TikkaShooter
Member
Courtesy Dirty Harry, I remember when the Model 29 in 44 mag was well past $400.
.44 Magnum vs .41 Magnum
- Thread starter Mr. Mosin
- Start date
- Status
Courtesy Dirty Harry, I remember when the Model 29 in 44 mag was well past $400.
Richard Jay King
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2018
- Messages
- 135
If you own a .41 mag it is a good capable gun that deserves to be shot and is suitable for hunting with...If you don't already own one...why would you ever buy one?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That and it's a more capable cartridge, chambered in the same sized guns. At the top end, the .44 walks all over the .41. Just like the .475 walks all over the .44.
Dirty Harry might have inspired some dilettantes to try their hand at it, trading them in after six shots but Elmer Keith (and his successors) is responsible for more serious, long term shooters of big bore revolvers.
RealGun
Member
In case the 44 Magnum is a bit much for a given person or application...the same reasons the cartridge and gun were introduced to the police. Personally, I wanted to try one, thinking caliber should really start with a 4, and was hooked. I also have a 44 Magnum which has its place too, but I had the 41 first.
Last edited:
You could make this case about countless, COUNTLESS other cartridge comparisons. Many calibers aren't materially different than their next door neighbors, they do basically the same thing with the same results, and almost every caliber has a neighbor just above it who can do a little more.
The .41 and .44 mags are very close in performance in that 200 to 220 grain area. The 44 can be had, generally speaking in much heavier weights, but the velocities fall off pretty quick too. I own a .41 mag, and several 44's. I like and shoot them all.
You could just as easily ask why a .44 Mag exists when there's the .454 Casull, the .460 XVR, or any of the other big bores. Heck, with a a 300 grain bullet the .460 S&W mag DOUBLES the speed of the 44. My Hornady reloading data shows a .44 mag with a 300 grain bullet averaging in the 900 to 1,000 fps area, while the .460 S&W mag average 1,800 fps. The .460 can shoot .460 &W mag, .454 Casull, 45 Colt, and .45 Schoefield all through the same gun. Does that mean the .44 sucks or is obsolete? Nope. It just means there's lot of options, many with overlap.
For me the .41 and .44 mags get used the most just because they offer a very nice tradeoff between power and shootability. The .460 is a beast, but I don't like shooting more than 10 rounds in a session with it. I can shoot the 41's and 44's all day long.
Most cartridges don't "need" to exist. If you snapped your fingers and did away with everything but 8 pistol calibers that covered the full spectrum, I imagine the same amount of ammo would get shot, and the same terminal results would occur. Buy what you like, shoot what you like, and just know there are probably a few other calibers that do it just as well, and a bunch that do it even better.
If you own a reloading book, take it to bed with you every night. Read it like a regular book. Go page by page, caliber by caliber, weight by weight, and look at the data. So many are so close in performance that you wonder why they exist at all. Sometimes someone was trying to build a better gun, or come up with a better solution, other times it's just good old fashioned marketing...gun makers need to sell guns.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,986
Timing had nothing to do with it, LE's didn't start switching en masse until the late 80s and last I checked the .41 came out in the mid to late 60s.
The issue was the gun writers of the day (who would be youtubers and forum dwellers today) wanted a .41 in something a bit bigger than a K frame and wanted it to shoot a 200 grain projectile at ~950 fps. Instead what happened was the folds at S&W decided not to do that and put the .41 in an N frame and had the thing throwing those 200 grain pills at 1150 fps and a 240 grain magnum load at 1500 fps because everybody back then was giddy about magnums.
The manufacturers shot themselves in the foot. They could have had another cash cow in a law enforcement firearm that probably would have sold really well and instead they wanted to make another .44 Magnum and people looked at the .41 and .44 side by side and said bigger is better and the .41 died a death.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,986
.41 is a reloaders cartridge because, unless you have lots of money, the only way you're going to be shooting it is by reloading. Could say the same about .44 Special or Mag, .45 Colt, etc., but the thing is that ammo can be found a lot easier. I'd make a bet that if I went to my LGS 5 mins away that he would have several boxes of .44 Mag or .45 Colt on the shelf and maybe one box of .41.
I won't get into the minutiae of why .41 isn't popular, it's just not popular and because it's not popular, there isn't a demand for guns or ammo in it and thus the guns and ammo aren't common.
It's a vicious cycle a lot of calibers get stuck in and few every find their way out. 10mm is slowly coming back because people are realizing that big .44's, .454's, and the like are heavy to carry, low in capacity, high in price, and increasingly have QC issues. A 10mm Glock is as sure a thing as the sun rising every morning or a CNN host lying.
For those that have some super niche use for a .41, typically hunting, it's a round for them, but for people who don't fall into the niche uses, there's no reason to buy a .41, not when .357 or .44 will do what you need.
Somebody brought up .327 and there will be those that will argue that .38 and .357 do everything needed that make .32 revolvers obsolete, but there are factors that make a .32 revolver worth buying for some, the biggest one being lightest possible recoil in a revolver that just so happens to have a better trigger than a .22 and holds an extra round over .38/.357.
Some will say they just learned to shoot better thru training how to shoot better with .38/.357 so they never needed any of the enhancements of a .32 and to them I say, "That's great, but not everybody gets to train like you do or is as good as you are and for them the best option is the .32 revolver."
So the answer is that people are different and have different opinions and experiences and there will be those that swear by the .41, those that swear by the .44, those that swear by the 9mm, the .40, the .45, etc.
For me, I have no use for either .41 or .44, I like my .45 Colt Redhawk that is cut for moon clips and can shoot cheap .45 ACP factory ammo fairly accurately out to 20 yards. Anything further than that and I use my .45 Colt reloads and if I need some heavy firepower, I'll buy some boutique ammo that's about the same price as .44 Mag is.
I won't get into the minutiae of why .41 isn't popular, it's just not popular and because it's not popular, there isn't a demand for guns or ammo in it and thus the guns and ammo aren't common.
It's a vicious cycle a lot of calibers get stuck in and few every find their way out. 10mm is slowly coming back because people are realizing that big .44's, .454's, and the like are heavy to carry, low in capacity, high in price, and increasingly have QC issues. A 10mm Glock is as sure a thing as the sun rising every morning or a CNN host lying.
For those that have some super niche use for a .41, typically hunting, it's a round for them, but for people who don't fall into the niche uses, there's no reason to buy a .41, not when .357 or .44 will do what you need.
Somebody brought up .327 and there will be those that will argue that .38 and .357 do everything needed that make .32 revolvers obsolete, but there are factors that make a .32 revolver worth buying for some, the biggest one being lightest possible recoil in a revolver that just so happens to have a better trigger than a .22 and holds an extra round over .38/.357.
Some will say they just learned to shoot better thru training how to shoot better with .38/.357 so they never needed any of the enhancements of a .32 and to them I say, "That's great, but not everybody gets to train like you do or is as good as you are and for them the best option is the .32 revolver."
So the answer is that people are different and have different opinions and experiences and there will be those that swear by the .41, those that swear by the .44, those that swear by the 9mm, the .40, the .45, etc.
For me, I have no use for either .41 or .44, I like my .45 Colt Redhawk that is cut for moon clips and can shoot cheap .45 ACP factory ammo fairly accurately out to 20 yards. Anything further than that and I use my .45 Colt reloads and if I need some heavy firepower, I'll buy some boutique ammo that's about the same price as .44 Mag is.
LOLBELL
Member
Like most anything, it can be looked at from two or more different directions. I like to think there is absolutely no reason to buy a 44 or 357 when a 41 will do what you need.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,986
If it were more popular so people wouldn't have to reload it to shoot it without spending a fortune and there were more guns available for it, sure, .41 would be great. It's not even as popular as .327 or .500 S&W is, so not much chance it will ever make a come back.
I have a Charter Arms .41 mag Pug (23 oz) and a Taurus Titanium 2.5” .41 Magnum (21 oz)
Here are some chrono results from the Charter 2.5”. Labradar results at the muzzle and 55 deg f (45 deg f for the last two).
180gr Barnes ….… 1,195 fps (21 es)
230gr HSM …….… 1,145 fps (28 es)
230gr Underwood .. 1,263 fps (18 es)
250gr Grizzly …….. 1,169 fps (4 es)
210gr Fed Swift A Frame .. 1,191 fps (1 es)
210gr Grizzly Punch …….. 1,239 fps (20 es)
Grizzly Punch is a bit too long to function reliably in either. Pulled three of the facory bullets. The factory rounds were loaded with 22.0gr of powder that looks exactly like H110/W296.
Resized two cases and loaded one with 20.5gr of the factory powder (w/factory primer) and one with 20.5gr H110 (w/CCI350) and reseated the bullets to an OAL of 1.581”.
Loaded the third bullet in a starline .41 special case primed with CCI350 and 18.0gr of the Grizzly factory powder from the original cartridge. Crimped in the bullets crimp grove it’s OAL was 1.528”.
Chronographed the following in the 2.5” Taurus Ti Tracker. LabRadar 35 deg F.
150gr Underwood Leghigh Xtr Defender …. 1,342 fps
210gr Punch – 41 Special 18.0gr H110 …. 1,149 fps
210gr Punch – Reseated 1.581” Factory … 1,115 fps (no discernable diff between powders – (ES - 20 fps)
250gr WFNGC Grizzly Cartridge factory …. 1,159 fps
215gr SWCBB HiTec, 6.8gr Univ Deep Seated and crimped over front dr band …. 839 fps.
The 250gr WFNGC Grizzly is a handful in both guns as is the 230gr Underwood. Overall, the Taurus recoils a bit less than the Charter. The Charter recoil reminds me of shooting similar loads thru a S&W M329 Ti/Sc 44 mag. The 215gr SWC over 6.8 univ is easy shooting recoil wise.
In my hands, both guns shoot quite high at 25 yds with heavier loads.
Here are the two guns:
FWIW,
Paul
Last edited:
Nice write up. Those are some stout loads from those snubbies.
So what pistol caliber would be best for deer hunting under .44 mag size?
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,986
With the magnum load, sure, but that .41 Mag looks like the perfect candidate to use in a .41 Special role and had a .41 like the size of that Charter existed back in the 60s, had a 4 inch barrel, and the correct ammo used, that would have found its way into every LEO's holster.
Nothing wrong with the .41 Mag!
Maybe I misunderstood your quote but I thought it said not impressed with the .44 mag and even less impressed with the .41 mag?
Ridgerunner665
Member
multiple picture upload41 mag put this one down at 125 yards yesterday.
210 grain Swift A-Frame poked a hole clean through him with a high shoulder shot... can't see the entrance in the picture but its there, the exit was about the size of a nickel on the other side.
Bang flop.... dead before he hit the ground.
I can't imagine a 44, or even a 454, doing much better for this.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Pretty sure Max was referring to the results on really big game...1500 pound water buffalo and stuff.
Bigger is better on game that size.
Bigger is better on game that size.
You asked about deer and what caliber is good under the .44, hence my reply. I don’t care for the .44 or .41 for really big stuff as I think they are both lacking a bit of everything.
MidRoad
Member
Nice looking deer! What gun? Nice shot!
Ridgerunner665
Member
It was the Henry carbine...I only wish I could make a shot like that with a handgun from field positions, lol.
sequins
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,478
I think a lot of people start out on a 357, jump up to a 44, and then start eyeing 454, 460, 480, and 500.
41 is a rare cartridge IMO and I personally had a few revolvers before I became aware of it... namely my 357 & 44. I want to keep climbing higher for even louder, bigger, etc. Not grab a middle cartridge.
41 is a rare cartridge IMO and I personally had a few revolvers before I became aware of it... namely my 357 & 44. I want to keep climbing higher for even louder, bigger, etc. Not grab a middle cartridge.
RealGun
Member
"Rare" doesn't matter, because if liking this cartridge, you will be loading your own anyway. Reloading supplies, dies, etc. for 41 are not "rare", if simply buying on line and saving the riding around locally to no avail.
sequins
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,478
I just mean you only know what you know, I already had a 357 and a 44 before I heard of 41 on this forum. I've never seen a 41 anywhere but online.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
