My take on the 41 Special is that there is no point in basing a cartridge on a cut-down 41 Magnum, because the 41 Magnum is not popular enough to for such a cartridge to have significant sales. To me, if you want a short 40 caliber pistol cartridge, well, there already is one: 40 S&W. The problem is, there is not a lot of point to a 40 S&W revolver, because there are already compact 40 S&W automatics out there that hold more than 6 shots, are flatter, can be fired more rapidly, and can be reloaded faster than a revolver. But if a medium frame revolver could be made in 10mm, you might have what the 41 Special folks want: a caliber larger than 357, with better stopping power than 38 Special, but less flash, blast, and recoil than 357. And the 10mm option would offer even more power...which is what people always seem to want. And it would address the felt need for the 41 Special using two existing cartridges, one of which is quite popular, instead of with one hypothetical cartridge and one marginally popular one. I know that this has already been done with the S&W 610, but that was an N-frame, IIRC. And why would you want a 10mm revolver if, for the same size and weight, you could get one in 44 Magnum, 41 Magnum, 45 Long Colt, or 45ACP, all of which are N-frame options? Going down to the L-frame would give 40S&W / 10mm something to offer...if it is possible.** ** And now, after all this scribbling, it occurs to me that if it was possible, S&W would probably have done it instead of building the 610 on the N-frame. The other problem is that people never seem to like revolvers chambered for rimless auto-pistol cartridges. Well, it sounded good, for a minute there anyway.