Why so little love for .41 Mag??

I'm a big member of the 41 Magnum Club . A model 58 S&W opened my eyes to what they can do.
Usually the people who question the validity of the 41 magnum don't own them and don't cast bullets and handload for them . Those of us who do...We Know.

Besides someone has to love the red headed step children of the shooting world.
I pull for the underdog,
Gary
 
The Model 69 is a five shot .44 Mag on the L frame already. Why anyone would want a .41 in the same gun is alien to me.
Click to expand...

I think .41 would be the better choice for that gun, but the availability of ammo is probably the controlling factor.
 
.41 Magnum has its place, because there are frequent mentions of people getting 44 and then loading it down or shooting only 44 Special. The 41 is inherently a bit tamer.

The real sleeper though is 41 Special, because at its pressure level can be adapted to a 357 magnum platform. My Clement Custom is built from a 38 Special GP100 and holds 6 rounds. Starline has brass for 41 Special.
 
I wonder if a 41 Special (200@800) on a K frame platform would have been more popular with cops in 1964? Lighter, much less recoil but good power.
 
the .41 mag is interesting to me currently. I have a GP100 in 357 mag, and then my next step in power is a Desert Eagle in 44 mag. I love the DE but it's a finicky bugger to shoot proficiently. Big, heavy , expensive , but puts a BIG smile on your face. I'm looking at a 41 mag revolver 7" bbl for higher velocity accuracy but I don't really need another 44. I like the Ruger super Blackhawk hunter in .41 . I also handload so ammo is not a purchase concern.
 
I love my .41 Mag., a Model 58 S&W.

I've never had any interest at all in the .44 Magnum. Love the .44 Special, though.

At one time in the US .41 caliber cartridges/handguns were EXTREMELY popular.

The .41 Short Rimfire was one of the most popular self-defense cartridges in the United States in the 1800s, being chambered most famously in the Remington Model 95 derringer and various other small revolvers (Colt Cloverleaf) and pistols.

Colt also offered a more powerful .41 Long in the New Line revolver.

When centerfire started to take over, Colt brought us the .41 Short and Long Colts. The .41 Long Colt was particularly popular, so popular that S&W for a time investigated bringing out their own .41 round to compete with the Colt, but never did.

Elmer Keith considered the .41 Long to be a good defensive cartridge, but when the .41 Magnum came out I believe that he questioned why S&W didn't simply go back to loading 200-gr. bullets in the .38 Special and .357 Magnum for police use, which he felt would give much the same results.
 
Charter Arms has come out with a 23 OZ 5 shot revolver.... It is being built on the same frame as the 45 ACP & 45 Colt ... The barrel length is 2.5 inches ... I think this would make a solid self defense option ....
I own a few Charter revolvers one being a Bulldog in 44Spl ... Which pretty much fills my need for a small frame big bore niche revolver...
 
Elliottsdad said:
It seems it is a goldilocks cartridge: more power/reach/lead downrange than the .357, but less of the violent recoil of the .44. Why is this cartridge so obscure? On paper at least, it seems to fill quite a useful niche.
Click to expand...

Similar to the 16 ga. shotgun, it too fills a useful niche, especially for someone who only has one shotgun. But, like the .41 mag, you have two other popular gauges that can overlap 16ga. performance , while being better in the other extremes. Like the .41 mag, factory ammo availability is what really kills the 16 ga.
 
For me, the case against the .41 mag is as simple as walking into a store and looking at what is available on the shelf and what it costs.

Of course that doesn’t explain how I ended up with a .454 Casull. :p
 
I bought both 58 & Ruger BH when they first came out. The 58 was outstanding
for a fixed sight revolver if you shot factory 210s. Nothing wrong with 41mg, it
was just the 16guage shotgun of pistol cartridges. Not enough bigger than 357
or smaller than 44 mag. I really never noticed much difference in recoil between
41 & 44 mg. That might be because I shot SA, so control is not a factor to me.
I have a couple 57s, just because I collect S&Ws. Hardly ever shoot them. The
41 cal has never caught on for some reason. Herters had a 401 power mag but
was based on old 41 Colt not the magnum case.
 
Probably the main reason is that the .41Mag didn't really fill the spot it was intended for. It was envisioned as a happy medium between the .357Mag and the .44Mag, primarily for police and self-defense work. Instead it ended up being a competitor with the .44Mag.

Once it became viewed as a competitor for the .44Mag, it was clearly the loser in the comparison. The common guns available for the original purpose were pretty much just rechambered .44Mag revolvers. The loadings couldn't quite compete and ammunition was generally less widely available and often more expensive.

The people who wanted a .44Mag sized revolver could buy one and feed it for less and more easily. There simply wasn't any really good reason to choose the .41Mag over the .44Mag for people who were looking for a carry revolver more powerful than the .357Mag.

Add in the fact that there wasn't any .41 Special ammo to shoot when you wanted some really light loads to shoot for fun or for reduced cost and that made things even harder on the .41Mag.

Finally, when the 10mm came out, there was talk about how the 10mm was more powerful than the .41Mag. Although that isn't even close to being accurate, it's still often repeated as truth. Anyway, one more reason not to buy a .41Mag for those who accepted the assertion at face value.

It was a good idea that just wasn't implemented as well as it could have been--that coupled with some bad luck was enough to keep it from being mainstream.
 
A great caliber, but over-shadowed by the mighty .44's. It's a handloader's proposition now, ammunition being prohibitively expensive unless you've hit the lottery big time.

But by handloading, it comes into it's own...Lyman's Keith replica 410459, if memory serves, is a superb bullet for hunting or defense if you don't mind toting a 48 oz. revolver.

My Smith 57, a 6 incher, bought new in 77, then tweaked at the service shop in Smith's old plant up in Springfield, has always been a tack-driver. Most any reasonable load will do at less than 2" at 25 yds from a seated, back rested position, and that covers lead alloy (Lyman's venerable 410459 if memory serves), which was a Keith inspired design It's posted sub 2" gps all the way out to 50 yds when I had the eyes and wrists to steer it properly. I kept these at 1200 fps or below to allow exclusive use of wheel weight alloy, and 50-50 lube, but most were for fun target shooting at just below 1000 fps. It was and is a great bullet, every bit the equal of the standard for the .44's (Lyman's 429421 or it's equivalent.) Good powders abound for this velocity spread including: Unique, 231, Herco, WST, and WSF. All will fill the bill.

Too, Sierra's 170 & 210 gr JHP's, are equally superb and probably better for hunting with their greater velocity. I've had them at better than 1300 fps over the chrono and with the accuracy mentioned above. Better handgun-hunting bullets, at least here in KY, are hard to imagine. 2400, Ac#9, and Win 296 all give about equal accuracy and that kind of velocity.

I also worked with Speer and Hornady offerings at ~210 gr weights and found them equally good. I especially like the Hornady XTP at 210 gr for deer. It's done the job several times in the past 20 years or so.

HTH's but the .41 Magnum IS a reloader's caliber, but offset that with the chance to find a truly great condition gun at less than you'd pay for a pristine Smith or Ruger in .44 Magnum. Lastly, I'd second a previous poster's wish for a Smith M69 (L frame with a five shot cylinder) in .41 Magnum. The gun's lighter weight, and the .41's 15% less recoil than a .44 Mag. would make it a natural for back country carry.

Lastly, if you go the .41 route, I'd recommend laying in an apple supply of brass to last through the future. It's unique as far as I know, and not easy to find on occasion. Starline is what I use now. It's listed at $100 for 500 pieces this evening.

Best Regards, Rod
 
I have 2 examples of why I like the .41 Mag
8y6TB6z.jpg


2WgAmpq.jpg


Henry Big Boy and my Ruger Redhawk
 
Drm50 said:
I bought both 58 & Ruger BH when they first came out. The 58 was outstanding
for a fixed sight revolver if you shot factory 210s. Nothing wrong with 41mg, it
was just the 16guage shotgun of pistol cartridges. Not enough bigger than 357
or smaller than 44 mag. I really never noticed much difference in recoil between
41 & 44 mg. That might be because I shot SA, so control is not a factor to me.
I have a couple 57s, just because I collect S&Ws. Hardly ever shoot them. The
41 cal has never caught on for some reason. Herters had a 401 power mag but
was based on old 41 Colt not the magnum case.
Click to expand...
Pretty good comparison, but the 16 gauge is a better middle ground between 12 and 20 gauge than the .41 is compared to the .357 and .44 Mag.

.41 is so much closer to .429 than it is to .357, so it never was going to be comparable to .357 much. Maybe had it been a little smaller and K frame .357's had been chambered in a smaller theoretical .39 or .40 caliber with a 5 shot cylinder, that middle ground between .357 and .44 would have been achieved.

That time has long passed. I think if such a revolver were to be made today and be a success, it can't be for a .41 caliber; the lack of popularity for the .41 Magnum just makes it difficult.

What I think can work is the 10mm Magnum and given that it's just a lengthened 10mm Auto and can't be used in semi pistols, there's no reason not to slap a rim on that case and call it a 10mm Auto Rim Magnum. Then you don't need to use moon clips for it, you could still shoot 10mm Auto or .40 S&W with a moon clip, and it uses the same bullets as the .40 and 10mm use, possibly with some heavy 200+ grain lead bullets for use at 950 fps.

Any 10mm revolver can be modified to 10mm Magnum and the difference in bullet size, .01" is insignificant, just as .410 to .429 is.
 
41 mag

My lack of interest in the 41 mag is due to the fact that I already own 44 spl and 44 mags and handload for both. I can do anything the 41 can with one or the other and their components are more readily available. Charter arms is now offering a 41 mag in their bulldog so maybe it will start a revival of the 41. Now if they start offering a 41 in their Target model with a 4 or 5 inch barrel I may have to give one a home in my safe. I think it would give the S&W 69 a good run for the money.
 
Last edited:
The .41 mag is of even more interest to me as I stated in my above post, and furthermore I got into casting about 2 years ago. There are several mould configs available for .41 . As long as new brass is available as is the case with Starline , I think i'm going to pick up the SRH with the 7.5" bbl.
 
I keep reading about Charter Arms offering a .41 mag, but it's not on their website and I'm wondering where to find one. I've been banging away with my .41's since the mid 80's and loving it, would really like to add a snub. My 6"&4" Model 57 no dash and my Henry BBS need a little brother. I think a nice SWC at 220gr at around 700-750 fps would be very affective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top