41 magnum, why?

CraigC said:

I bought a nice 6" model 57 last year from Gunbroker but when I got it, it had issues that were unacceptable considering what I paid for it. Maybe again some day......

Need to decide what to do with my .41 Blackhawk.

Click to expand...

I bought the parts for a Bisley conversion for my 41 Flat Top 6" NMBH. It shoots well though with rubber Pachmayrs. I don't care for how that looks though.

FWIW I have an itch to buy a 4.2" GP100 .357 and have it rechambered as a six shot .41 Special...that would be incredible. I've heard Clements will do it, I'm not sure. I have a GP100 10mm and it's pretty neat, the wood grip looks cool but does nothing for recoil. To have one in .41 Special would be cool as all get out.

RealGun said:

I bought the parts for a Bisley conversion for my 41 Flat Top 6" NMBH. It shoots well though with rubber Pachmayrs. I don't care for how that looks though.

Click to expand...

I slapped a take-off set of Bisley parts on it but the ears don't line up and the hammer/trigger interface isn't just right. If I decide to keep it, I'll have to have it refitted, refinished and fitted with new grips. Need to shoot it a good bit first.

SDGlock23 said:

It does recoil a bit less too and once again, to be completely honest, the .41 Mag will do 99.99% of what the .44 will for the vast majority of people, it's not lacking in power, it's just slightly behind the .44 Mag.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of overlap but not 99.99%. I realize that most people don't take anything more than deer-sized game with a handgun and for those folks, it's probably 100%. However, for those who hunt bigger game, the gap between the two is more obvious. On the top end, the .44Mag is really the bottom of that group of big bore cartridges that really take advantage of their capacity for heavy bullets and slow powders. The .41 tops out with 265/280gr cast bullets and just can't compete with the .44Mag and .45Colt, where 355-360gr bullets really shine.

CraigC said:

There's a lot of overlap but not 99.99%. I realize that most people don't take anything more than deer-sized game with a handgun and for those folks, it's probably 100%. However, for those who hunt bigger game, the gap between the two is more obvious. On the top end, the .44Mag is really the bottom of that group of big bore cartridges that really take advantage of their capacity for heavy bullets and slow powders. The .41 tops out with 265/280gr cast bullets and just can't compete with the .44Mag and .45Colt, where 355-360gr bullets really shine.

Click to expand...

I agree. Most people only hunt up to deer sized game and for that purpose I think the .41 is certainly plenty, although it stands to reason that even in that regard the .44 is better. I do have a .44 as well and like you said, for those who go after bigger game, the .44 will really shine with the heavier bullet options and slightly larger bullet.

CraigC said:

On the top end, the .44Mag is really the bottom of that group of big bore cartridges

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. Years ago the .44 was, to regurgitate the old phrase... 'the most powerful handgun in the world'... but not any longer. The King has fallen. When the .454 came out, I thought that was pretty crazy... and even that looks tame by today's standards. I'm waiting for the .50BMG pistol...

For both the .41 and .44, they are plenty for deer and the like, modesty compels me to say that if I need a bigger pistol than that to hunt something successfully, what I really need is a rifle, even if it's chambered in .41 or .44.

Charlie98 said:

I love all things .41, for the most part... but I want no part of a light-weight .41MAG pistol.

Click to expand...

RealGun said:

I will be looking to reducing that load or trying something else with two conclusions...the gun is not to be treated as a macho magnum, and that .41 Magnum in the GP100 would be insane for me and other average guys.

Click to expand...

And that's why I wrote what I wrote previously. Be careful what you ask for... you might just get it. I really wonder if those asking for a mid-frame .41 Magnum really know what they are asking for. If the .41 is already a niche cartridge, having it chambered in a mid-sized pistol is a niche within a niche.

Charlie98 said:

And that's why I wrote what I wrote previously. Be careful what you ask for... you might just get it. I really wonder if those asking for a mid-frame .41 Magnum really know what they are asking for. If the .41 is already a niche cartridge, having it chambered in a mid-sized pistol is a niche within a niche.

Click to expand...

I think folks wanting it who don’t load their own would find it less useful than they realize. For those of us who do load our own, I’m guessing many of us would be happy with warm 41 Special loads or mild magnums. But the ability to max out would be a great feature.

I’m looking for a little more than 357 performance without the blast and flash. I’m picturing a 5” barrel with 3/4 lug, and a 5 shot unflutted cylinder. Keep the weight up a bit. Full lug would probably be slightly better but not enough to matter. Well fitted grips suited to the shooter would be absolutely vital in such a gun, or it’ll beat the hell out of you.

460Shooter said:

I’m looking for a little more than 357 performance without the blast and flash. I’m picturing a 5” barrel with 3/4 lug, and a 5 shot unflutted cylinder. Keep the weight up a bit. Full lug would probably be slightly better but not enough to matter. Well fitted grips suited to the shooter would be absolutely vital in such a gun, or it’ll beat the hell out of you.

Click to expand...

One of my favorite pistols was my S&W 686, 4"... I thought that was always the best balance between size and performance. Chamber that as a 5-shot .41SPC and I think you would have a winner. Assuming it would handle the pressure, go ahead and chamber it in .41MAG... then it would become the handloader's dream. You are correct... grips become paramount to shootability with such a pistol. My 686 had Hogue monogrips on it, and while it sure was a looker, that naked backstrap pounded your hand into putty.

Charlie98 said:

One of my favorite pistols was my S&W 686, 4"... I thought that was always the best balance between size and performance. Chamber that as a 5-shot .41SPC and I think you would have a winner. Assuming it would handle the pressure, go ahead and chamber it in .41MAG... then it would become the handloader's dream. You are correct... grips become paramount to shootability with such a pistol. My 686 had Hogue monogrips on it, and while it sure was a looker, that naked backstrap pounded your hand into putty.

Click to expand...

Yep. I can’t shoot a heavy recoiling L frame with an open back strap grip without regretting it. All my L frames get Nill grips with closed back straps put on them for that reason. They fit me really well and make recoil a nonissue.

I wouldn't get too frisky with the .41Mag in a GP or L-frame either. 215's at 1200fps in the .44Spl would be plenty for me.

With a bullet of the same sectional density, construction and velocity, while one would loose a few foot pounds of energy, I don't think there would be any discernible difference between game shot with a .41 and the same animal shot in the same spot with a .44.

The Sierra 170/.41 and 180/.429 have the same construction and SD of .14

A 210/.41 is the same as a 225/.429 at .17.

On the other end a LBT hardcast 285/.41 has the same .24 SD as a 310 grain .429.

A mid-frame .41 Special would be a great...a .41 Magnum...not so much. I have three Taurus Trackers, 4" Ti, 6" Ti and a 4" stainless, and you would not want to shoot them with factory Remington 210 SPs... They make a GREAT .41 Special however. Depending on the bullet weight they are fun to shoot up to about 1150 fps...after that they become unfun rapidly... It's like shooting full factory 158s in a S&W Model 19 vs. a Model 27.... A S&W 69 in .41 Magnum would be interesting...but full loads in it would be about as unpleasant as full .44 Magnum loads are now.

The .41 does everything I need it to do...you however may have other needs...

Bob

I am not trying to be a wise guy here, it often comes across that way across a forum. I have no experience with the .41 so in my head I guess I dont understand the point of it from a reloading point of view anyway.
I can and do cover a wide variety of ranges with my .44mag. I load from light 860 FPS to hot 1450 FPS 240 grain rounds. It seems to me that the .44 can cover anything the 41 can do with the option of turning up the wick well past anything the .41mag can do.
Is it that the .41mag can be offered in smaller frames revolvers than the .44mag?
Like I said, I have no experience with the 41mag, this is just my thought process without actual first hand knowledge.

The 44 mag cannot go "well past" the 41...past, yes, but only by a very little bit.

Ridgerunner665 said:

The 44 mag cannot go "well past" the 41...past, yes, but only by a very little bit.

Click to expand...

I'd call it "well past" anything possible in the .41. In a Ruger or Dan Wesson .44 I can get a 355gr WLN to 1350fps or a 405gr to 1150fps. Most people just don't need anything "well past" the .41.

The .41 is probably a better choice for deer-sized game as it kills much better than the .357 without beating up the shooter quite as much. It's definitely a better choice for the N-frame for longevity.

Ridgerunner665 said:

The 44 mag cannot go "well past" the 41...past, yes, but only by a very little bit.

Click to expand...

Base on real data from Buffalo Bore and Double Tap it seems a far bit of difference to me. 41 Mag seem to top out a bit over 1000 ft-lbs of muzzle energy across typical 41 cal bullet weights. I don't think I have ever found examples of commercial loads over 1100 ft-lbs from reasonable length pistol barrels (~8-in or less). 44 Mag on the other hand seems to fairly easily get over 1200 ft-lbs of muzzle energy with a few creeping in on 1300 ft-lbs. Buffalo Bore sell one load that make over 1500 ft-lbs from a Ruger Redhawk but that particular load is likely over SAAMI spec (given the restriction they put on it).

44 Mag pushes bullets as heavy as 320gr where the 41 Mag tops out around 265 gr.

These two differences seems fairly substantial, not night and day different, but more than a "very little bit".

Those are +p 44 loads....

2 can play that Ruger load game, load the 41 to 40,000+ psi and compare again.

The difference is small, and gets smaller at these levels.

The .41 peaks with 280's while the 355gr is the heaviest practical bullet in the .44. That is a substantial difference.

Ridgerunner665 said:

Those are +p 44 loads....

2 can play that Ruger load game, load the 41 to 40,000 psi and compare again.

Click to expand...

The .41 runs out of case capacity, not pressure. The BB 340gr +P+ load is approaching 50,000psi. There are no bullets and no load data that explore the .41's potential as compared to larger cartridges.

All you need is Accurate #9 and 265 grain bullets.... there's plenty of both.

I've done it...

265gr is a long way from 355gr.

LBT has a 300 grain mold... that is pretty close to the same sectional density as the 340 grain .429 bullet.

.255 vs .264

310 grains would make them even.

I have a 300 grain bullet from Mountain Molds that runs 1260 from a 5.5" gun...

Penn Bullets still markets the 295 SSK that can be pushed with 19.0 grains of H110 for about the same velocity...

..and quite frankly, who cares... The 250 Keith from a .44 Magnum at 1400 fps has taken almost every animal in the world. Unless one is hunting the 1-Ton and over beasts why beat oneself and one's gun up pushing bullets that are not needed...

Agreed...100%.

I have no need for anything over 210 grains... but I couldn't resist the curiosity to see what the 41 could do at +P from the Ruger.

The load I hunt with is a 210 grain A-Frame loaded a little under max.

1,475 fps from the 6.5 inch Ruger.
1,705 fps from the 16.5 inch Henry.

You can get molds in any flavor you wish, I was referring to what is available commercially. Handloading already cuts the field by 90% and casting cuts it even further. There is very little data for 300's.

The 300gr .41 is the same SD as a 330gr .44. The only 300gr I've seen commercially is the SSK and they're a somewhat outdated truncated cone design.

RJM52 said:

..and quite frankly, who cares... The 250 Keith from a .44 Magnum at 1400 fps has taken almost every animal in the world. Unless one is hunting the 1-Ton and over beasts why beat oneself and one's gun up pushing bullets that are not needed...

Click to expand...

Well, I care. What is needed and what is possible are two different things. We're discussing potential, not "what's the best bullet for every day use on tin cans and bottles". And I seriously doubt the 250gr Keith has been used on the African Big Six. Any of the heavy bullets listed or the monometal solids will penetrate FAR better than the old Keith bullet. It also kinda matters when you're testing bullets in preparation for Africa.

Ridgerunner665 said:

Those are +p 44 loads....

2 can play that Ruger load game, load the 41 to 40,000+ psi and compare again.

The difference is small, and gets smaller at these levels.

Click to expand...

No, I was not quoting "+P" I mentioned the one 44 Mag "+P" load at over 1500 fps as a curiosity. 41 Mag roughly maxes out about 1050 ft-lb cartridge and 44 Mag roughly maxes out about 1250 ft-lbs from reasonable length pistol barrels. If these difference are "very little" than maybe 10mm Auto is nearly 41 Mag performance.