.41 Magnum vs. .45 Colt

[RealGun]

A lot of good comments have been offered. I would only add that the “versatility” of the 45 Colt is greater than the 41 - now let me qualify that statement by saying - from a reloaders perspective.

The 41 is best with bullets in the 170 - 210 range, with 250 being the heaviest I’ve ever seen for the cartridge.

OTH, the 45 has a much greater range of bullet weights and designs than what you can find in the 41. While some will say, “you’ll have more fun and get ‘er done with a .41,” the 45 will get ‘er done from ,” mice to elephants.”

I have and shoot both - to me, the 41 is more boutique and says you like a fine cigar and an aged bourbon… the 45 says, “hold my beer and watch this..”

Comments about the 45 Colt cartridge's range too often are without context. Recall that we are talking about an S&W 25, not a Redhawk (no longer offered in 5.5"). We are also referring to double actions, not honkin' big ole single actions, Rugers of which have notoriety for chamber dimensions out of sync with bore diameter...not the best platform for seeing how hard a 45 Colt can be pushed.

 

[Anchorite]

Comments about the 45 Colt cartridge's range too often are without context. Recall that we are talking about an S&W 25, not a Redhawk (no longer offered in 5.5"). We are also referring to double actions, not honkin' big ole single actions, Rugers of which have notoriety for chamber dimensions out of sync with bore diameter...not the best platform for seeing how hard a 45 Colt can be pushed.

Yep, you’re right. With the N frame parameters in mind, I’d opt for the 41, as it seems the perfect balanced cartridge for the frame.

 

[Charlie98]

Long term, the .44Mag is a little more than the platform can handle but the .41 seems to be just right.

Actually, in the wrong hands, the .41 is a little more than the S&W can handle... long term. My brother and I quite literally wore his Model 57 out in our Early Days of Reloading with very full house loads. If you want to run full up Magnum loads, .41 or .44... or even souped up .45 Colt loads... in the long-term, you need to be looking at a different pistol. I learned from our experience with my brother's 57, and only run moderate Magnum loads in my 57 and 58. Now... my Dan Wesson, on the other hand...

Rugers of which have notoriety for chamber dimensions out of sync with bore diameter...not the best platform for seeing how hard a 45 Colt can be pushed.

Ruger .41's have that notoriety as well... and Ruger .44's... at least in my experience.

 

[Barbaroja]

With hand loading in mind, which would be required to get the most out of both the 41mag and 45 colt.
The only limitation to Bullets for the 41 mag is if you insist on buying from the biggest companys, if you want to shoot Speer , Hornady, Sierra, nosler, etc. then yes your kinda stuck with Bullets ranging from 170-220gn. If you cast or buy from the smaller casting companies you can get any manor of Bullet one would desire.

People that dig deeper on the 41 soon come to realize that in most people’s situations ( not shooting Cape buffalo) the 44 mag offers nothing that a 41 mag can’t provide. Most 44 mag factory ammo is a 240gn swc or jhp going 1200-1300 FPS. A 41 can match that with ease. With WFN Bullets the meplat is nearly identical in size. 44 only takes the lead when you get into pushing bullets over 300+gn to magnum velocities. An uncommon need.

Anyway I’m rambling revolvers are the best. I’m glad your planning on getting both guns. They are both great calibers too!

 

[GarrettJ]

Non-handloader would be best advised to go with the .41 Magnum if power and high velocity is are the goals.

I would take it a step beyond that and suggest a non-reloader skip both and get a .44 Mag. In the retail ammo environment of today, neither the .41 Mag or .45 Colt will be inexpensive to shoot.

Neither will the .44 Mag for that matter, but ammo should be somewhat less unreasonable, and more available.

Beyond that, it really depends on what the end use is intended to be. From an N-frame S&W, there are some activities where one cartridge or the other may have a slight advantage. But there will be a lot of overlap as well.

I have been loading and shooting the .45 Colt for nearly 30 years. I nearly bought a .41 Mag on a couple of different occasions, but never did. For me, stocking yet another set of reloading components is a consideration. I already load revolvers in .40, .44, and ,45 calibers. Throwing another into the mix that’s so close to what I already have becomes a hassle. Personally, I would rather just buy another .44 or .45. But that’s me. Everyone is different.

Good luck. I’m sure either will be enjoyable.

 

[CraigC]

People that dig deeper on the 41 soon come to realize that in most people’s situations ( not shooting Cape buffalo) the 44 mag offers nothing that a 41 mag can’t provide. Most 44 mag factory ammo is a 240gn swc or jhp going 1200-1300 FPS. A 41 can match that with ease. With WFN Bullets the meplat is nearly identical in size. 44 only takes the lead when you get into pushing bullets over 300+gn to magnum velocities. An uncommon need.

Yeah but a 240gr at 1200fps is not full pressure load. Original loads were 1450fps. I've got published 310gr handloads that push to 1400fps out of a 7.5" barrel.

 

[Barbaroja]

Yeah but a 240gr at 1200fps is not full pressure load. Original loads were 1450fps. I've got published 310gr handloads that push to 1400fps out of a 7.5" barrel.

Very true, it’s also not full pressure for the 41mag either. The fastest/heavyweight load I’ve seen data for was a 295gn going 1330 from an 8” and a 300gn going 1267fps from a 6”. As mentioned in my post this is where the 44 mag pulls ahead.
Furthermore I doubt these heavy loads would fit/ let alone be wise to use in any S&W revolvers. Not trying to say the 41 is better or worse. Just that they have the same ability with exception to the extreme top end of loading.

 

[EIB0879]

I have a Ruger Redhawk .41 Magnum 7 1/2" bbl. My wife can shoot it with SWC 210 gr loads and I hunt with Corbon 250 gr HC loads. Best of both worlds.

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

If anyone is interested was just at the cabelas in Hoffman Estates IL they have 2 used Ruger BH in 41 mag $450 ish both looked vary good

 

[Seedy Character]

If anyone is interested was just at the cabelas in Hoffman Estates IL they have 2 used Ruger BH in 41 mag $450 ish both looked vary good

That is a steal deal

 

[horsemen61]

Ttrl

 

[DR505]

I'll prefix this by saying that both of these calibers from S&W are on my 2022 radar. I'm going to end up most likely with both a Model 25 and a Model 57. So, what's the difference between the two.? Recoil is not an issue, I'd just like to have some feedback as to peoples' perceptions of both wheel guns.

Didn't I read this thread over on the S&W Forum?

 

[RealGun]

Comments about the 45 Colt cartridge's range too often are without context. Recall that we are talking about an S&W 25, not a Redhawk (no longer offered in 5.5"). We are also referring to double actions, not honkin' big ole single actions, Rugers of which have notoriety for chamber dimensions out of sync with bore diameter...not the best platform for seeing how hard a 45 Colt can be pushed.

Actually, in the wrong hands, the .41 is a little more than the S&W can handle... long term. My brother and I quite literally wore his Model 57 out in our Early Days of Reloading with very full house loads. If you want to run full up Magnum loads, .41 or .44... or even souped up .45 Colt loads... in the long-term, you need to be looking at a different pistol. I learned from our experience with my brother's 57, and only run moderate Magnum loads in my 57 and 58. Now... my Dan Wesson, on the other hand...

Ruger .41's have that notoriety as well... and Ruger .44's... at least in my experience.

Good to know. I hadn't previously taken note of problems reported with chamber diameters in 41 or 44 Magnum Blackhawks. I haven't done fanboy forums for a long time now and might have missed something about Ruger or S&W. I had one of the 45 Colts with .454 throats and .451 slug. No problems with my 44 Magnum Super Blackhawk or 41 Magnum Flat Top when seeing how a bullet (an XTP) fit the throats.

 

[Charlie98]

Good to know. I hadn't previously taken note of problems reported with chamber diameters in 41 or 44 Magnum Blackhawks. I haven't done fanboy forums for a long time now and might have missed something about Ruger or S&W. I had one of the 45 Colts with .454 throats and .451 slug. No problems with my 44 Magnum Super Blackhawk or 41 Magnum Flat Top when seeing how a bullet (an XTP) fit the throats.

My opinion... much like heavy .357's will loosen up a K-frame, and S&W's answer to this was the L-frame; a steady diet of heavy .41's (and likely .44's, but I don't have direct experience...) in an N-frame will do the same, that has been my experience. I don't think S&W has anywhere to go with the N-frame, unfortunately. Not that the S&W N-frame doesn't make a good pistol, but it has it's limits, and they are below what a Dan Wesson and some models of Ruger can take. Again, just my opinion.

As far as Ruger revolvers... I've had issues with EVERY Ruger revolver I've ever owned, starting with, believe it or not, a Single-Six... through a bevvy of .45 Colt Blackhawks, a beautiful .41 Bisley, and, finally, a .44SPC Flattop... all traced to either poorly machined cylinder throats, and/or torque bulges in the barrel, and in one instance, a poorly machined cylinder that rattled on an oversized Belt Mountain base pin it was so bad. I understand this is just my anecdotal tale, your mileage may vary, need not be present to win.

 

[RealGun]

My opinion... much like heavy .357's will loosen up a K-frame, and S&W's answer to this was the L-frame; a steady diet of heavy .41's (and likely .44's, but I don't have direct experience...) in an N-frame will do the same, that has been my experience. I don't think S&W has anywhere to go with the N-frame, unfortunately. Not that the S&W N-frame doesn't make a good pistol, but it has it's limits, and they are below what a Dan Wesson and some models of Ruger can take. Again, just my opinion.

As far as Ruger revolvers... I've had issues with EVERY Ruger revolver I've ever owned, starting with, believe it or not, a Single-Six... through a bevvy of .45 Colt Blackhawks, a beautiful .41 Bisley, and, finally, a .44SPC Flattop... all traced to either poorly machined cylinder throats, and/or torque bulges in the barrel, and in one instance, a poorly machined cylinder that rattled on an oversized Belt Mountain base pin it was so bad. I understand this is just my anecdotal tale, your mileage may vary, need not be present to win.

I think my 41 Mag Flat Top is the only Ruger SA owned from new that has not gone back to Ruger to fix. I too have a 44 Spl Flat Top with a replaced cylinder. I like that 41 so much I doubled my investment by having it converted to a Bisley grip. I think of that gun now with a certain reverence.

 

[Charlie98]

I too have a 44 Spl Flat Top with a replaced cylinder.

I really liked mine... it was far handier than my old Vaquero. I was sad to let it go. I even had the cylinder reamed, but that barrel bulge was huge. I was sad to let that .41 stainless Bisley go, too... it was one of my Unobtanium guns, but that thing was a bucket of trouble.

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

I had bad leading so had my cylinder opened up to 412 leading went away

 

[RealGun]

I had bad leading so had my cylinder opened up to 412 leading went away

Many guns are not designed to shoot larger diameter lead bullets. I have had throats done on a number of guns, always at my expense. That included recutting forcing cone angles.

 

[westernrover]

Model 25 may not be suitable for "Ruger Only" loads up to 30,000 psi, but it should be fine for 21,000 psi or 23,000 psi since it is used at those pressures with 45 ACP. Given a higher pressure limit like that, the longer case length which itself increases the area under the pressure/distance curve, the capacity to hold bulkier slower powders, and the 6.5" barrel, it should offer substantial velocity with a wide selection of cast, jacketed, plated, and mono bullets.

The Model 57 undoubtedly handles higher pressure but would have a limited selection and quantity of jacketed bullets available. The jacketed bullets may not be suited to performing at lower velocities if they're designed to expand at full-magnum velocities. That could limit its performance with lower recoiling loads and jacketed bullets.

 

[NeroM]

Follow up comments......
if i could only swing one (M25 or M57), would go with the M57 - due to potential hand load versatility.
If I didn't hand load, M25 would be a better option, due to factory load range.
Given the current firearm market dynamics, I think the reality is - which ever i found first - I would go with.
If for some reason the gun fairy shined upon me and both were immediately available = N+2 !!

 

[jag1954]

Once again I appreciate the wealth of knowledge here and so without further adieu, I went ahead and purchased the Model 57 today. The Model 25 should follow it shortly thereafter.

 

[NeroM]

Once again I appreciate the wealth of knowledge here and so without further adieu, I went ahead and purchased the Model 57 today. The Model 25 should follow it shortly thereafter.

NICE !

 

[Seedy Character]

My Holy Grail

Color me green

Awesome find

 

[redcon1]

I'd happily have them both. If I had to choose, I would get the S&W 25 without a second of hesitation. It is an awesome revolver. Legendary.

 

[Charlie98]

We .41 shooters are almost to a man handloaders... it's the only way we can afford to shoot! If you need help with loads, I'm sure someone here can help out. I've been loading .41 since 1989...