.357 Mag vs. .41 Mag


Don Lu
December 7, 2006, 04:14 PM
Im just now getting into revolvers after owning a glock. Im a little confused, Im always hearing that the .357 is the best man stopper. How can that be when the .41 Mag is bigger and more powerful or is it just cliche/PC to give that title to the .357 ?? any insight would be welcomed.

"The .357 Magnum, in Remington or Federal JHP, 125 grains, is unquestionably the most effective handgun cartridge in existence. Its proven ability to produce one shot stops exceeds that of any other round, including more powerful cartridges such as the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum. "

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Mag vs. .41 Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 7, 2006, 04:40 PM
The only way I could agree with that statement would be that there have probably been more instances recorded of use of a .357 than the .41

In my experience, the .41 did the job quite admirably. It will also penetrate fleeing Ford Broncos with impressive results.

It has more recoil than the .357 but that is to be expected.

Either one if a very effective round.

December 7, 2006, 04:43 PM
I am no expert on this, and what I say should be taken as second hand knowledge only, but.... I gather that a problem with .41 and .44 may be OVER-penetration. In other words, it blows right through a person and does not expand as well as the .357. I might very well be wrong, just something I read once.


December 7, 2006, 04:45 PM
I do not have either, have had a .357. If I were to buy a new revolver and was picking between those two, I would get a.41 Mag.

Jim March
December 7, 2006, 04:49 PM
A lot has to do with projectile design. Being more common, more development effort went into the 357. To this day, you're more likely to find a serious manstopper load in 357 than any other caliber at, say, Wally World.

I'm not convinced the 357 is still "the king" though. I'd be willing to bet that the big-hollowpoint-design Gold Dot 250gr 45LC is going to be just hell on wheels. Not very common though, odds are nobody's been shot with it yet :). Ditto some of the Gold Dots in 10mm, 41Mag and 44Mag, or some of the big-bore Cor-Bon DPX loads.

The police are switching en mass to the 40S&W and I think the 357 will continue to trounce that. VERY few criminals use big magnums and premium ammo together, and civilian self defense cases that involve actual shooting are scarce (the vast majority are "chase offs"). The 357 is superb even with "mediocre" ammo.

So the odds of somebody being shot with really, REALLY good ammo in a major caliber is a very small percentage of the total people shot. Possibly less than one per year.

That's not a reason not to carry quality ammo :cool:.

Vern Humphrey
December 7, 2006, 05:03 PM
There really is no good data on "stopping power." There will be those who dispute that, but every "definitive study" has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

That being said, the .357 has a long history of use in serious situations and comes out well. The .41 Mag was designed to beat the .357, but is just too much gun for many people and never became populat with cops. The .44 Mag is more of the same, as is the .45 LC.

None of these cartridges can be called "ineffective," however -- and your logic that if the .357 can do it, the .41 Mag can do it better is pretty solid. That assumes equivallent bullets and a shooter who does his part, of course.

December 7, 2006, 05:28 PM
The .41 can be handloaded up close to the .44 mag in energy and with pretty heavy bullets, too. It's definitely a better hunting round and with a proper bullet, would be a better man stopper. However, there's not much .41 mag variety out there for factory loads. I'd handload it, though. Also, the .41 is an N frame proposition, big guns if you're thinking concealment. There was this Taurus Titanium Tracker in .41, though. I wonder how that thing was to shoot with heavy loads? It was something like 25 ounces unloaded...:what:

For CCW self defense and especially if you don't handload, the .357 makes more sense. You can get easily concealed handguns in the caliber.

December 7, 2006, 05:32 PM
As with any projectile, there are a number of factors: bullet design, velocity, and weight being the big three. Although .44/.41 magnums work well on big, beefy animals, they offer too much penetration. And after a bullet leaves a body, all the excess energy is wasted. Thus a .41 bullet might fly through a human body without much expansion. The same thing is true of a .357 158-gr. JHP. It hasn't proven to be an effective stopper on people, but does work well on deer.

The 125-gr. JHP .357 turned out to be the "perfect storm" of sorts in that everything just came together right. According to Massad Ayoob, there's no need for any specialty ammo for the .357 because the 125-gr. JHP is so devastatingly effective. It also has a rather violent blast. It's been shown to be effective against humans, deer, automobiles and dogs.

The .41, alas, is one of those brilliant solutions to a nonexistent problem. There was no deficiency in the .357 that makes the .41 better, per se. Nor is there any deficiency in the .44 magnum that would make the .41 a better choice. The gun hacks will tell you about the .41's "flat trajectory" and the slight recoil reduction, but remember, they're paid to sell guns. The .41 won't stop humans any better than the .357 and it won't put down bear as well as a .44 mag. In other words, there's nothing a .41 can do that a .44 magnum can't do. Want recoil reduction? Load the .44 down. Want a flatter trajectory, use a lighter bullet. There's nothing wrong with a .44's trajectory.

That said, the .41 is a great caliber because the .357 and .44 magnums are great calibers. Loaded down, it'll stop humans about as well as a .357 and, loaded up, will go into the .44 magnum category. But the .44 mag also can be loaded down to good self defense loads, so again, there's no particular reason to think the .41 will be better. Ammo is certainly easier to find in .38/.357/.44 configurations. Bottom line: I'd rather have a .44 mag.

December 7, 2006, 05:35 PM
The .357 is the uber man-stopper because it was actually issued at many law-enforcement agencies (including FBI). Was the .41 mag ever issued by a large police department or federal agency?

December 7, 2006, 05:37 PM
I think the important point is, as Iggy and Vern point out, the .357 and .41 are both effective "anti-personnel" cartridges but you may find the .357 in a more carrier-friendly package. And it has the advantage of being able to shoot 38 Specials.
With that said... I dote on the lonely ol' .44 Special. :) It's way accurate, reasonable on the recoil, and still has more than enough power to cancel someone's dance card with ease! :uhoh:

December 7, 2006, 05:47 PM
Bill Jordan and Elmer Keith designed the .41 magnum for police, with a 220 grain bullet, @ 950 fps, IIRC. However, S&W put the round in nothing but the big frames, and, the 'police' loads, were about 1100 fps. Cuddly for me, anyway.

The extra weight of the revolver that S&W used killed the caliber. Police have major problems with hips and backs, thanks to belt weight, and, adding 8 oz on oneside just didn't do it for them.

None the less, the .41 is one of the best kept secrets of all time. If handloaded right, it's real close to the .429, with an edge on penetration.

I may have to look at the Taurus Tracker, in 41. Much as I'm just inclined to go with 45 Colt, a 25 oz .41, in a small package, sounds REALLY good to me.


December 7, 2006, 05:47 PM
Both are good rounds in a good firearm. It depends on what you like.

December 7, 2006, 05:56 PM
Don Lu,
I dont know where you got that quote, but it is false. A 44 or 41 magnum with the right loads would be a better manstopper than the 357. I think the overpenetration with little energy dump, comes from using heavy 44 magnum loads that arent hollow points. I think a good 240gr. HP coming out of a 41 or 44, would certainly get the job done better than the 357 ON HUMANS.
And 2 holes are better than one. And I would expect the 44 or 41 would leave quite a messy exit wound on humans, with the right HPs.

My .02

December 7, 2006, 07:55 PM
The S&W model 58 was issued to the San Antonio PD in the mid 70's. The PD had a big publicity (today would be: PC issue) issue with the issuance of a "magnum" pistol to the dept. Approximately 400 revolvers were purchased and apparently issued. Load was 210 gr SP at +/- 900 fps. Similar to a .45 ACP at 230 gr 850 fps.
Don't know when SAPD went to 9mm but they took alot of heat at the time for issuing vicious, inhumane ordnance to their street COPs. I think that's why .44s, .45s and .41s were a failure with law enforcement. That and the extra metal carried on their hips. Hence; no effectivity data from them guys.

December 7, 2006, 10:00 PM
The real question here is what you would like.

The .357 will make an excellent outdoor gun, one you can take hiking and camping. It's smaller and in a 3-inch barrel it's almost ideal. If you don't mind the extra weight, there's not a thing wrong with the .41. Despite the fact that it's so close to a .44 mag might result in a very nice price.

A good revolver is a delight to shoot. We're very lucky to live in a time and place where we have a good variety of choices. All three calibers are excellent and, as I keep hearing these stories of bear and cougar attacks, I'm convinced that people who just go out hiking with no protection are the same kind of people who leave their food in their tents.

A 4-inch 629 would be an excellent choice, or a comparable .41 mag. And the .357 is a great choice for motorists traveling out in the middle of nowhere and for taking into rest stops at night. Of course a Glock will work in those situations quite nicely.

December 8, 2006, 12:44 AM
Just my .02.... The .357 is a great round, the .41 Mag is stronger but not by much. The .44 Mag is a better hunting round than the .357 but IMO the .357 is as heavy a load I would want to carry in the streets.

125 gr .357 Mag - 1450 fps @ 583 ft/lbs
158 gr .357 Mag - 1235 fps @ 535 ft/lbs

175 gr .41 Mag - 1250 fps @ 607 ft/lbs
240 gr .41 Mag - 1250 fps @ 833 ft/lbs

210 gr .44 Mag - 1250 fps @ 729 ft/lbs
250 gr .44 Mag - 1250 fps @ 867 ft/lbs
Numbers attained from the Winchester site.

As you can see from the numbers above the .41 Mag in a lighter bullet will give you very little improvement over the .357 Mag and the heavier .41 Mag round offers no improvement over the .44 Mag rounds. IMO the .41 Mag is an nice gun with no real purpose. (unless it's left to you by a family member) It's just too close to it's 2 nearest competing rounds.

December 8, 2006, 01:14 AM
.357 is the aurea mediocritas of handgun cartridges. There are many more potent rounds, and many less potent ones. But it is amazingly versatile and hits hard enough to kill anything in N. America. It also has the advantage of inheriting the .38 Special in its line, which means a revolver chambered for .357 can chamber everything from .38 Special shotshells to 200 grain magnum slugs. Personally, I've tried to ditch the .357 many times before, but it's simply too useful to get rid of and it just keeps coming back.

December 8, 2006, 08:51 AM
Just my .2 cents; if for self defence, I would go with 357 in no more than medium frame revolver like S&W 586/686, Ruger GP100, etc. If you are thinking about hunting or outdoor sidearm, 41 Magnum is just superior in any respect. To see what could be done with properly loaded 41, go to http://leverguns.com/articles/paco/41magnum.htm , http://leverguns.com/articles/paco/41heavy.htm , http://leverguns.com/articles/41data.htm , http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/default.asp?Caliber=41%20Magnum&Source=&Type=Handgun.

Brian Williams
December 8, 2006, 08:53 AM
The 41 Mag is one of those mystery cartridges for me, I will always want one but not sure I will get one. Other mystery cartridges are the 6.5x55 Swede, and the 16 or 28 gauge. There is always a better cartridge, but the specs on these just seem to hang in there and nag at you, I'm BEST, I'm the BEST, you can't get any better than me .

One of the down points for me is that a 41 mag by S&W is an N frame and they just seem huge for me, give me a 13 or 19 K frame.
This goes along with the 6.5 in a long action gun and a 16 gauge is often built on a 12 gauge frame and a 28 often built on a 20.

The 41 mag would be part of a mystery cartridge 3 gun setup that would just about fill the need of any good marksman or hunter, plus the requsite 22LRs to practice;
S&W 58 in 41 mag
Mauser in 6.5x55 Swede
SxS in 16 gauge

December 8, 2006, 09:34 AM
That after its initial failure as “police” cartridge, that it was quickly transitioned into a hunting round, and thus (I love any chance to say “thus”) bullet designs were steered towards hunting, not defensive purposes. I think that bullet design, combined with the overwhelming popularity of the 357 give the 357 a superior reputation. I also believe that the Strasberg (sp?) Tests were also instrumental in placing the 357 at the top of the “man-stopper” list.

But that's just my $0.02

December 8, 2006, 10:04 AM
Just my .02.... The .357 is a great round, the .41 Mag is stronger but not by much. The .44 Mag is a better hunting round than the .357 but IMO the .357 is as heavy a load I would want to carry in the streets.

125 gr .357 Mag - 1450 fps @ 583 ft/lbs
158 gr .357 Mag - 1235 fps @ 535 ft/lbs

175 gr .41 Mag - 1250 fps @ 607 ft/lbs
240 gr .41 Mag - 1250 fps @ 833 ft/lbs

210 gr .44 Mag - 1250 fps @ 729 ft/lbs
250 gr .44 Mag - 1250 fps @ 867 ft/lbs
Numbers attained from the Winchester site.

As you can see from the numbers above the .41 Mag in a lighter bullet will give you very little improvement over the .357 Mag and the heavier .41 Mag round offers no improvement over the .44 Mag rounds. IMO the .41 Mag is an nice gun with no real purpose. (unless it's left to you by a family member) It's just too close to it's 2 nearest competing rounds.

There's much more to life than winchester factory loads. The .44 and the .41 can both be loaded to 1000 ft lbs fairly easily out of 6 inch barrels. I never look at factory ballistics, frankly. I look at magazine articles or handloading manuals for my comparos.

If the .41 can put out 1000 ft lbs in a hot heavy load, it can do it with a light bullet at higher velocity. That Winchester 175 grain load is quite anemic. If I ever got a .41, I wouldn't buy any ammo for it. I never bought any ammo for my .45 Colt. I just ordered brass, bullets, and a mold from midway. I'd need dies for the .41, too.

December 8, 2006, 10:19 AM
Don, if you're asking for advice on which cartridge/revolver might be most useful, then the answer must surely be the .357Mag. Many more platforms to choose from, from j-frame Smith to Ruger Redhawk in size. Much more ammo available, much more cheaply. Very effective as a self-defense cartridge, and at least useful as a hunting cartridge with the right ammo and platform.

December 8, 2006, 02:10 PM
Don, you say you're just getting into revolvers. Hence, I would stick with the 357 if you want a magnum revolver for general shooting and perhaps as a defensive gun. If you want to use it to hunt with, go with a 41 mag.

I feel sure that a 41 mag revolver will do more damage than a hit from the 357 mag. Elmer Keith designed the 41 mag for police use. He was a proponent of the big hole approach to defense and hunting. He wanted essentially a slow moving (950 fps 210-220 wadcutter) round for police use. It would be more comfortable to shoot than the full bore 357 rounds and be more of a man stopper. Someone (Remington, Winchester) should have introduced it with at least two loadings... one of reduced power and recoil, and the hotter 210 gr rounds that are commonly available in factory loadings.

You also don't see much bullet expansion with 357's or 41 mags. That is why the wad cutter bullet was supported by Keith.

To this day, it is difficult to find reduced power loadings of the 41mag. Mirwall loads one, but their distributers never seem to have any in stock. My guess is that most of their 41 ammo gets bought at west coast gunshows.

The 40 S&W comes close to what Keith envisioned for the 41 mag. That is why I like the 40 S&W!! The 10mm comes closest to the hotter 41 mag loadings in preformance from an automatic.

December 8, 2006, 04:26 PM
You also don't see much bullet expansion with 357's or 41 mags. That is why the wad cutter bullet was supported by Keith.

You DIDN'T see much expansion, or specifically Keith didn't. But SP and HP bullets have gotten much better since EK advocated the .41. Expansion is a lot more reliable, at least at magnum velocities.

December 8, 2006, 05:06 PM
I seem to remember a thread on the S&W Forum about the effects of bullets on the human body from a guy in Atlanta (corner's office doing autopsys). I have reread some of that thread and the hollow points do expand or break up unless filled full of some other material like clothing or something. The most important factor seems to be velocity with something over 1,000 fps showing bullet expansion.

Link to thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/550103904/m/5471026821/p/1

From that thread: Hollowpoints are really hard to get a handle on. From my experience, the limiting factor on the effectiveness of a hollowpoint is that the cavity can and often does get packed full of something besides tissue prior to entering the body, and this can inhibit expansion. Sheet rock is about the worst although heavy clothing can be a problem also. Once you cram the cavity full of anything but tissue, you've essentially got hardball. But then that's not necessarily bad either. With full expansion of a hollowpoint you've got to worry about the jacket separating from the core as well as weight retention. It's largely weight retention that allows the bullet to continue to blast through bone and reach those deep vital organs that will end the fight in a hurry, and hardball is well known for maintaining its weight at autopsy. Once a hollowpoint does what it's supposed to, it begins to lose weight, albeit in varying amounts depending on the construction of the bullet and what it hits along the way. Some retain weight well and others lose it rapidly as can be seen in the lead "snowstorm" often seen during x-ray. Some hollowpoints expand so rapidly and lose weight so quickly that they haul up short of reaching the vital organs.

I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here.

Also, and I may be going out on a limb here, I'm not altogether certain that hardball is necessarily a bad choice for the reasons given above. Look, folks, you don't have to blow the heart into a million pieces; you've just got to hit it, and you don't have to make the liver look like it just spent 10 minutes in a Cuisinart. Again, you've just got to hit it. All things being equal, yes, I'd rather have a properly expanded hollowpoint reach the same location as a hardball round since, for the most part, the hollowpoint will infict more damage than hardball. But things aren't always equal. Unlike some hollowpoints, hardball generally has no problems feeding (as always, this is more a matter of knowing your gun and what it feeds reliably) and almost without exception it just plows along its merry way busting up whatever it comes into contact with. Hollowpoints, even the best of them, can do really strange things such as shedding the jacket, losing an inordinate amount of weight, or expanding so rapidly that they don't reach the vitals. I've seen it time and time again and many times I don't have an explanation for it. It's just empirical observation and something to think about.

At the time I was really taken by this thread.

December 8, 2006, 05:15 PM
Funny, if hollow points don't expand, how come .22 LR hollowpoints tear up a squirrel so bad when a solid won't? Ever see the hollow cavity on a .22 lr? Not exactly huge, yet they work. They work really too well for squirrels. I prefer solids for squirrel hunting.

If the tiny hollowpoint on a .22 expands, I don't see how a .357 magnum 125 grain JHP would have much of a problem. In fact, I've seen what the exit wound of a .357 magnum 140 grain Speer JHP did to a javelina and the exit wound suggested expansion big time. That javelina was a big boar, but probably only went about 60 lbs. They ain't big critters. The deer I've shot with a .357 have been with 158 grain cast SWC.

December 8, 2006, 05:29 PM
a standard velocity .22 LR is 1100+ fps...the aguilla higher velocity rounds i tried were supposed to run you 1600fps+...those would surely mushroom just fine :-P

December 8, 2006, 05:33 PM
I added some information that maybe some of you have not seen on bullets in my previous posting. Yes, hollow points expand at higher velocities. The squirrel example was probably from a rifle not a handgun.

Sorry about the edits, as I took out the non-expanding comments prior to seeing that others had posted after me.

December 8, 2006, 08:15 PM
Yeah, the .22 example is a rifle, but velocity out of a rifle isn't but around 1300 fps or so. Stingers might be a little higher, but they didn't make stingers when I was in the woods everyday after bushy tails as a kid. I was using Remington/Winchester etc. generic 38 grain hollowpoint high velocity.

December 8, 2006, 09:00 PM
I've been hunting and just generally shooting my 41 magnum revolvers for some 25 years now. I have tried just about every revolver caliber out there and some in several different guns. The 41 magnum just suits my needs to a tee. It has a very flat trajectory. It does not have the kick of the 44 magnum, but outpowers the 357 magnum as a hunting revolver. Handloading really showcases the capability of this fine caliber. I have worked up a load, using the Hornady XTP bullet, using Hogdon H-110 powder that does expand quite well, reliably, does not over penetrate the animals body yet knocks him down like he was hit by a truck. Let the naysayers have their say...I can tell you from many years of personal hunting and shooting experience, my Redhawk does the job and will continue to do the job, without wrenching my hand or or massive muzzle flip.

I don't shoot past 100 yards with my scoped Redhawk and I can guarantee within it's range, the 41 magnum is up to the task.


December 8, 2006, 11:21 PM
Depending on whether or not you handload and in what part of the country you live in, the 357 is probably the better choice, simply because of ammo availability. 41 Mag is pretty rare in my neck of the woods, and when I do see it, it is gawd awful expensive :( .

If I was going to own guns chambered for rounds like 41 and 44 Mag, and 45 Long Colt, I would most definitely be handloading them.

.38 Special
December 8, 2006, 11:35 PM
Bear in mind that when Keith and Jordan were stumping for the .41, the defensive bullet of choice was a semiwadcutter. I have no doubt that a .41 210 SWC is a more effective stopper than a .357 158 SWC.

Fast forward to 2006 and it's a moot point, as no one is using SWCs for defense. The best evidence available shows that the .357 125 grain JHP is a superior manstopper compared to anything in a .41 or .44 magnum. And it is indeed an "energy dump" issue. The same effect can be demonstrated by lungshooting a whitetail with a .375 H&H. Eventually the deer will fall, but no sooner -- and likely more slowly -- than if you'd used a light bullet in a .30-06.

Now, my only question is whether it is possible to design a light and relatively fragile bullet for the .41 and .44 that would have as devestating an effect in human tissue as the .357/125. This approach makes sense to me, except for the fact that the .41/.44 recoil too much for most folks to handle well under stress and rapid fire, and the fact that the N frames are too big for most folks to easily conceal. Were I a bullet manufacturer, I wouldn't throw much money at developing a self defense bullet for a cartridge nobody uses for self defense.

.38 Special
December 8, 2006, 11:36 PM
P.S. -- though I dearly love the .41 Magnum, I would never buy one if I wasn't a handloader. It's a do-it-yourself proposition from start to finish, as far as I am concerned.

December 8, 2006, 11:40 PM
The .41 gives you more energy, which could be handy for hunting. Then again, the .44 (.429) gives you even more energy and more choices in guns and ammo.

For self-defense, the .357 wins. There are many more ammo choices, and many more choices in guns that are handy to carry. The .41 is strictly an N frame. The .357 is J, K, L, and N frame.

December 8, 2006, 11:55 PM
As my original post suggested, I also would choose the 357 mag for its superior self defensive capabilities and not a 41 mag. I generally use a 38spl+P revolver for self defense or a 40 S&W pistol. I generally don't want the recoil, blast, and penetration that the 357 gives. I also love the 41 mag caliber. Ammunition is not so difficult to buy around my neck of the woods and it is usually priced the same as 44 mag ammo. Wally World of course does not carry it though nor is there a "white box" grade.

If you have never seen that thread at the S&W forum, you ought to read some to the things the guy from Atlanta said. It was in part a reaction to people using 25 ACP, 380's, and 9mm for self defense. He trys to tell folks about what he has actually observed in terms of tissue damage.

Jim March
December 9, 2006, 03:08 AM
Modern 357Mag defensive ammo from any reputable ammo house will expand in a human more often than not.

The only exceptions I'm aware of involve 158gr rounds fired out of short barrels. And even those aren't all THAT bad.


As to that very long series of reports posted by the coroner on what he's seen, there are reasons to take that data with a grain of salt.

See, most shootings in the US are committed by bad buys. It's a fact. There are even more defensive uses of handguns, but most of those (vast majority, definitely up past 4/5ths) don't involve shots fired.

Bad guys are idiots, more or less by definition. They very, VERY seldom shop for quality ammo. They'll sometimes get ahold of Cor-Bon or Gold Dot or whatever but it's because somebody stole the ammo with the gun.

Police on the other hand do tend to use decent fodder. But since they've transitioned to 9mm and 40S&W to such a high degree, those of us "regular Joes" shooting magnum revolvers, 45ACP from a 4"+ tube or even the occasional 45LC with JHPs are often doing better on a shot-by-shot basis than the cops. Seriously, I'll take a DoubleTap/Cor-Bon/BuffBore 125gr 357 *or* a Speer Gold Dot 250gr 45LC over any round fired by any cop in America, period, end of discussion. And there are other rounds in each caliber that come damned close to those.

Our buddy in the morgue is NOT seeing that class of ammo fired into bad guys, or if he has he's one of the few coroners in the US who has.

If he DID see what those things could do, I think he'd be damned impressed.

December 9, 2006, 11:43 AM
In a concealed carry/self defense mode, I agree that a small to mid sized frame 357mag, is the best choice for that situation. I have several and do infact carry them periodically. I have never felt undergunned with them. In the field, in a hunting situation, I have used a 357mag with both handloads and factory loads up to 180gr for hunting whitetails. I prefer the 41 over the 357 because of the experiences I have encountered with both calibers. As far as manufacturers making a fragile bullet for the 41 mag, Hornady has met that challenge with the 210gr XTP. I have been using it for years without over penetration being a problem. I am now testing the 240gr Winchester Platinum Tip Hollow Point factory load. Yes it is a heavy bullet, but if the bullet mushrooms fast enough due to it's design, it will dump more energy, as well as reducing the posibility of over penetration, due to that larger projectile. Would that be a viable self defense round....possibly. But then again I am not looking for another PD weapon in my 41 mag.


December 9, 2006, 06:54 PM
I carried a .41mag as my woods gun for many years. I was totally comfortable with it. I own quite a few 357s, but the 41 has always been my passion. Own a couple of those .429mags too, but never really saw the point of them! :neener: :D

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Mag vs. .41 Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!