[JaxJim]

I'll start off by admitting: I like the .44 Mag. I have hunted using the round for many years and have a number of firearms: revolvers, Contender barrel and a rifle chambered in it. I reload rounds all the way from powder puf to fire breathing loadings depending on the application at hand. I have made many, many one shot kills on hogs and deer at reasonable ranges and have come to trust the cartridge for purposes I've used it for.

I hear so much good about the .41 and I've tried to justify buying one. I can't get past that it's only .019" smaller, and the velocity seems to be a bit higher which should give a flatter trajectory down range. But is it really that much better?

I'm not trolling, I promise. I'm trying to learn a thing or two from folks who actually use, and like the .41 Mag. Edjumicate me! :)

[BCRider]

First of I'm not a hunter. So much of this is based on reading threads about handgun hunting.

The bullet is "only" .019 smaller but what about the commonly used bullet weights for hunting? A slower but heavier bullet will push it's way through a lot compared to a lighter but faster bullet. At least that's what I've seen. So you'd want to compare not only the diameters but also the bullet weight options.

Second is that if the BC isn't as good due to the lighter weight vs diameter then while it may leave faster what about at the other end where the target is living? At what range will the .41 Mag fall below the velocity or hitting power of the .44Mag? If it will only occur well out beyond where you're comfortable hunting with a handgun then maybe the advantage is with the .41 after all.

It seems I've mostly asked questions..... :D But if the answers will help you it may be worth doing the homework to find them.

[shootniron]

It is not better.

If it were better, it would not have been relegated to it's present place of relative obscurity.

[Snowbandit]

The BC is a tiny bit better giving a slightly flatter trajectory which is of doubtful usefulness to the average hunter. The edge for everything else goes to the .44 Magnum. I got rid of my 41 years ago.

[jmr40]

A slower but heavier bullet will push it's way through a lot compared to a lighter but faster bullet.

Maybe, maybe not. If both bullets are the same diameter, then yes. A bullets sectional density plays a big part in penetration. A longer bullet will usually penetrate more everything being equal. Smaller diameter bullets temd to be longer. Larger diameter bullets have to displace more of whatever they need to penetrate and need to be much heavier to get the same length.

In real world terms the 2 are much closer in performance than many think. The 41 does offer some theoretical advantages. It will be flatter shooting, but at the ranges I'm going to be shooting a handgun it isn't enough to worry about. Some make the argument that a 41 can be hot loaded safer than a 44 because there is more metal left in the cylinders because of the slightly smaller case. Maybe, but I'm not one to push the limits on stuff like that.

A 41 might give a slight advantage in penetration, but once again they are very close and the 44 will make a very slightly larger hole so it is about a wash. Performance wise they are almost a tie. I'd still give the 44 a very slight advantage.

I've owned 41's in the past. Years ago ammo prices were an issue and this was before I reloaded, so I sold off my 41's. At that time 41 ammo was much, more expensive and harder to find. Today that is not as big of a concern, but 44 ammo is still a little easier to find and still a little cheaper. There is also a much greater variety of loads available to a 44 owner, even if you reload.

If someone just wants to be different, and especially if you reload I think the 41 is a good choice. But not necessarily a better choice.

[skidder]

I think it's lack of popularity is due to the fact that it's too close to the 44. I think if it were a 40 mag it would have found its niche and would have enjoyed the company of those who shoot the 10mm and 40 s&w. Could you imagine a 40 mag revolver that shot 40 specials and would take a moon clip with 10mm and 40 s&w :eek:. There I go dreaming out loud :o. Santa I'm waiting.....:rolleyes:

[GunTotinAmerican]

Having both calibers, I would not say either is better than the other at any task at hand until you move to the heavy bullets(above 265gr). I love the .41 in my 4 5/8 RBH, I probably shoot it more than anything. Another thing to consider is cylinder length, some .41's will not accept true Kieth style bullets.

GTA

[Beagle-zebub]

Any accuracy difference? And if so, why?

[buck460XVR]

If someone just wants to be different, and especially if you reload I think the 41 is a good choice. But not necessarily a better choice.


Kinda my feelings on it. Around here not only is ammo hard to find, but it's pretty rare to find a firearm in stock at the LGSs. Sure they are willing to special order them, but not having them on hand for the casual looker to handle, IMHO, is one reason they are still pretty obscure to the average Joe looking at handguns. It is a good cartridge and there are great guns out there chambered for it. It also has a very loyal following of those that feel it is the best there is. But it is a small following and it appears it will always be just that. Again, this is just what those that want something different are after.

[scramasax]

I've found that on average I am more accurate with my .41s than the .44s and they are sbujectivley more comptfortable to shoot. This is shooting comparable balistic loads in the same model guns. It was originally designed as a law enforcement round so hunting loads are just a byproduct. I'ii stay with my .41s if for no other reason that Elmer Keith stated it was a good "east of the Miss. caliber.

Been thinking of wildcatting a Marlin .444 to a .441 just for S&G.

Cheers,

ts

[jdh]

It is not better.

If it were better, it would not have been relegated to it's present place of relative obscurity.

Utter nonsense! Had Harry Callahan used the 41 instead of the 44 this conversation would have been Convince me the 44 magnum is better than the 41 magnum and why I should buy it instead of the proven 41!

[336A]

I've never shot a .44 mag from a a handgun so I can't compare it to my .41 mag. I like the .41mag due to it being a little different since everyone has a .44 mag. The .41 mag is more economical in the sense that it uses powder more effeciently to get magnum performance. Another plus is that the .41 mag has always been .410", more often than not the barrel and cylinder dimensions are spot on the same can't be said of .44's. I think this has a lot to do with the .41's reputation for fine accuracy.

[JaxJim]

This is excellent! I love discussions like this. Kinda feel like I'm at the hunt club, sitting around the fire, knocking back a brew or two and chatting about a topic.

I've had better luck using heavier projectiles against hogs. Seems the weight "thumps" them harder. The lighter and faster jacketed stuff seems to break up, at least seem to shed the jacket.

With the .41: did any gun manufacturer ever try stuffing one more round in a cylinder? 7 shots in the size of a six shooter much like they are stuffing 6 rounds of .327 in a 5 shot J-Frame? Doesn't seem it would fit, but conceptually it might have been a good idea. I could see for self defense that one extra round could be advantageous.

Maybe the real comparison I should be making is between the .41 and .357 since both are intended for SD purposes.

Again: thanks for everyone's input. I've learned some things in this thread.

[CraigC]

Help me understand why the .41 Mag is better than .44 Mag
It's not. It's different and fewer people use it and that's enough to make some folks like it. I don't dislike it, I just haven't taken the plunge yet.


Utter nonsense! Had Harry Callahan used the 41 instead of the 44 this conversation would have been Convince me the 44 magnum is better than the 41 magnum and why I should buy it instead of the proven 41!
The .44 had cemented itself in the hearts and minds of sportsmen looooooong before Dirty Harry came along. Know your history.


...did any gun manufacturer ever try stuffing one more round in a cylinder?
Not enough room.


Another plus is that the .41 mag has always been .410", more often than not the barrel and cylinder dimensions are spot on the same can't be said of .44's.
I have never found this to be the case at all.

[Loosedhorse]

double post

[Loosedhorse]

Depends on what you want.

Because of the the equal case length, both can throw a bullet with the same sectional density at about the same speed. The .41 will allow you to do that with a bit less recoil, and the .44 with a bit wider bullet.

I think the fixed sight, 4-inch 41 Mag is the ideal cross-over gun: great for camping/trail "protection" with heavy loads (anywhere except brown bear territory), and great for SD with slower loads.

Well, at least it would be if anyone still made the old 900 fps "police loads" for the .41--but with HPs this time!

[336A]

Craig you may not have encountered them but .44 revolvers with .428"-.429" bores and cylinder throats of up to .432" are not uncommon.

[DM~]

Early on, i owned both at the same time... I found the 44 mag. to have HEAVY recoil, and i found the 41 mag. to have HEAVY recoil, so that issue was put aside right away.

I found them to be quite equil in many ways, but the 44 did penetrate a bit better, and as i wanted a handgun for hunting, i went with the 44.

Over the years i've revisited the 41 a few times, but i'm convinced the 44 has a "slight" edge over the 41, so "for me", i made the right decision and i'm happy with my choise.

DM

[Missionary]

Greetings
Most of all what you read as to which is better amounts to playing with numbers. I prefer the caliber .41 mag. I owned the 44 mag before I ever had seen a 41. They are so close together ballisticly there just is not enough to really argue about. Reason I sold my 44 mags was I decided to settle on 41 mag and 45 Colt. There was just no need for that in between 44 caliber.
When it comes to revolvers generally the 41 revolvers are made in smaller numbers so there may be a better chance of getting a near perfect 41 than a 44. Rugers especially used to be near perfect in 41. But the last one I bought was not all that great and needed the cylinder reamed to have all 6 throats equal diameter.
So if I was going to choose which one.. I would be just as happy with the 44. But I chose the 41mag and 45 Colt and right happy I did so.

[SharpsDressedMan]

I've never owned one, but a savvy .45 gunsmith from Denver, Colorado, Ikey Starks, used to swear by a long barreled S&W .41 Mmag when I had contact with him back in the 70's & 80's. He got to hunt big game regularly in the Rockies, and that was his preferred gun and round due to accuracy, flat shooting, and successful results with the ammo he used. I always regarded the round more highly after his accounts with it on game.

[Lost Sheep]

Any accuracy difference? And if so, why?
Differences between individual guns will FAR outweigh any difference in accuracy differences of the cartridge design.

Lost Sheep

[Lost Sheep]

(edited for brevity)
Second is that if the BC isn't as good due to the lighter weight vs diameter then while it may leave faster what about at the other end where the target is living? At what range will the .41 Mag fall below the velocity or hitting power of the .44Mag? If it will only occur well out beyond where you're comfortable hunting with a handgun then maybe the advantage is with the .41 after all.

It seems I've mostly asked questions..... :D But if the answers will help you it may be worth doing the homework to find them.
Between a 41 and a 44 shooting the same WEIGHT bullet at the same muzzle velocity, at distance the 41 will retain more velocity. Between a 41 and a 44 with the same aerodynamics the 44 will be slower at the muzzle than the 41 and from there the exterior ballistics get a bit more confusing.

I have read a quote from an experienced hunter whose name I cannot remember, though the quote sticks. "Any animal hit with a .41 will SWEAR it was a 44."

If you believe the claim that the 45 Colt loaded to 44 mag power levels gives less felt recoil, the 44 SHOULD give less recoil than the 41 both loaded to the same power levels. I am still on the fence about that. The same pundits who claim at 41/44 the smaller caliber has less recoil also claim that at 44/45, the larger caliber has less recoil. Go figure and draw your own conclusions.

As soon as I can figure out a way to objectively measure recoil, I am going to run an experiment between three Super Redhawks, 44 Mag, 454 Casull and 480 Ruger. If anyone in Alaska has a .41 Mag SRH to toss into the mix, PM me.

If you don't handload, consider that there is a greater variety of loaded ammunition available in 44. If you do handload, and especially if you cast, you are much freer to choose whichever you like. Just be aware that if you find yourself short of ammunition and walk into a typical store, you are more likely to find 44 than 41.

It has been said, truly, that the 41 is a handloader's cartridge. But in reality, both are ideal for a handloader. But the 41 requires it and the 44 just highly recommends it.

These cartridges are like wives. If you treat them right (load appropriate ammo) they will treat you right in return and neither can be said to be "better" than the other. Except in the heavyweights. (Apologies, ladies, the analogy is not intended to extend this far.) 44 can throw a heavier bullet. But just remember, the 45 Colt/454 Casull/460 S&W gets heavier still and the 475/480 class, and the 500 class is top of the (legal without a class III license) heap.

OK, I have officially gone overboard. Signing off now.

Lost Sheep

[jdh]

Craig,
The 44 being about 10 years older does not mean it was cemented in anyone's heart. Model 29 sales could hardly have been called stellar at any point up to the time of the Dirty Harry movies. It was, much as the 41 is considered now, the gun of a dedicated group of handgun shooters/hunters but was considered to powerful and unmanageable for police/self defense use. After the movies came out gun shops could not keep them on the shelves because everyone had to have Dirty Harry's gun. Many of which were soon sold or traded back in with the original box of ammo with only a few cartridges missing at a considerable loss. Had Harry used the 41 as Keith and Jordan had intended for it to be, a more manageable than the 44 while more effective than the 357 revolver for police service, Model 29 sales would have continued at their lackluster pace and Model 57/58 would have been flying out of the display cases as fast as S&W could have made them.

The only place a 44 is superior to the 41 is when heavy bullets are called for. While there are heavier bullets for the 41 the trajectory begins to suffer over about 250. The 44 can be had with bullets up to 350 gr. It takes a great deal of hold over to hit at ranges greater then about 75 yards with them. At normal for caliber bullets weights the performance of the two is practically indistinguishable. The 41 is a little more efficient, the 44 ever so slightly more powerful (1200 versus 1160 ft-lb).
Don't let your bias overwhelm your view of the truth.

[shootniron]

Utter nonsense! Had Harry Callahan used the 41 instead of the 44 this conversation would have been Convince me the 44 magnum is better than the 41 magnum and why I should buy it instead of the proven 41!

I don't have to prove anything to you...the market has spoken. YOU can buy whatever you want...but YOU cannot logically dispute that the market has made very clear which it prefers and that generally does not mean that a caliber plays second fiddle to another so people choose to buy the lesser. As far as Dirty Harry goes, that was 40yrs ago and he knew it was the best then, also...most of the folks buying guns today were not even born then. It is one thing to have a preference, but it is something else to be in denial about what has actually taken place.

[Walkalong]

I like them both.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=113604&d=1263862436

The .44 has better ammo/component selection because it is more popular,but die hard .41 Mag fans will always like the .41 better.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=142210&stc=1&d=1305473777

[jmr40]

As soon as I can figure out a way to objectively measure recoil, I am going to run an experiment between three Super Redhawks, 44 Mag, 454 Casull and 480 Ruger. If anyone in Alaska has a .41 Mag SRH to toss into the mix, PM me.



http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

If you can put your guns on some postal scales to get an accurate weight of the gun and shoot them over a chronograph to get actual velocities this is accurate. If your guns weight, velocity, bullet weight and powder charge can be determined this will give you the actual recoil.

It will not tell you the felt recoil. The grips, grip angle, barrel length, and many other factors can often make a gun with more actual recoil feel as of it has less than it does. That is all subjective, at least to an extent.

[orionengnr]

I'm not sure anyone can make the case that one is "better" than the other.
That will not keep people from expressing their preference for one over the other...as it should be.
I owned three ".429s", but currently own none. I do own a .41Mag and a .45LC, and prefer both of those to the .429.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a handloader, and that affords me a lot of lattitude.

[wyatte]

My response is a little off the mark from the OP's question, but the reason I like the 41 mag is, it is my sentimental favorite. It was the first N frame that I bought soon after getting married. Even my wife thought it was beautiful (a 6" model 657 ) which I let get away from me. Over the years I have bought a number of 44's and 41's. I like them both a lot, but I currently own four 41 mags, and no 44's. I would like to get another 44 mag in the near future though. So for me, it is more out of a sentimental reason. I do consider it to be the "ideal" size cartridge for the N frame revolver, however. The model 629 44's are great also. wyatte

[buckhorn_cortez]

I've owned a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 magnum, a Ruger Redhawk in .44 magnum, a S&W Model 29 in .44 magnum, and a S&W Model 57 in .41 magnum. The easiest to shoot and most accurate of them all is the S&W Model 57 .41 magnum. Given the choice of all of the pistols to keep or sell, I'd keep the .41 magnum.

[Drail]

To me one of the biggest "advantages" of the .41 is that just about every manufacturer I can think of bases their .41 guns on a platform designed for the .44 (.429). This means that given the same exterior dimensions of the barrel and cylinder by boring a .410 hole in them will leave more metal than the .429 does. The barrel is heavier and the chambers have more steel between them. Heavier gun = less recoil and a little more strength for handloading. To fully appreciate the difference in trajectory you need to shoot a Bisley in .41 at ranges out to 200 to 300 yards. It makes it much easier to connect with those steel targets that look so small. I love the looks on guys faces when you walk up to the line and they laugh and say "you'll never hit that from here with a handgun". "BOOM.......CLANG"

[jdh]

I don't have to prove anything to you...the market has spoken. YOU can buy whatever you want...but YOU cannot logically dispute that the market has made very clear which it prefers and that generally does not mean that a caliber plays second fiddle to another so people choose to buy the lesser. As far as Dirty Harry goes, that was 40yrs ago and he knew it was the best then, also...most of the folks buying guns today were not even born then. It is one thing to have a preference, but it is something else to be in denial about what has actually taken place.

You need to prove to me you do not have a reading comprehension problem. I don't care what you think is best. The numbers speak for themselves. Between the 41 and the 44 there is no clearly superior performance difference. The market was unduly influenced by hollywood hype. All I said was had the roles in the film been reversed this conversation would be the opposite of what it is now.

Yes, I have a preference. I have not stated what it is yet and most likely won't. I will say the reason for my preference and it is the same as wyatte's in the previous post. I like the one I like because it was my first, and was the first sidearm I used to start my LE adventures. For the record I have 4 357s, one 41 and currently no 44s. The reason for that is my 44 was lost in the recent great conflagration and I have not found a suitable replacement for it.

You make assumptions most of which are incorrect and have the unmitigated gall to tell me I am in denial. One of the assumptions you make is that people are still buying the 44 in large numbers. They are not. Since the 500, 460, 454, 480, etc., so on, and so forth, have hit the market the 44 is no longer the king of the hill and has been bypassed by the "Mine is bigger than yours crowd" and relatively few dedicated shooter are even buying enough ammo for the LGS here to justify keeping it on the shelf in the quantities it used to.
So I guess the market has spoken again and the 44 has been usurped from its once lofty perch.

[Lost Sheep]

In the first Dirty Harry movie, the gun WAS a 41 Magnum.

The script said 44, but the prop people couldn't get one, so they used a 41. These two "N" frame guns are indistinguishable for the camera.

What has a fictional character contribute to answering the question? After all, he was not even shooting magnum loads out of it. He just used that line on the bad guys for effect. In reality, he used "light special loads" as he told David Soul's character in "Magnum Force".

Lost Sheep

[shootniron]

One of the assumptions you make is that people are still buying the 44 in large numbers.

I have the unmitigated gall to say that the .44mag still outsells the .41mag multiples to one. So much so, that I would be willing to bet that there is not a .41mag revolver in a gun shop within a 200 mile radius of my home and I live in a pretty well gun happy region in the south. In this same area, every gun shop will have at least 2 or 3 .44mag revolvers and most of them will also have at least one lever rifle in .44mag. And, the reason for that is that most gun shops do not stock inventory that is a slow mover. In the court of public opinion the .44mag is number ONE in a contest with the .41mag,whether you like it, can accept it or understand it... or not. Also, this discussion is about the .44mag as compared to the .41mag...not as compared to all other big bores...not trying to call into question YOUR reading comprehension.

One more thing and I am done with this lesson. There will never be a time when the 500,460,454,480,etc., so on and so forth will outsell the beloved .44mag. There will be more handguns chambered in .44mag sold of one model gun, the Ruger Super Blackhawk, than all of the others combined for many years to come. This fact will not be because the .44mag is superior to them, it will be because of the intial cost of the gun and the cost to shoot it as the vast majority of shooters do not reload. This makes the .44mag much less expensive to own and shoot while still being sufficient for the role that most big bore revolvers are bought to serve in.

[CraigC]

The 44 being about 10 years older does not mean it was cemented in anyone's heart.
You do understand that the .44Mag was not the first .44? That it had a father, a grandfather and a great grandfather??? You do understand that Elmer Keith had been writing about his heavy .44Spl loads since the 1930's, correct? That yes, the .44 had been a staple among shooters and sportsmen looooong before the Dirty Harry came into being.

The .41 has no such lineage.

[jhvaughan2]

I'm gonna throw a new view at you. The .41 is not designed to be better than the 44 magnum. It was designed to be better than the 44 special. It is to easy to equate the birth of the .357 to the .44 mag.

The .357 was created to boost the anti-personel power of the .38 due to automobiles and armor. I.E. to make a better Law-enforcement round.

The .44 mag was not created to improve the LE capability of the .44 special. It went beyond that to make it a champion hunting round.
It was not until the .41mag that the purpose was to make a better LE big bore round. Its purpose was not to make a "tamer" 44 magnum.
The problem was not that the cartridge did not succeed in its design, but it came too late. The LE revolver was on its way out.
The Idea of the .41 Mag was "proven" when the concept was re-enginered into the 10mm.

Can a LE round be use for hunting? Sure. Is it better? Hard to prove. Does the range provided by reloading make the point moot. Yes.

[22-rimfire]

I developed a preference for the 41 magnum. I feel sure it is subjective. I have owned 44 N-frames and 41 N-frames and I always seemed to shoot the 41 mag better. I actually started with the 41 mag and got the 44's later and just couldn't see any reason to own a 44 mag so I eventually sold them.

In my revolver world, I go from 22LR > 38spl > 357 mag > 41 mag > 480 Ruger in terms of power and it fits well for me.

It was designed to be a LE round, but they produced magnum level ammo that was not comfortable to shoot by LEO's. They eventually made a round at around 1100 fps, but it was too late. The N-frame Smiths are just a bit too big for most LEO's back in the day. A 41 Special would have worked well with a smaller frame, but law enforcement agencies started migrating to the wonder 9's in the late 70's. By the late 80's, it was hard to even sell a revolver except to the diehard revolver afectionotto's. The 40 S&W was the cartridge that LE wanted and they made it giving many of the same benefits of a 41 special in a semi-auto double stack platform without the recoil of the 45ACP. Since that time, the 9mm's preformance has improved.

[Owen Sparks]

The .44 can be found everywhere that sells ammunition, even WallMart. That alone makes it better.

[Cosmoline]

The .41 Magnum was, IIRC, designed by EK to serve as an amped-up service revolver cartridge that would offer excellent stopping power with less recoil than the .44 magnum. At that time the .44 Mag was seen as a hunting round almost exclusively, and loaded accordingly. Loads were maxed out, bullets were hardcast lead. And in fact the .44 Mag never made ground as an LEO cartridge or even much for self defense due to the bulk of the firearms and the recoil. The .41 Magnum, loaded as intended, can be fired without excessive recoil from standard size revolvers.

Unfortunately, the round never gained much ground. Within another decade the wondernines had started sweeping away the wheelguns and the .40 then took over. Most people buying a revolver who consider a .41 are looking at large frame revolvers that are pretty much the same as the .44 Mag counterparts. So the sensible question is -- why use the .41? If there were concealable .41 Mags out there, and if the round had a more established track record for its intended use, then things would be different.

[Confederate]

There's really no reason to own a .41, period.

The .44 mag does everything a .41 does and more. You can create light loads or heavy loads, and the .44 works better against large animals. It may not be that much better, but it does add the extra oooomph that the .41 doesn't have.

The .41 was designed mostly for law enforcement personnel who wanted to add substantial power to assist them in their jobs. In short, they wanted to add some power to the .357 magnum round. Did this happen, and was it needed? In my view, yes, it added power to the .357 magnum round, and no, it wasn't needed.

If the officer used loads that were more powerful than the .357, then those rounds would be too powerful for LEOs to use. Data collected over the past three decades show that the .357 magnum with 125gr JHPs to be the ultimate revolver manstopping loads. More power is not only not needed, but not wanted. Any .41 round would either have less manstopping power, or would encroach on the .44 magnum power.

Bottom line: The .357 is the ultimate revolver manstopper, bar none. Not even the .41 can beat it as the bullets generally stay in the body of the person being shot. In other words, to beat the .357, .41 loads would have to approach the .44 magnum's in power, and then there would be no reason for a .41 Also, any energy expended when the .41 (or .44) bullets passed through a human body would be wasted. Thus, the case could be made that the .357 125gr JHP could beat any .41/.44 for law enforcement purposes. And that any .41 load for big game would have to virtually duplicate the power/loads of the .44. So with that in mind, the .41 doesn't match the .357 because of penetration problems and doesn't do anything for the .44 mag, being rendered superfluous by both calibers.

Cases for the .41 also are expensive and difficult to find!

[Lost Sheep]

Bottom line: The .357 is the ultimate revolver manstopper, bar none.

Is a 158 grain .357 at 1,300 fps better than a 170 grain .41 at 1100 fps?

Cases for the .41 also are expensive and difficult to find!
Easy for me to find. There is one in every chamber of my just-fired 41 Mag.:neener:

No disrespect intended. Just a difference of opinion. And a little humor.

There are many overlaps in the performance envelopes of many calibers and handloaders can extend those overlaps to phenomenal levels. Really.

Lost Sheep

[336A]

I don't have much time so I'll probably have tohit this up again later today. The .41 mag does have its' own unique history. It really started with Elmer, Jordan and Skeeter wanting a straight walled cartridge that was .40" that would replicate the ol' .38-40 performance. In the the 1920's a gunsmith by the name of "POP" Eimer was making his own .40" wildcat called the .401" Eimer special. It kicked out a 200gr bullet at roughly 1100fps.

Yet another gunsmith by the name of Gordon Boser picked up on the concept later with his own .40" wildcat as well. The only difference was that 2400 powder was now on the market and velocities of 1400 could now be reached with the same 200gr bullet.

In 1961 3 years before the .41 mag Hereters introduced the .401" PowerMag. However the no mainstream companies such as Ruger or S&W picked up on it, then the gun control act of 1968 killed it off. http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell401PowerMag.htm

Even Colt almost brought forth they're own .40" magnum round but for what ever reaon failed to do so http://www.singleactions.com/400Colt.pdf

S&W brought out the .41mag in 1964, Elmer stated in an article that .41" was chosen so that the new cartridge could not be used in any of the older .41 Colts. I think it was a marketing ploy though so that it could not be stuffed in any of the .401" Powermag guns read pg25 http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/1969_01_Elmer_Keith_Favorite_Load.pdf

Cases and components for the .41 mag are not more expensive or harder toeither. I just got new Starline cases for $19.99.

[CraigC]

To say that the works of Gordon Boser and Pop Eimer on .400" cartridges contributed to the development of the .41Mag is a bit of a stretch. IMHO, this work crested and ended with the .401Powermag. The closest a magnum .400 came to real commercial success was Colt's experimental .400" cartridge. It 'might' have had a chance, as it even preceded the .357Mag. All these .400" wildcats were sporting rounds, not the law enforcement round the .41 was meant to be. No real, direct lineage. As Taffin writes, the .357 and .44 magnums had parents, the .41Mag had aunts & uncles. The .44 simply had more support behind it, with not only Elmer Keith but John Lachuk and the other ".44 Associates".

IMHO, it was Elmer Keith and John Lachuk who cemented the .44's place in history, not Dirty Harry. The movie may have spurred a bunch of greenhorns to get a S&W 29 but a great many of those ended up back on used gun shelves with barely a cylinderful fired through them. No sir, it was Keith's and Lachuk's work going back 40 years earlier.

[DM~]

In the first Dirty Harry movie, the gun WAS a 41 Magnum.

The script said 44, but the prop people couldn't get one, so they used a 41. These two "N" frame guns are indistinguishable for the camera.

What has a fictional character contribute to answering the question? After all, he was not even shooting magnum loads out of it. He just used that line on the bad guys for effect. In reality, he used "light special loads" as he told David Soul's character in "Magnum Force".

Lost Sheep

That "myth" keeps on being repeated, but in the past, on other forums, it's been proven to NOT be true. YES it was a 44 that was used.

The use of 44 spl's was also addressed. It's been accepted that the reference to 44 spl's was for the "competition" in that movie, not duty use.

DM

[CraigC]

Doesn't matter, whatever model was used, it was most assuredly converted to use 3-1 blanks.

[jdh]

In the first Dirty Harry movie, the gun WAS a 41 Magnum.

Is John Milius's word good enough for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x-tGz6dNdg

Craig, The thread tittle is 41 MAG vs 44 Mag. FWIW, I carried a 2" 5 shot 44 spec Taurus as a bug/off duty until the chief decided Taurii were junk guns and forbade their use. He is also the one who made it policy to not allow the carry of magnum loads in duty guns effectively rendering the 41 off limits as there were no loads headstamped 41 spc available at the time. So I gave up on revolvers for duty carry and went to a 1911 with 230 gr tuncated cone FMJ ammo for duty carry.

Shootniron,
I'll offer you this olive branch, what you say may be true in you part of the country. Here in the shop I worked for the past few years 44 mags guns and ammo do not sell well. It got to the point the store owner would not take them in on trade or gave a very low ball offer if you insisted. So, perhaps each of our perspectives based on conditions in our local area may be skewed.

[Bushpilot]

From a technical / ballistics standpoint I don't think there is enough of a difference between the two that it really matters much either way, with the possible exception of, as others have stated, really heavy bullets in the .44. Otherwise the differences are so miniscule that at handgun ranges they are irrelevant. Anything one will do so will the other. However, from a practical standpoint, the .44 has all the advantages. There are sooo many more options in guns, dies, molds, availability and factory loads for the .44 that make it clearly the "better", no contest. Having said that, the 41 is kindda cool with it's "unique" factor. But, if I personally could only afford one large wheelgun it would never be a 41.

[shootniron]

jdh


Shootniron,
I'll offer you this olive branch, what you say may be true in you part of the country. Here in the shop I worked for the past few years 44 mags guns and ammo do not sell well. It got to the point the store owner would not take them in on trade or gave a very low ball offer if you insisted. So, perhaps each of our perspectives based on conditions in our local area may be skewed.

Yeah man, I will take the peace offering and I will go ya' one better. I honestly feel like there is so little difference between the 2 cartridges that it is a moot point in most situations with the only performance advantage that the .44 enjoys is with heavy bullets. I reload and cast bullets, but have never taken the plunge into the .41 even though I did buy a set of dies that are on the bench right where I put them when they came in some years ago. I think that someone is better off with the .44 because of availability of ammo and things of that sort. So, I hope the gulf between us has been breeched on the .41/.44 subject.

And, I was really just yanking your chain cause I like to harass .41 and .45lc lovers...even though I have great respect for both.

[336A]

To say that the works of Gordon Boser and Pop Eimer on .400" cartridges contributed to the development of the .41Mag is a bit of a stretch. IMHO, this work crested and ended with the .401Powermag. The closest a magnum .400 came to real commercial success was Colt's experimental .400" cartridge. It 'might' have had a chance, as it even preceded the .357Mag. All these .400" wildcats were sporting rounds, not the law enforcement round the .41 was meant to be. No real, direct lineage. As Taffin writes, the .357 and .44 magnums had parents, the .41Mag had aunts & uncles. The .44 simply had more support behind it, with not only Elmer Keith but John Lachuk and the other ".44 Associates".

I don't think it is much of a stretch to think so. Kieth and Jordan both were lobbying for a .40" cartridge and the .401" PowerMag debuted 3 years before the .41 mag. It easily offered what both men were looking for and then some. From a marketing stand point it was IMHO a shrewed business decision to decide on a .410" cartridge so as not to cause the public to purchase a cheaper firearm that could fire a .400" S&W magnum cartridge, if S&W decided to go that route. We will never know the real truth however and could go on and on til' the cows come home.

Actually it was the .401 PowerMag that came the closest to commercial success where .400" magnums are concerened. Especially since small numbers of both ammo and firearms were sold, the .400" Colt didn't even make it beyond prototype status. But in the end the .41 mag prevailed which is perfectly fine with me. Whether it is directly or indirectly the .41 mag does have some form of lineage and it did start with the .400" calibers.

However as Elmer stated in the article I posted a link to earlier "Doug Hellstrom decided to make the new cartridge a true .41 instead of .400".

[kevin7769]

Lot's of good info here as to why the .41mag.. I own 3, all S&W 57's, 4"blue(1978), 6"blue(1964)and a 8 3/8" Nickel(1982) with Dirty Harry style shoulder rig. I also own a 29 with 10 5/8" Silouette barrel(about 1983 I think). I prefer the 41mag. I plan on trying some 41special when I can get around to ordering it. In just standard type loads the 41 is more manageable(at least IMO), but when I get into the serious hunting type loads like Winchester Platinum 41 mag it feels about the same as 44. I also like 10mm, what can I say.. If its a popularity contest then sure 44 wins(not at the gunshop I work at though, 500 rules the roost with ammo and gun sales). If its comparing 41 handloads to factory 44's, the 41 probably wins.. but now there are some great reloading stuff for the 44 it equals back out.

[Brian Williams]

Help me understand why the .41 Mag is better than .44 Mag
It is not better, just different.
There's really no reason to own a .41, period.
here is one, If you want something bigger than the 357 but smaller than the 44.
This would be great with a S&W 581/586 in 41 magnum

[CraigC]

Actually it was the .401 PowerMag that came the closest to commercial success where .400" magnums are concerned.
I didn't say it wasn't, only that the Colt cartridge probably would've had the best chance. The PowerMag would've failed regardless, based on looks alone. As it was only ever chambered in the hideous Herter's revolvers. The Colt cartridge would've preceded the .357Mag and would've been chambered in the lovely New Service and Single Action Army revolvers.

[gspn]

I have both. What little difference in performance there might be between the two is far and away offset by the high price and scarcity of .41 mag ammo.

I reload so I shoot a ton of both calibers. Even in the reloading department it's easier to work with the .44 as there are a greater variety of components and far more data to work with.

Don't get me wrong...I LOVE my .41 mag...but if I wasn't a reloader I'd never even consider it because ammo costs so much and can be difficult to find.

[Owen Sparks]

There is only 0.19" difference in diamiter between the two cartridges. Not enough to make any real difference.

[CajunBass]

I don't know if it's any "better" or not, but I'd like to have a Model 58 just "because." :D

[screwtape2713]

In 1873, Winchester introduced its new lever action rifle in .44-40. The same year, Colt introduced its new revolver in .45Colt. Very shortly, the 1873 Winchester and the Colt Peacemaker were both also available chambered for the other manufacturer's cartridge. The reason: so any hunter, lawman or cowboy could buy a new pistol to match his existing rifle (or vice versa) and thereafter only need to carry one supply of ammunition for both weapons.

Today, 135+ years later, a shooter can still do the same. A handgun chambered for any of the modern rimfire cartridges, any of the most common semi-auto rounds (9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W and .30Carbine come to mind) or any of the following rimmed revolver rounds - .38Spl/.357Mag, .44Spl/.44Mag, .45Colt, .454Casull, or .480Ruger - can be matched with a suitable rifle.

In fact, directly on topic, I think the .44 Magnum is the only centre-fire revolver cartridge to have been used to date in a semi-auto rifle. And even though Ruger hasn't made its .44 Carbine for several years, I believe anyone wanting a semi-auto brush gun to match his .44 Magnum revolver can still find a used one reasonably easily today.

By contrast, the only 'serious' handgun cartridge that has never had any rifle of any kind commercially chambered for it is ... the .41 Magnum.

And as far as I'm concerned (and obviously a huge number of other users) that is reason enough for the .41 Magnum to have died on the vine as anything but an oddball handloader special.

[CajunBass]

By contrast, the only 'serious' handgun cartridge that has never had any rifle of any kind commercially chambered for it is ... the .41 Magnum.

Good argument....but...

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/41300

It just ain't so. :D

[CraigC]

...the 1873 Winchester and the Colt Peacemaker were both also available chambered for the other manufacturer's cartridge.
The Colt was available in Winchester's cartridge but not vice versa. .45Colt leverguns are a modern invention, due to the tiny rim and the issues it would've created with the folded head brass of the 1880's.

[screwtape2713]

The Colt was available in Winchester's cartridge but not vice versa. .45Colt leverguns are a modern invention, due to the tiny rim and the issues it would've created with the folded head brass of the 1880's.
You're right; my mistake - people could buy new pistols to match their existing rifles' calibre but not vice versa. But I think Colt sold an awful lot of pistols chambered in .44-40 as a result!

[screwtape2713]

Good argument....but...

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/41300

It just ain't so. :D
Well, okay, it just ain't entirely so -- just mostly.

Uhmm, you did notice that that Marlin 1894 FG you linked to in that gunshop catalog is listed as 'currently unavailable', didn't you?

I couldn't understand how I could have overlooked such an obvious .41 Magnum rifle as a current production Marlin lever action, so I checked the model history. The fact is, after being introduced in 2003 by Marlin, the .41 Magnum 1894FG became 'currently unavailable' in 2004 - Marlin's production run only lasted a year.

Before making the 1894FG in 2003, Marlin did 2 other runs of .41 Magnum lever actions. And again, they were short runs of few guns. The first was for 4 years between 1985 and 1989 when the 1894S was available in that calibre. The second was a decade later in 1999 when a special limited edition model was produced just for Davidson's.

According to the moaning on the Marlin owners' forum, on the rare occasions when any of them show up for sale at places like gunbrokers.com, the prices start well north of $1,000.00 - recently 1894FGs have fetched $1300-$1500 there.

Contrast that with the availability and cost of similar rifles by Marlin and many other makers in any of the other pistol calibres - including .44 Magnum - and my main point still stands.;)

[CraigC]

But I think Colt sold an awful lot of pistols chambered in .44-40 as a result!
Indeed! Not to mention .38-40's and .32-20's.

[kevin7769]

screwtape, you like to argue don't you?..lol.. Marlin has made 41mag Lever guns in the 1895 and 1894 off and on for years. A quick search with ammosearch found me lots of places to buy 41. Even found loaded 41 special that will work in my revolvers. The cartridge (41mag) obviously isn't for every one. If your after something in a factory load then not a lot out there, as a reloadable cartridge, not a problem. The ammo whether factory or from reloaders is out there, you just have to look and there are plenty of loads to keep most people happy. One local shop near me has I think all of S&W's 41 mag models in stock.. Makes it worth the drive when in the mood to buy.

[jdh]

I have noticed two firearm related topics of late which cause the participants on both sides to display extreme closed mindedness and an almost religious fanaticism. The 41/44 mag debate and the debate on the necessity of safeties on modern striker fired semi automatic handguns. In light of this I have decided to just go straight to the creationism versus evolution discussions and let you fanatics on both sides these two issues have at it.

[zoom6zoom]

Because it's a prime number?

[gspn]

I have noticed two firearm related topics of late which cause the participants on both sides to display extreme closed mindedness and an almost religious fanaticism. The 41/44 mag debate and the debate on the necessity of safeties on modern striker fired semi automatic handguns. In light of this I have decided to just go straight to the creationism versus evolution discussions and let you fanatics on both sides these two issues have at it.
Dude...what if they made a 41 mag striker fired semi auto with no manual safety?

[shootniron]

Dude...what if they made a 41 mag striker fired semi auto with no manual safety?

Dude...ya' might say they do(almost)...they call it a Glock 20.

[CraigC]

I thought Marlin made one run of .41Mag 1894's? And that the only pistol cartridge long action was a .44Mag 336???

[Trad Archer]

It's not.

[Vern Humphrey]

The .41 Mag was pushed by Bill Jordan and Elmer Kieth. Their idea was a police revolver that was more powerful than a .357 and not so heavy and cumbersome as a .44 Magnum.

The .41 Mag did not quite make the grade. It was still too heavy and hard-kicking for the average street cop -- and police began converting to automatics soon after it was introduced.

If I were looking for a revolver more powerful than the .357 Mag, I'd look at either a .44 Mag or a hot-loaded .45 Colt rather than a .41 Mag.

[gspn]

Dude...ya' might say they do(almost)...they call it a Glock 20.
If they change the name to the Glock 41 I'm buyin' it.

[HankB]

There's nothing wrong with a .41 Mag from a ballistic standpoint - it hits noticeably harder than a .357, and is almost as powerful as the .44 Mag.

And that's really the reason it never caught on - it's almost a .44 mag, and doesn't really offer anything that the (slightly) larger round doesn't.

[Confederate]

Is a 158 grain .357 at 1,300 fps better than a 170 grain .41 at 1100 fps?
No, but if you're shooting a human, a 125gr JHP .357 is probably better than a .41. The .41 has the same problem that a .44 mag has. It penetrates too much and recoil is excessive. The .357 load most of the time stays in the person. But it also penetrates car bodies and tires. The .41 revolvers also are way too heavy (heavier than .44 mags, actually). If there was a deficiency in the .357 or the .44 magnums, then a .41 might fill the gap. But right now there is no gap, and there never has been, and that's the problem with the .41.

Having said that, the .41 will pretty much do what a .44 mag will. So if you get a good price on one and want to reload, go for it! Again, if one could find a deficiency in the .357 or the .44, the .41 would certainly fill the gap. But there isn't a gap and there never has been.

No disrespect intended. Just a difference of opinion. And a little humor.
No offense taken.

The .41 Mag was pushed by Bill Jordan and Elmer Kieth. Their idea was a police revolver that was more powerful than a .357 and not so heavy and cumbersome as a .44 Magnum.
I wonder why they thought the .357 was deficient? I know that the initial loads of 158gr JHPs weren't terribly effective, but the 125gr JHPs took care of the problem. I had a lot of respect for Bill Jordan, but not so much for Elmer Keith.

[Drail]

The .41 was originally marketed to be a "better" police service revolver. The problem was that almost everywhere it was issued the cops were used to lugging a K frame S&W on their duty belt and saw no reason to lug the extra weight. (those belts do get heavy on a long shift with all of the junk hanging on it) Also a large number of departments stupidly issued the HOT JHP rounds to officers for qual. instead of the reduced power lead rounds. I have fired those original JHP rounds and man they were HOT! Lots of blast and flame. Most of them had never fired a gun with that much power in it. It was just too much for most of them. If you wanted to instill flinching in a shooter make them shoot a box of those. They'll flinch. You also had a new trend of hiring more women for patrol duty. You know, the ones that can barely reach the trigger and lean way back away from the gun and take 2 or 3 steps back on every shot? It was WAY too much for just about all of them. So they went back to their little .357s. Personally I've been handloading for a Model 57 for thirty years and I like it a whole bunch. A 215 to 220 gr. bullet @ 900 fps. feels like a really big .38 Spl from that N frame and knocks things down pretty reliably. Pepper poppers? No problem. Bowling pins? It's outtahere. My favorite revolver for USPSA and pins. But with almost no support from the ammo companies the .41 will probably always be a handloader's specialty item. But I think it was a great idea.

[CraigC]

Having said that, the .41 will pretty much do what a .44 mag will.
Except sling a .430" bullet. The .44 can utilize significantly heavier bullets with significantly higher sectional densities and offers a much better selection. The .41Mag tops out at 300gr and that is equivalent to a 330gr .44, which can be loaded 100fps faster. Where the .44 goes all the way up to 355gr and slings those 150fps faster than a .45Colt equivalent. All at standard pressures. If you want to split hairs, the .44 is really the best of the three.

[Jrodcody]

Here's my first post on this forum, and what a fun topic to wade into. I am the only guy in my peer group who is partial to the 41. We are all hand loaders, shooters, and hunters. Everyone else prefers 44s. To me, the argument is nothing to do with performance, recoil, or any of the other great arguments made so far. It really doesn't have to do with being different either, though that is indeed fun. For me, it's collectibility. I can feasibly collect an example of every factory produced 41. I could, with the drive and the money, even get every variation in barrel length, finish, etc. In other words, I can collect 41s with the goal of a complete collection. I cannot do that with a 44 collection. There has just been too much produced.

To add to this, I can go get a 44 about anywhere. If I want a rifle, there is a marlin at the pawn shop and a new remlin at the gun store. I can order a smith or find a used one from a buddy. Unless I drum down and say I am only going to collect a specific subset of 44s, I can just go buy one to fit my current fancy. Except for a few current production 41 revolvers (Blackhawks and smith classic series) I have to want a 41 badly to go seek one out.

Right now I have 2 of the 4 runs of 41 marlins, an older model 57 S&W, a Redhawk, a blackhawk, a flattop blackhawk, a desert eagle, and an armi jäger single action. I need the stainless and the cowboy marlins, smiths in the 58, 357ng, 657, a Dan Wesson, a Bisley ruger, a few taurus, a freedom arms, an astra, and the import single action Seville to complete my basic 41 collection. Maybe I can expand from there, especially with smiths, but even so, this is possible. And the thrill of the hunt when I find one of these is great, and is really the crux of my whole argument.

Or I can go buy some effective, available, affordable, ever popular 44 mags that will do everything a 41 will and arguably more.

[Domino300]

Jrodcody
You need to check out and join 41 Mag Association a couple pages back in the Revolver thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=599046[/URL]

[Shoobee]

The "44" is really .429 inches, whereas the "41" is really .410 inches.

This difference is 4%.

That means theoretically at some distance downrange the smaller diameter in the same weight bullet will be more efficient and hold its trajectory better due to less atmospheric resistance in flight. That's with respect to the bullet however. It assumes you are firing out of very similar weapons with the same actions and most notably, the same barrel length.

Bottom line, which is best is the same issue as with the rifle debates, and depends on "what do you plan to shoot with it?"

My overall view of all the magnum pistols and revolvers is that they are too powerful for law enforcement or for effective self defense. Thus I conclude that they are hunting guns.

When you hunt, you normally are only going to shoot one round. You don't need to cap off an entire magazine or cylinder, as when you are defending yourself or in a police gunfight.

Thus for hunting, I would rate the hunting guns in the following order:

#1 45-70
#2 454 casul
#3 44 rem mag
#4 500 S&W

You could plug the .41 rem mag someplace near the .44 but it would depend on the barrel length, with a longer barrel being better than a shorter one for hunting. Ergo if your .41 and your .44 are the same size and the same weight and same barrel length, and the bullets and loads are the same weight and same energy, then there would be a slight advantage to the .41, but you would not notice it, and it would be an insignificant difference.

Going with a more popular round ensures availability of bullets and brass, whether you reload or whether you buy retail. But that is a convenience factor, although it has its advantages.

My point being, there are at least 2 better hunting guns than the .44 or the .41 so debating between almost-twin brothers is a bit meaningless.

Hail to the chief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BFR_45-70_1.jpg

[Jrodcody]

Jrodcody
You need to check out and join 41 Mag Association a couple pages back in the Revolver thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=599046[/URL]
"You need to check out and join 41 Mag Association a couple pages back in the Revolver thread."

Sweet thread, thanks Domino300

[1911Tuner]

My 2% of a buck, and nothing more.

I'm a .41 Magnum fan. I've owned several .44s over the years and have sold them all off. Recently, I acquired a short-barrelled Super Blackhawk...shot it about a hundred times...and traded it for a short .41 Blackhawk as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

I've heard it said that...with the .44 available, there's no practical reason for the .41 Magnum. For my own purposes, if I've got a good .41, there's no real practical need for the .44 magnum. With both loaded to their potential with standard bullet weights, there just isn't enough difference to make a difference until you move into using bullets that are heavy for the caliber...and that's a narrow niche.

IMHO, the .41 Magnum is the perfect heavy revolver caliber, and I'll never be without at least one as long as I have any control over things.

[CraigC]

Here's my first post on this forum, and what a fun topic to wade into. I am the only guy in my peer group who is partial to the 41. We are all hand loaders, shooters, and hunters. Everyone else prefers 44s. To me, the argument is nothing to do with performance, recoil, or any of the other great arguments made so far. It really doesn't have to do with being different either, though that is indeed fun. For me, it's collectibility. I can feasibly collect an example of every factory produced 41. I could, with the drive and the money, even get every variation in barrel length, finish, etc. In other words, I can collect 41s with the goal of a complete collection. I cannot do that with a 44 collection. There has just been too much produced.

To add to this, I can go get a 44 about anywhere. If I want a rifle, there is a marlin at the pawn shop and a new remlin at the gun store. I can order a smith or find a used one from a buddy. Unless I drum down and say I am only going to collect a specific subset of 44s, I can just go buy one to fit my current fancy. Except for a few current production 41 revolvers (Blackhawks and smith classic series) I have to want a 41 badly to go seek one out.

Right now I have 2 of the 4 runs of 41 marlins, an older model 57 S&W, a Redhawk, a blackhawk, a flattop blackhawk, a desert eagle, and an armi jäger single action. I need the stainless and the cowboy marlins, smiths in the 58, 357ng, 657, a Dan Wesson, a Bisley ruger, a few taurus, a freedom arms, an astra, and the import single action Seville to complete my basic 41 collection. Maybe I can expand from there, especially with smiths, but even so, this is possible. And the thrill of the hunt when I find one of these is great, and is really the crux of my whole argument.
Excellent post and I think this sums up the appeal of the .41 for most people.

One may think from my posts that I am negative on the .41, I am not. I think it's an excellent cartridge that does many things well. I just can't go along with the "better than the .44" argument. Because I don't believe it to be true. I don't own a .41 yet because I have not come across one that struck my fancy when I had the money to buy it. A few years ago I found a wonderful fluted cylinder Ruger Bisley at a good price. I just couldn't pull the trigger on it because the frame was scratched around the bolt/trigger pin like somebody tried to push it out without understanding how to free it from the gate spring. It would've needed refinishing and I just couldn't afford another project at the time.

At present, after playing with the .38-40 for a few years, I want to resurrect the .401PowerMag in a custom Ruger.

[jim brook]

I have never owned a 44 mag. About 9 months ago I decided to increase the power in my concealed carry gun from the Kahr PM9 I carried. I figure if I ever need to stop someone then I went to stop him quickly, with one devastating shot. I decided I liked the fast heavy bullet theory, rather than the small fast one or the big slow one. I could not find a 44 mag that looked like it was concealable. I came across the Taurus 415 with a 2.5" barrel in my research. While still a bit large for concealment it sounded like it could be done. Now I have been carrying a pair of them, one behind each hip, since then. I am small, but they conceal well. Some people may put down Taurus, but it is a good gun and it is small enough that I can conceal two of them. With one on each side, I can draw with either hand, I have a fast reload, and it presents a symmetric appearance to enhance concealment. I think it is the most powerful concealment gun I could have gotten, and that is the edge it has over the 44 mag.

[.44 Associate]

I doubt I can tell the difference in recoil between the two.

I know I can't tell the difference in trajectory, and I'd doubt the word of anyone who claims he can. (It's roughly three tenths of an inch at 100 yards.)

And while my experience with terminal effect of the .41 is limited, I strongly doubt there is a significant difference there either.

So it may make for an "interesting" internet debate, but in real life they are essentially the same cartridge.

[Lost Sheep]

41 Mag, 44 Mag; they are at their core, hunting cartridges for thick-skinned game. Humans are thin-skinned game.

The magnum rounds grossly overpenetrate, endangering innocents behind the primary target.

General principle: If you want maximum stopping power, you want the bullet to expend all it's energy INSIDE your target and leave as large a wound channel as it does.

Stopping people is a different ball game than humanely and quickly killing game. Different goal, different rules.

The biggest, baddest handgun round in existence is NOT the best tool for the job. A hammer will kill a mosquito really dead. But it is not the best tool for the job. Can you spell "overkill"?

Lost Sheep

[Mr Woody]

The .41 an attempt to give the police a more powerful cartridge that the .357 but not so hard to handle as the .44 Mag. Police acceptance was very soft and then non-existent after the cops discovered semi-autos.

It was a cartridge who's time never came.

[Jim Watson]

I have a couple of period recollections:

When the .41 was new on the market, Elmer Keith wrote that it was noticeably flatter shooting than the .44.

Handgun metallic silhouette shooters reported that the Model 57 was more durable than the Model 29 which was noted for not holding up well in high volume full magnum shooting.


The article on the .400 Colt Magnum was interesting.
Much earlier, Colt had prototyped a .41 Special. Interestingly enough, it was projected for three power levels, the hottest at a longer OAL so it would only chamber in a New Service.
http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt41spec.htm

Other trivia on the caliber include Herter's plans to offer a double action .401 revolver. They never got it out, but if it had been based on the J.P. Sauer S&W copy, it would have been a contender.


I share the opinion that the .41 RM was too much gun for the police market. The M58 had to be on the N frame to handle the full charge magnums.
If they had kept the power down to about .45 ACP levels in a gun JUST big enough for it, they could have gotten a share of the police revolver market... just as the autos were coming in.

[Crazy Carl]

I've owned one .44 & shot one other. You can keep that mess. I know the 2 calibers are close, but here's my take- .44 is painful & suck-factor 10 for me to shoot. Do NOT like it. Drama, theatrics, muzzle blast & RECOIL. I just don't see the attraction.

On the other hand, my .41 Bisley Blackhawk is comfortable to shoot, even when slinging 215gr Keiths at 1350fps. I don't know about y'all, but down here in NC, that's more than enough for any critter I'm likely to encounter. Anything more than that is a *&%! measuring contest & I'm too old for that crap.

Like was previously mentioned, if/when I feel the need for more, I'll go .45Colt. 260gr at 1270fps were pussycats out of a 4 5/8" Blackhawk. I'm thinking that'd be heap big medicine on anything I'm likely to chase after.

Not bagging/discounting the .44. If it blows yer skirt up, go for it. Enjoy. In the interim, I'ma keep on being me & enjoying my oddball .41.

[tahoe2]

for me, the recoil in the 44's that I have shot ( 5.5" Redhawk and a 6" S&W 29) was punishing to me(wrist) but the 41 was not(6-1/2" blackhawk). I now have a Blackhawk with a 4-5/8" and a S&W Mtn Gun 4". I handload cause that's the only way I can afford to shoot them. I load Keith style 215 grn cast @ 1050 fps for practice and 210 grn XTP's or Gold Dots @ 1300 fps, both these loads are very reasonable in the recoil dept "for me". I still want to try the 250grn Cast Performance WFNGC @ 1150 fps to see what the recoil is like in my short barrels. I did however shoot an 8" Raging Bull in 454 Casull with the Taurus red stripe grip that was almost pleasant to shoot.

[336A]

I'm surprised to see this old thread resurface. While re-reading all four pages I see that there was mention of the .357 mag 125gr JHP loading. Folks must remember too that when the .41 mag made it's debut (1964) expanding jacketed pistol bullets weren't in use at the time. IIRC the .41 mag was the first revolver cartridge to make use of a JSP bullet. How the .41 mag would stack up today compared to today's top defensive cartridges is any one's guess. It certainly hasn't had the advantage of being up graded like the more popular cartridges in use today.

Folks like to scoff at the .41 mag because it can't launch 300+ gr bullets compared to other cartridges. Therefore I suppose it can't make it through a wet Kleenex? However I have to ask, if a 225gr SWC launched at 1300-1400fps can penetrate past the liver (never to recovered) of a adult moose at 61yds, and stop said moose in 10yd what more is a 300+gr bullet going to accomplish?
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6879&highlight=magnum

Or how about a 250gr WFN starting out at almost 1100fps hitting a 700 pound elk at 74yd broad side and going complety through both shoulders. Again what more is one going to accomplish from a 300+ gr bullet? Both animals would not be any more degree of dead.
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=69822&highlight=magnum

So much for the argument of needing to sling extra heavy for caliber bullets to harvest your quarry:rolleyes:

The .41 mag is a fine cartridge and can stand up on it's own merits. What few people realize is that the .41 mag is only about 10% short of .44 mag performance, barring of course the super heavy bullet loads.

[USMC8541]

I want a 41 mag, 44 was just never right; Too big for a handgun too small for a rifle