Posted: 8/4/2017 10:41:47 PM EDT
|
I think 41 Magnum always gets the short end of the stick. It would be a much more popular cartridge if revolver makers could start to put it on frames smaller than similar offerings in 44 Magnum.
For example: between an N frame 41 Magnum and an N frame 44 Magnum, the 41 Magnum will be heavier due to smaller chambers and more metal in the barrel. It will also have less power... because 41 Magnum. A equivalent 41 Magnum Blackhawk will weigh more than a 44 Magnum Blackhawk for the same reasons. What I propose: An L frame 6 shot 41 Magnum? Can it be done? A GP100 6 shot 41 Magnum? I mean if we can have a 44 Special GP100, why not a 41 Magnum? I'd even settle for a K frame 5 shot 41 Magnum. Who's with me? |
|
Quoted:
I hear ya, but it won't be happening. The .41 is a sweet round, but not many think that. It just never got traction like the 44. You would think the void between.357 and .44 would be easy to fill with the .41. Nope. Yeah I get it. Elmer Keith, even though a huge proponent of his 44 Magnum still thought highly of the 41 Magnum. I don't currently own a 41 Magnum. But with the right gun, I'd be all over it. |
|
It's only 19 thousandths smaller. It doesn't do anything a 44 won't do.
It's like comparing a .270 Win to a .280 Rem. They both do the same thing with factory ammo. One just became more popular and has market inertia. I wouldn't mind a .41 Mag, but to say it fills any niche is a stretch. |
|
I own a 6" model 57 and a 4" model 29. Shooting the .41 is a joy compared to the .44, plus I can reliably hit steel at 100yds with the .41, which if I'm on my game I can do with the .44 about 50% of the time.
The only reason I'll carry the 29 in the woods is two less inches of barrel. An L frame would be nice, but I'm just as happy with the N frame in a good holster. |
Not me. I love my stainless N Frame S&W model 657 with 4" barrel. It's perfection. Less weight and the 210 gr Remington rounds would kick much worse than they do now. If I could change anything, I would have Safariland restart the manufacture of their Comp speed loaders for the .41 magnum.
https://postimg.org/image/5q1xp0my5/]  [/url][/img]
|
|
Quoted:
I would love a 41 686 I saw a custom colt python .41 magnum conversion once ).
|
|
I speculate one reason the 41 Magnum never got popular was the absence of a 41 Special.
The development of the 357 and 44 magnums went in a logical course. 38 special to 357 Magnum and so on. Remington put out the 41 Magnum in 1964 but there was no standardized 41 Special for practice and the times when Magnum loads weren't needed. A guy can make his own 41 special ammo but the round was never standardized. |
|
I think there are a couple smiths doing 5-shot conversions on GP100s, sounds like it would be a great woods gun.
I have three .41 Mags, all in Ruger Blackhawks....two are older 3-Screws, and one is a New Model. Heavyweight hardcast lead bullets in 250-265gr range are impressive, and can be loaded to 1200+ fps. |
| I used to shoot a 6 inch .41 smith(model 57) at a deer target(steel cutout) at 200 yards. I got tired of picking up the steel plate after hitting it at 200 yards. I love a .41 smith and I think it was federal(if I remember, somewhere in the early 70's?) that had a police load for the model 58. I shot mine with the loading about like the police load. about 900-1,000 fps with a 200 gr. lead bullet. I also think its a little more accurate than a .44 mag.(and no, I don't really have any to base it on.) but if I had to have only one revolver it would be a .41(ok, the problem is I have a bunch of other pistols and calibers I really like too). but I don't think a .41 smith can be beat, equaled maybe, but not beat!(ok, I love Smith .41 mag pistols, any barrel .) |
|
Quoted:
Does S&W even make a .41 mag any more? I like the idea of the Redhawk, but it feels like aiming a kettlebell. That thing just feels yuuuge. The .41 mag Henry rifle appeals to me. If it wasn't for Skeeter Skelton I'd have one right now, but I found a good deal on a .44 Special first. I used my dad's last year to hunt with and I loved shooting it. Attached File |
|
Quoted:
No. Bowen said even 10mm is too big to be a six shooter. ETA, quick sketch-up in CAD. This is only approximate because I can't find the exact bolt circle dimension for a 686 plus so I had to approximate it. In each sketch the inner cycle is the chamber diameter and outer circle is the rim diameter of the respective cartridge. 
Approximate 686plus cylinder 
Theoretical 41 Rem Mag cylinder bases on the same bolt circle as the above approximate 686plus cylinder. It's thin but not as thin as some other cylinder walls like the cylinder wall of a J-frame. |
|
Quoted:
.41 is one of those things that should have taken off like a rocket, but didn't because of timing. It's perfectly sized between the .347 and .430(44) magnums. Imagine if Dirty Harry carried a 57 everybody would say - "what's a 44 magnum" . |
|
Quoted:
It's only 19 thousandths smaller. It doesn't do anything a 44 won't do. It's like comparing a .270 Win to a .280 Rem. They both do the same thing with factory ammo. One just became more popular and has market inertia. I wouldn't mind a .41 Mag, but to say it fills any niche is a stretch. It's still not enough for me, give me a 44 every time. |
|
Quoted:
I speculate one reason the 41 Magnum never got popular was the absence of a 41 Special. The development of the 357 and 44 magnums went in a logical course. 38 special to 357 Magnum and so on. Remington put out the 41 Magnum in 1964 but there was no standardized 41 Special for practice and the times when Magnum loads weren't needed. A guy can make his own 41 special ammo but the round was never standardized. 357 and 44 Magnums came from old black powder loads that continued through time to become what they are. 41 Magnum was never anything other than that. |
|
Quoted:
I speculate one reason the 41 Magnum never got popular was the absence of a 41 Special. The development of the 357 and 44 magnums went in a logical course. 38 special to 357 Magnum and so on. Remington put out the 41 Magnum in 1964 but there was no standardized 41 Special for practice and the times when Magnum loads weren't needed. A guy can make his own 41 special ammo but the round was never standardized. |
|
What a beauty!
|
|
Thats a model 58 M&P not 57.
CD |
|
Quoted:
The original load was called the .41 Police and was not the hotrod you see today. It was going to be a more mild service load. 210 gr LSWC at about 900 fps, your .41 Police load 210 gr JSP/JHP at 1300 fps, your full magnum/hunting load CD |
|
Quoted:
Thats a model 58 M&P not 57. CD Quoted:
CD |
|
Have owned and enjoyed my .41 Magnums since the mid-1980's. After experimenting with lots of loads I ended up using 210 to 215 grain lead semi-wadcutters driven 970 fps with 15.5 grains of IMR-4227 or 6.9 to 7.2 grains of WW-231. I use Winchester standard large pistol primers, you don't have to have magnum primers for these two loads. You can shoot these loads all day long without flinching or cutting your hands. They are accurate and powerful enough for self-defense.
Full power .41 Magnum loads aren't as bad as full power .44 Magnum, but not by much. Other than hunting, they have no useful purpose IMO. Follow-up shots are critical in a self-defense situation and full house magnum loads are the worst possible choice in that roll. I currently have a Ruger New Model Blackhawk with a 4 5/8" barrel and two S&W M57's both sporting 4" tubes. One S&W is a 1975 model with the recessed rim cylinder and pinned barrel, the other a new S&W Classic. I have a 1000 Sierra 170 grain HP bullets that I'm going to try with the starting charge of True Blue. The Western Powders website shows you can safely drive them as slow as 1050 fps. This may turn out to be another option for a self-defense load should it be accurate in my firearms. All of these "weak" loads generate close to 500 foot pounds of energy, hardly something to sneeze at. |
|
Quoted:
I think it would be possible. S&W made the 646 a six shot L-frame in 40S&W. If S&W can get 6-round of 40S&W or 7 rounds of 357 Magnum in an L-frame I would bet they could get six round of 41 Magnum. ETA, quick sketch-up in CAD. This is only approximate because I can't find the exact bolt circle dimension for a 686 plus so I had to approximate it. In each sketch the inner cycle is the chamber diameter and outer circle is the rim diameter of the respective cartridge. http://i.imgur.com/VOVms3Kl.jpg Approximate 686plus cylinder http://i.imgur.com/QkafV5Tl.jpg Theoretical 41 Rem Mag cylinder bases on the same bolt circle as the above approximate 686plus cylinder. It's thin but not as thin as some other cylinder walls like the cylinder wall of a J-frame. |
|
Quoted:
Not me. I love my stainless N Frame S&W model 657 with 4" barrel. It's perfection. Less weight and the 210 gr Remington rounds would kick much worse than they do now. If I could change anything, I would have Safariland restart the manufacture of their Comp speed loaders for the .41 magnum.
https://postimg.org/image/5q1xp0my5/]https://s6.postimg.org/jwhok8xtd/S_W_657_1.jpg[/url][/url] |
|
Quoted:
He did carry a 57 and 29 but called it both a .44 in the movies. John Milius owns one of the guns in .44 magnum. |