[walking arsenal]

was oggling a taurus 41 magnum today and ahve never seen one. what are they good for hunting? personell defense? what are the specs?

any info is good.

W.A.

[Augustwest]

Not sure what you mean by specs, but I would suggest that they're sufficient for just about anything in North America (targets, badguys, hunting) except hunting small game (splat).

Helps if you handload, as factory ammo can be pricey, and you can load up or down for a variety of uses.

Good, flat shooter that got screwed by Clint Eastwood. :D

[mete]

The 41 mag has about 25 % less recoil but also 25 % less performance than the 44 mag. But its certainly better than the 357. Like the 44 it's appropriate for deer, black bear and lesser things. Loaded to ~ 1000 fps it makes a fine defense load and that is actually what the cartridge was originally designed for. If I had a choice between 44 and 41 I'd take the 44 since ammo is more available and there is a better selection.

[einnor1040]

I have a 657 and I love it. I reload for it and I shoot it a lot.

[Gunhamr]

The 41 Magnum is good for any application where
the 44 Magnum is called for. I have both in several
guns and can assure you that there is very little
difference, especially if you handload. Anything the
44 will do, the 41 will do also.

The 41 got off to a bad start because of the puny
ammo put out by the ammo companies. If loaded
correctly, it will do the job. My latest acquisition was
a Ruger Bisley Blackhawk in 41 Mag and I love it.
The Bisley grip does much to tame the recoil.

[George Hill]

I am hoping for the day when the S&W model 66 (4 inch) becomes like a really hot must have revolver and someone offers a trade for a 4 inch N frame S&W without the full length lug...

*sigh*

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

The .41 Magnum was introduced as a joint effort
by Remington-Peters & Smith & Wesson* in 1964, as the
ideal weapon and caliber for police use. However, it
found a modest following by handgun hunter's and a
few sport's shooter's; more than it did with the law
enforcement crowd. Since then, it has steadily risen
in popularity; and has many uses, and produces good
result's with the right bullet/load combination.

Major George Nonte preferred the .41 magnum when
hunting large, dangerous wild boar. I also have known
folks that hunted the southeastern white-tail deer with
the .41 magnum. In the long run, the .41 magnum was
over shadowed by the more popular .44 magnum. My
best result's came with handloading a Sierra 170 grain
JHC bullet and using the starting load for W-W 630P
ball powder. Advertised velocity was 1300 fps from a
factory weapon. In my expeience's with the S&W .41
magnum, I found that the 210 grain LSWC showed
exceptional accuracy; but coming at the cost of very
heavy lead fouling of the barrel. Hence, I started
casting my own using wheel weight's and a pinch of
high speed babbit!

*FootNote- with the introduction of Smith & Wesson
models 57 and 58!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[BluesBear]

Having owned several .41 magnums and .44 magnums i have found that that, with bullets lighter than 240grains that the .41 will do anything the .44 can do.

In the 170-185gr weights, the slightly longer bullet of the .41 gives it a slightly better ballistic coefficient.

It's not until the bulletweights get over 240 that the .44 outdoes the .41.

The .41 magnum seems to be making somewhat of a comeback and hopfully the major ammo companies will start offering more loads for it.

[kentucky bucky]

25% less performance than a .44 mag................I DON'T THINK SO.:neener:

[Mike Irwin]

"25% less performance than a .44 mag................I DON'T THINK SO!"

Well, define performance...

But, just a quick look in Cartridges of the World shows that some of the loads listed there for the .44 Mag. give over 1,000 ft. lbs of energy, whereas the hottest .41 Mag. load listed gives 780 ft. lbs of energy, or about 25% different in that performance vector...

[BluesBear]

Winchester lists their new Supreme Platinum Tip .41 at 833 ft/lbs and their .44 at 867

Remington lists their 210 gr .41 at 788 ft/lbs, their 240gr .44 at 741 ft/lbs and their 180gr .44 at 1036 ft/lbs

[WESHOOT2]

IPSC with reduced recoil.

[caz223]

Having lived in an area where it seems like the .41s outnumber the .44s, and having six .41 magnums, and only one .44 magnum, it's obvious what camp I'm in.
If you reload, the .41 mag gets a whole new lease on life, I wouldn't recommend the .41 magnum for non-reloaders.

As stated before in this thread, the mighty .44 mag will outpace the .41 when you use heavy bullets.
If you want to shoot lighter bullets, say in the 170-220 grain neighborhood, you're better off with the 10mm, or the .41 magnum.
They are built on the same frame as .44 mags (Except for the taurus tracker series, 415 and 425), and have thicker cylinder walls for a little added safety margin.
Once you shoot a 10mm or a .41 magnum, you will fall in love with the caliber, and if you choose a good platform it will indeed serve you well.