[Onty]

After reading a lot about 41 magnum, one thing always struck me: older, experienced guys, who shot a lot, on the end, always praised 41 Magnum as the fine, ultimate balance between power, recoil and handgun weight. I also felt the same and finally managed to get 41 Bisley. While collecting reloading data and working on loads, today I stumbled upon this website; http://www.handloads.com/misc/linebaugh.penetration.tests.asp

Looks like that my intuition had the ground: 260 LFN at 1354 fps goes whooping 41” in wet paper (unfortunately, no info what’s meplat dia). How about this one; 41 Special, 230 gr at 955 fps goes 26”, almost the same (27”) as 44 Magnum with Keith bullet 250 gr at 1200 fps.

Well, if my piggy bank swells enough, my custom revolver is going to be 41 Bisley, stainless, with 7-1/2” barrel and some other goodies to make my shooting bit more accurate.

If I am correct, 41 Magnum is the last one Keith and others at that time pushed through. They made full circle and at old age they found the optimum solution for not so young hands. By all accounts, old dogs knew what they were doing...

[munk]

If what we read is correct, Keith and others envisioned a smaller framed revolver than the 'N' and the 41 as the ultimate law enforcement round.

I think the 41 is at the happy balance point, though.


munk

[turbonatr]

If only Ruger would chamber their GP100 in 41 magnum... :(

[Black Snowman]

41 is definately a nice round. As an alternative there's 10mm, which is in neighborhood of the 41 Magnum but needs moon clips for the relovers and doesn't quite have the case capacity.

I have a S&W 646 that I'm going to convert to 10mm. I think it's about the best balance of size and power I can find in a revolver. Right now there's a better bullet selection in 400 with all of the 40 S&W, 40 cal cowboy guns, and 10mm Autos running around.

Besides. I already load 10mm for my Delta Elite and I like moon clips. ;) I think Taurus is making a 5 shot Tracker in their compact frame in 41 magnum. That could be a nice woods or CCW if you can get it without porting and maybe fixed sights.

[turbonatr]

S&W 646 10mm Conversion (http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=216693&highlight=646)

[thatguy]

The .41 is essentially a .44 light. Reduce the .44 15% and there you are. Not really "balance" between the .357 and the .44, but much closer to the .44 which will do anything the .41 will do but better. Better factory ammo choices, better bullet selection for reloading, etc. I have a couple of .41s but you must hand load for this caliber and I wouldn't have a .41 if I didn't already have a .44 magnum.

[munk]

Actually, the 41 has outperformed the 44 in factory ammo out of 4" or less barrels. Metcalf did a comparison several years ago. Have no idea what special proprietary rounds do to this 'test', or if still true with today's factory ammo.

I suggest you sell those 'light 44's' you have to someone who would appreciate them more.

The one thing a 44 er uh 43 can do that a 41 cannot is deliver a 300 gr round effectively. For that, my hat's off to the 43.

But if the truth be known, the 45 Colt is a better round than the 43 will ever be. You might as well call the 43 calibre a '45 light" as the 45 Colt can deliver 300 gr bullets with more fps and more energy at less pressure.

One thing the 41 does have is a quicker follow up shots, and more penetration with like BC bullets than does the 43 calibre. The 41 has what the 375 H&H has- a unique ability to perform better than expected. Some happy coincidence of just the right amount of powder and bullet diameter.

In truth, they are all fine rounds and I like them all. If I only had one, it would not be a 43 though.


munk


.

[turbonatr]

Buffalo Bore ammo has 3 loads offered in 41 magnum that all exceed 1000ft/lbs (if muzzle energy is your thing).

I agree with the above statements regarding the 45 Colt. Fantastic cartridge. My favorite big bore wheelgun cartridge.

[munk]

The 44, er 43, will make 1200 foot pounds of energy with select loadings.
But anything it can do the 45 Colt can, and better.
This is just a game- this cartridge comparison stuff. You can always find a larger cartridge to compare to the one below it as 'light'.

The truth is the 41 is a very efficient round, has a lot of oomph, and seems to be smack dab in the middle of effectiveness for its diameter, power level, and current bullet technology. It does things well. It kills deer well. It is accurate. It allows quick, follow up shots. Why ruin this with comparisons to a slightly larger round?

The 41 seems to be 'the' round for a lot of savvy shooters. Everything about it is right. It fits. If I want more power than the 41 can deliver I don't stop at the 44, I keep going until I'm in a new ball game.

My next big bore is going to be the Ruger 480 And yes, there are more powerful rounds, but I don't want a handcannon, I want a handgun round that allows me to use and carry a handgun within the virtues of the species.

munk

[thatguy]

The .45 Colt has a bigger case capacity so yes, it can exceed the .44 magnum... assuming you have a strong enough gun.

I am not aware of any tests showing the .41 mag surpassing the .44 from 4" barrels. In what way was it better? Velocity? Energy? I would like to read this info if available.

[Hutt]

I consistently get better scores with the .41 for sillouettes as opposed to my .44......... Flatter trajectory does make a difference.

[happy old sailor]

anyone that doesnt love a .41 does not own one and has not shot one often enough to appreciate this fine little round. someone is always developing something bigger, faster, more powerfull, more shiny, ad finitum. for critters the .41 will not kill, they make some sincere rifle calibers. while i love my bigger handguns, my .41s are like eating ice cream. gooood

[munk]

thatguy: The article was by Dick Metcalf writing in Shooting Times in the 1990's. There's some chance I may still have it- and my son and I are cleaning out my gun room all the next month. Have you ever read Metcalf before? His special project was always the 41 He wrote about it frequently.

Old Sailor had a point; if it can't be killed by a 41, there are a lot of good rifles made for just that thing.



munk

[20cows]

20 some odd years ago, when I was looking to get my first big bore revolver, I sought my older brothers advice. I cannot tell you how much money I spent in long-distance phone bills listening to him tell me I wouldn't be happy with anything less than a 44 mag. Being the dutiful little brother that I am and having my own drum, I followed all of his advice except caliber.

I acquired a Ruger BH in .41 mag and have never regretted the choice. Most of the time I have shot ".41 special " level loads in it and this has been sufficient for everything I have asked it to do. Recently I tried a less than maximum Li'l Gun load that clocked 1350 fps out of my 4 5/8" barrel (215 gr SWC). This is plenty for me, but I can get more (note it was less than maximum load).

I have nothing against other people's choices, but I like my .41.

[wanderinwalker]

Hmmmm.... The guys happy with their .41s seem just like me happy with my .44; all the arguing from other sides doesn't matter, I likes what I gots! :D

I admit, I am on the lookout for a nice 4" N-frame Smith, hopefully have enough money by, I dunno, next January! ;) If one pops up in .41 or .357 or .45 Colt, then that is what will come home, though I'd prefer a .44 Magnum. Really, I guess I am a caliber ho; I like 'em all so long as it goes BANG! (preferably BOOOM!!) and puts holes in evil tin cans, old stumps, breaks chunks off of big faraway rocks, etc. But I'd like at least one of each before it is all over.

[munk]

I have two Smith 41's and two Ruger 41's. I have a Ruger 44. I came close to getting a nickel plated N frame 357 but couldn't get the bread fast enough.

munk

[Majic]

The one good thing the .44mag lovers do by spouting all the virtues of the mighty .44 is to have everyone else leave all the nice .41mags for us to snatch up.

[patentnonsense]

Georgia Ammo has pretty good prices for .41Mag JHP new ammo - $350/1000 - I may have to get out and burn some of this!

[munk]

The greatest constituency in America:

Chevy Truck
3006 rifle
44 mag revolver
used to be a Buck folder, now
?


The first handgun I ever owned was a 41 mag. I owe it all to a hunting Digest. There was an article in there about best buys for the year- and the 41 Ruger Bisley was it for hunting big bore. Everything he said made sense.
Yep, Clay Harvey did it. I did not own a handgun until I was 32 or 33 years of age.

I like the 45 Colt quite a bit. If I had to pick one, though, 41.

The 44, er, 43, is a marvelous cartridge. It comes into it's own with heavier bullets. Frankly, I can't figure out how it made it's rep on the 240's. If there ever was a mismatch, that's it. MHO Feels like you hit a baseball too close to the handle. The 260's and 300's smooth it out.

But there is no wrong bullet weight to the 41. I only wish manufacturer's would quicken the rate of twist a bit. No matter, it shoots about the limit of it's case capacity, somewhere around 250 jacketed and a little more cast, usually with accuracy. On the other end, it even shoots the 170's and 180's fine.


munk

[SRYnidan]

I have had a S&W 57 since the early eighties. Recoil is easier and the range of bulley weights is great now that I have found a Marlin in .41 to go with it there is no reason to go another route.