a wee bit at a time to get my groups centered. I'm getting close.


septembercarrygunchalle.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top