That's correct. IMO, the fact that it ended up being a .44Mag -P instead of a true half-step between the .357 and 44 is part of the reason it never caught on. There might have been a real market for a middle-ground cartridge, but there wasn't any call for a cartridge that was essentially a light version of the .44Mag.Actually it is much closer to the 44 than it is to the 357. It is 15% less than the 44.
* * *The 41 Special is in a very packable 3" GP100. I put on a glove after a couple of shots of 41 Special.
Seems like one of the cartridges more difficult to source than 41 magnum is 10mm and certainly 10mm Magnum. Arguing ammo availability seems rather laughable.
I have both in .44 Special. The nice size and weight of the Bulldog is so much nicer to carry than the GP-100. The .41 wouldn't make the GP-100 any smaller or weigh less. My thoughts anyway.Would a .41 Special in that set up (GP-100) be preferable to a 3" Charter Arms 'Bulldog' in .44 Special?
I don't think the problem with getting a .41 Mag is being afraid of them. I am sure the .41 Mag is a dandy cartridge... But to a man who already has .357, .44 Special, .44 Mag, and .45 Colt revolvers.... What is the logical point of owning and investing in the .41? As you say .41 is close to .429 anyway. As a reloader, I have a wide range of options for these cartridges, so I have no 'need' for the .41 ... or the .44-40, or .32-20, etc. Now I really like the .45 Colt and .44 Special, so I concentrate on them. That's my preference ... but others may really like the .41 Mag. I don't see the controversy here. A deer is just as dead being hit with a .41 as a .44 or a.45, or an 30-30... And a hole is a hole in paper targets, or tin cans... All goodbecause I wasn't afraid to go with the .41 Mag.
Me personally, no. Why would I bother with a .41 Special, as in not even a .41 Magnum, when Ruger already makes this gun in 10mm Auto? IDK what .41 Special's pressure levels are and what kind of power I can expect from such a gun.Just a thought experiment:
Let's say Ruger offered a dedicated 3" GP-100 in .41 Special - say, with a fixed Novak rear sight and fiber optic front, like their TALO Edition 3" 10mm GP-100.
Would a .41 Special in that set up be preferable to a 3" Charter Arms 'Bulldog' in .44 Special?
What "41 Special" loading are you using?Shot my 41 Special yesterday along side a 357 and 44 magnum with more or less comparable loadings for caliber and could easily think of it as the true middle ground between 357 and 44 magnums, considering the respective guns were not the same size.
I'll admit that most of my thoughts on 10mm Magnum are theoretical. There are currently no production revolvers in the chambering, the only way to get a 10mm Mag revolver is to send a 10mm Auto revolver to a gunsmith and have them ream the chambers out.
I'm just saying if Ruger or S&W made a 10mm Mag revolver, I'd buy it over a .41 Mag. When I can shoot factory ammo in it for a quarter dollar a shot, even though it's weaker, it's more sensible to me given I have several guns chambered in .40 and would gladly reload the 10mm Mag for the extra power when it's needed.
The thread is about why people don't like .41 Mag as much as other options and I've given many reasons why I'd rather spend my money on something else.
But to a man who already has .357, .44 Special, .44 Mag, and .45 Colt revolvers.... What is the logical point of owning and investing in the .41?
What "41 Special" loading are you using?
I used the quotes because, as far as I can tell there's no SAAMI spec for a 41 Special cartridge
What "41 Special" loading are you using?
I actually have the same criticism of the '.41SPC'... I know Starline makes brass for it, essentially reverse engineering it (-1/8" off the .41MAG case) but unless I've missed it, it is not produced in a production firearm. You can handload '.41SPC' cartridges, but what makes it a .41SPC and not just a light .41MAG load is the absence of definition.