Curious about folks pros/cons on the 41 vs 44 Sp or even 45 LC.

[200Apples]

I sold my three-screw .41 Magnum Blackhawk for two reasons:

1. It had a timing/misalignment issue with the cylinder and bore axes.

2. There's nothing a 4-5/8" .41 will do that one 4-5/8" or two 5-1/2" .44 Special New Model flat top Blackhawks or a 7-1/2" Old Model Super Blackhawk won't do when using developed handloads. I am now a big fan of the classic Skeeter load of 7.5 grains Unique under a 250 gr Keith (authentic Keith) or a similar-weight Beartooth WFN cast bullet. I want to develop additional loads using these two slugs to 1000 fps with a couple of other powders too. Over the next while I want to develop a 300-grain bullet load for my Super. I am about to pressure-lap several of my revolvers; some just need a lil' bore smoothing and others have thread or dovetail choke.

I am keeping my Marlin 1894FG because I think 20" .41 Mag might be a superb carbine with heavy-for-caliber hardcast. I'm about to slug it's bore and order some 265 gr WFN from Beartooth even though I'd have to wait as long as three months.

 

[Charlie98]

I am keeping my Marlin 1894FG because I think 20" .41 Mag might be a superb carbine with heavy-for-caliber hardcast. I'm about to slug it's bore and order some 265 gr WFN from Beartooth even though I'd have to wait as long as three months.

My 1894FG does very well with the Cast Performance 250grn GC bullet, either under IMR4227 or W296. I think mine were sized .411", but I would have to check. For that matter, my FG doesn't have a problem with anything I run through it, including generic 215grn commercial cast.

 

[200Apples]

Agh. :-|

Thanks Charlie, thanks Craig.

I should amend my prior post to say I won't be "developing" anything. I meant to say "work up" some heavy-for-caliber bo0lit loads using already-published load data and/or recommendations from accomplished cast bullet handloaders.

 

[Stargater53]

Years ago, a gun writer wrote an article about how he converted a perfectly good Ruger Speed-Six .357 6-shot revolver to a 5-shot .44 Special. It was one of the most lame-brained enterprises I'd ever seen and I could never figure out why he would do it. To my way of thinking, the .357 waa a superior caliber. The .44 Special is bigger, heavier, slower, has the trajectory of a bowling ball and the converted revolver has one less shot. So why would a man do it when, at the time, he could have purchased a Charter Arms Bulldog? In my view, he ruined a good gun and paid a considerable sum in so doing. He can't hunt with such a gun and the .44 Special certainly isn't as good a manstopper as the .357 or even a .38 Special. If loaded to higher pressures, the .44 Special may equal a .357, but it can't exceed it in my view.

The .45LC is a worthy caliber and I'd like to own a single-action revolver in the .45LC. The .41 Magnum also is superb and I'm sorry it didn't catch on. It's a great hunting round and is somewhat easier on the hand and the N-frame revolver. That said, it is redundant and adds nothing substantial to either the .44 Magnum or the .357. If I got a .41, I'd buy my ammunition in bulk and store it. It's not something you can find in most gun stores, and if you did find it, it might not be the configuration you want.

 

[200Apples]

To my way of thinking, the .357 waa a superior caliber. The .44 Special is bigger, heavier, slower, has the trajectory of a bowling ball and the converted revolver has one less shot. So why would a man do it when, at the time, he could have purchased a Charter Arms Bulldog? In my view, he ruined a good gun and paid a considerable sum in so doing. He can't hunt with such a gun and the .44 Special certainly isn't as good a manstopper as the .357 or even a .38 Special. If loaded to higher pressures, the .44 Special may equal a .357, but it can't exceed it in my view.

Sir, in my humble opinion, your view is mistaken.

There are many who hold views contrary to yours. Here's one view that was published many years ago...

Charles A Skelton, Shooting Times Magazine, 1966

The .357 Magnum, with much justification, has enjoyed a heyday since 1935. Smith& Wesson's advertising for this revolver used to proclaim, "The S & W '.357' Magnum Has Far Greater Shock Power Than Any .38, .44, or .45 Ever Tested." With factory loads, this was true. Handloaded, the .44 Special made the .357 - also handloaded to peak performance - eat dust. It was the case of a good big man beating hell out of a good little man.

Basic mathematics made it obvious to experimenters that if the .44 Special were loaded up to its maximum velocity - generally accepted as 1,200 fps at the muzzle with 250-grain bullets - it could skunk the 158-grain .357 slug at 1,500 fps.

Topped with cast bullets in Hollow-point form, both the .357 and .44 Special handloads ran several times higher than their closest competitors on General Julian Hatcher's scale of relative stopping power. Significantly, the .44 had almost double the stopping effect of the .357 when this scale was applied, in spite of its moving at 300 less velocity.

 

[.308 Norma]

Years ago, a gun writer wrote an article about how he converted a perfectly good Ruger Speed-Six .357 6-shot revolver to a 5-shot .44 Special. It was one of the most lame-brained enterprises I'd ever seen and I could never figure out why he would do it.

Yeah, I remember that article. Was it Skeeter Skelton?
I guess it doesn't matter - I too thought it was lame to convert a good .357 Ruger "Six" of any flavor to 44 Special. But gun writers have to have something to write about.

Edited to say: Sorry 200 Apples - you posted while I was still typing. Regardless, as much as I appreciate the 44 Special as a revolver round (and I do) I still think it was lame for Skeeter Skelton to convert a 6-shot, 357 Ruger "Six" to a 5-shot 44 Special.

 

[Stargater53]

Yeah, I remember that article. Was it Skeeter Skelton?
I guess it doesn't matter - I too thought it was lame to convert a good .357 Ruger "Six" of any flavor to 44 Special. But gun writers have to have something to write about.

No, Skeeter never got drunk enough that he would deface a good handgun like a Speed-Six. It was a COMBAT HANDGUNS writer. Wonder where that gun is today? (BTW, Sketter and Bill Jordan were two of my favorite writers. I have two of Skeeter's books, which I've kept in mint condition. They're worth quite a bit of money now.)

 

[CraigC]

Gimme a break. I'll take any flavor of .44Spl over any flavor of .357 any day of the week. That's because velocity never makes up for mass and diameter.

 

[200Apples]

I have two of Skeeter's books, which I've kept in mint condition.

That's because you've never read them.

 

[CraigC]

Here's a Ruger .357 converted to .44Spl. Now imminently more useful. For general purpose use, a .44Spl loaded with a 250gr SWC at 950fps beats the hell out of standard loads out of the .357 and it does the job without making your ears bleed. The Keith 1200fps load is available if needed.



Here's Ruger's version, also imminently more useful.



Here's three guns on Ruger's .357 platform, now factory built as .44Spl's. The modern version of the early ASP .44Spl conversions on the Sixes.

 

[RealGun]

On another site someone asked the question, “Curious about folks pros/cons on the 41 vs 44 Sp or even 45 LC. I know the LC can be loaded to surpass the 44 Mag.”

For a number of I hunted deer with a Ruger Super BlackHawk with 6 5/8” barrel in a 44 Mag.

I sold the 44 Mag to buy a match set of BlackHawk Bisleys at an estate sale, 1 was a 5 5/8” barrel, .45 Colt convertible and the other was a .44 Spl. I also have a BlackHawk 357 Mag with a 6 5/8” barrel.

These BlackHawks are woods revolers. I like them a lot, I will not them and they all do I doing.

What do you think?

What I think is that you may no longer have a good deer gun. If I hunted, my 41 Mag NMBH Flat Top would be my choice.

 

[Charlie98]

I should amend my prior post to say I won't be "developing" anything. I meant to say "work up" some heavy-for-caliber bo0lit loads using already-published load data and/or recommendations from accomplished cast bullet handloaders.

Data for those heavy cast bullets is sort of hit or miss. CP provides a very limited amount of data for their bullets (available online) and there is other data out there. I have a spreadsheet of data someone made up of all the published data he could find, I use it as a guide... and compare it to the other published data I have. 'Developing' and 'work up' are synonyms... at least as far as I'm concerned, unless you are 'developing' the .200Apple Super Magnum and the data to go with it.

 

[CraigC]

I find LoadData.com to be an invaluable resource.

 

[JD Pinardi]

I have a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 mag I bought at a yard sale 42 years ago, it's been living on nothing but handloads it's entire life, and with all the handguns I have owned, (even though a 1911 is my carry gun) it's still my favorite.
happy shootin'
JD

 

[TTv2]

I've been a big proponent of .45 Colt since I bought a conversion cylinder for a my first Pietta NMA. I don't doubt the capability of the .44 Special, but I fail to see how it is a superior choice for one to spend their money on over a .45 Colt. If you have a .44 Magnum and you want a smaller carry piece, okay that's logical. If you've found one that's an absolute bargain way lower than any .45 Colt, that's logical, but the .45 Colt is a more versatile cartridge.

.45 Colt is more historical too, that is the cartridge (along with .44-40) that was primarily used in the Western Frontier. .45 Colt in the Single Action Army was the sidearm of the military for decades in the late 19th Century and, yes, I know the .45 Schofield was the ammo used, but the guns were chambered for .45 Colt. The .44 Special... never used in the US military and I don't even know of any Police who ever used it, I know there were departments that used .32 S&W Long, .38, .357, and .45 Colt in the Colt New Service, but to my knowledge .44 Special never saw use.

When it comes to the ballistics, .45 Colt and .44 Special are pretty much identical, but only if we're comparing standard SAAMI pressures. .45 Colt can go way above SAAMI pressures in certain guns, I have yet to find a .44 Special ONLY that can do that without blowing up. .45 Colt is more popular, there is more factory ammo available and for less than .44 Special. .45 Colt can shoot .45 ACP if you have cylinder cut for moon clips. All the .410 handguns are able to shoot .45 Colt.

IMO, the .45 Colt is a better choice than .44 Special. If all the .44 Special has going for it is the Charter Arms Bulldog, cool, but that's available in .45 Colt now. Maybe a little bit bigger in the cylinder length and diameter, but not by much. Is .44 more accurate? Maybe, but I think that has to do with powder space and air gap and that can be remedied by using shorter brass like .45 Schofield to minimize the gap in the case and make groups nearly identical.

As for .41 Mag, I think that cartridge has had no reason to exist since it was created. You gain nothing in cylinder capacity, the guns are for all intents and purposes just as large as a .44 Magnum, and the ammunition and reloading components are not common.

 

[200Apples]

As for .41 Mag, I think that cartridge has had no reason to exist since it was created.

Well, Elmer Keith and Bill Jordan, for starters, thought differently.

Too, .41 Mag can be flatter-shooting than .44 Mag, which is why I'm interested in keeping my Marlin 1894FG (a 20" .41 Remington Magnum lever carbine) and handloading for it in the future.

Meanwhile, the .44 Special and four whirlenpoppers so chambered have my attention.

'Developing' and 'work up' are synonyms... at least as far as I'm concerned, unless you are 'developing' the .200Apple Super Magnum and the data to go with it.

Hahaha... 10-4. That's funny. Still, I prefer "work up" now that I can make the distinction. I'm not interested in much that might be labeled Super Mag, even in rifles, when there are other, lower-pressure loads that are more efficient, are characterized by moderate instead of severe recoil, and which are also terminally effective. One (not you, Charlie, necessarily) only has to look beyond the advertised hype and peek into the past to find them: they included cartridges that have been doing the job well and for over 100 years.

 

[CraigC]

I've been a big proponent of .45 Colt since I bought a conversion cylinder for a my first Pietta NMA. I don't doubt the capability of the .44 Special, but I fail to see how it is a superior choice for one to spend their money on over a .45 Colt. If you have a .44 Magnum and you want a smaller carry piece, okay that's logical. If you've found one that's an absolute bargain way lower than any .45 Colt, that's logical, but the .45 Colt is a more versatile cartridge.

.45 Colt is more historical too, that is the cartridge (along with .44-40) that was primarily used in the Western Frontier. .45 Colt in the Single Action Army was the sidearm of the military for decades in the late 19th Century and, yes, I know the .45 Schofield was the ammo used, but the guns were chambered for .45 Colt. The .44 Special... never used in the US military and I don't even know of any Police who ever used it, I know there were departments that used .32 S&W Long, .38, .357, and .45 Colt in the Colt New Service, but to my knowledge .44 Special never saw use.

When it comes to the ballistics, .45 Colt and .44 Special are pretty much identical, but only if we're comparing standard SAAMI pressures. .45 Colt can go way above SAAMI pressures in certain guns, I have yet to find a .44 Special ONLY that can do that without blowing up. .45 Colt is more popular, there is more factory ammo available and for less than .44 Special. .45 Colt can shoot .45 ACP if you have cylinder cut for moon clips. All the .410 handguns are able to shoot .45 Colt.

IMO, the .45 Colt is a better choice than .44 Special. If all the .44 Special has going for it is the Charter Arms Bulldog, cool, but that's available in .45 Colt now. Maybe a little bit bigger in the cylinder length and diameter, but not by much. Is .44 more accurate? Maybe, but I think that has to do with powder space and air gap and that can be remedied by using shorter brass like .45 Schofield to minimize the gap in the case and make groups nearly identical.

As for .41 Mag, I think that cartridge has had no reason to exist since it was created. You gain nothing in cylinder capacity, the guns are for all intents and purposes just as large as a .44 Magnum, and the ammunition and reloading components are not common.

Whole lotta .45 Kool Aid drinking going on there.

It ALL depends on the platform. In a .44Mag-sized platform, I would agree and the .45Colt and .44Mag are ballistic twins in that regard. However, in platforms more appropriate to the .44Spl, such as anything similar in size to the Colt SAA/New Frontier/Ruger mid-frame, it is a better choice than the .45Colt because the guns are stronger and can take more pressure. SAAMI pressure standards are 15,500psi and there are a good many guns that can handle the 26,000psi .44Spl Keith load. I pictured a few above.

Historically, the .44's ancestors predate the ubquitous .45Colt. Those being the .44S&W American and Russian. In fact, the first .45's were actually .44's. Fact is, there is plenty of history on both sides and there's no reason to favor one while deriding the other. All are good, in their own way.

 

[TTv2]

However, in platforms more appropriate to the .44Spl, such as anything similar in size to the Colt SAA/New Frontier/Ruger mid-frame, it is a better choice than the .45Colt because the guns are stronger and can take more pressure. SAAMI pressure standards are 15,500psi and there are a good many guns that can handle the 26,000psi .44Spl Keith load. I pictured a few above.

Yeah, all those guns are Ruger Blackhawks and GP100's, not exactly small, light revolvers. Besides, I said in certain guns and .44 Special can go over SAAMI in certain guns too.

I don't buy .45 Colt revolvers to up the pressures beyond SAAMI spec, I don't think it's necessary for most applications. For a lever action 1892, yeah hot .45 Colt is excellent.

The .44 can fit in a GP100 with 5 rounds, the .45 Colt in a Redhawk with 6 rounds. It's a give and take, but both are going to be relatively large and clunk handguns. .45 Colt gets the nod tho because if you want big bore, the .45 is biggest. The way a lot of people feel about .40 S&W and how there's no use for it because of .45 ACP, that's how I feel about .45 Colt over .44 Special.

 

[CraigC]

34-37oz is pretty light & handy to me and half a pound lighter than most .44Mag's.

 

[RealGun]

As for .41 Mag, I think that cartridge has had no reason to exist since it was created. You gain nothing in cylinder capacity, the guns are for all intents and purposes just as large as a .44 Magnum, and the ammunition and reloading components are not common.

I think one could make a pretty good case for that, but I like my 41s and am not bothered by what others choose to own and shoot. What I want to add though is that 41 SPECIAL is the cartridge missed by history, because six shots will fit in a 357 platform, which is strong enough to contain it. Mine is a GP100 conversion, done in a 3" to make it a big bore carry gun, a six shooter. There is load data available for it, and Starline makes the brass.

41 Magnum on the other hand is done in a Redhawk or Smith N-frame, as prime examples, guns big enough to discourage many from considering them carry guns for everyday purposes.

 

[Charlie98]

I've always thought a .41SPC in an L-frame would be an ideal carry wheelgun. Some day, when I'm King of Everything, I will so direct.

Is the .41MAG a redundant cartridge? Prolly so... but you could actually work your way through the entire list of common rifle cartridges and eliminate half of them as being redundant.

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, Elmer Keith and Bill Jordan, for starters, thought differently.

Elmer and Bill thought the modern .41 should be a moderately powerful police revolver, swapping .357 velocity for bigger bullets. What they got was a full blown Magnum on the S&W N frame because that was what they were tooled up for.
Elmer said the .41 shot flatter than the .44, but who else shoots a sixgun at unknown ranges long enough for that to matter?

Back when IHMSA was in vogue, I heard it said that a M57 .41 was significantly more durable than a M29 .44. My .44 held up just fine, but I was shooting lighter loads than Elmer and a good deal lighter than Remington.

 

[.308 Norma]

but you could actually work your way through the entire list of common rifle cartridges and eliminate half of them as being redundant.

Only half?

 

[labnoti]

.45 Colt is more historical too, that is the cartridge (along with .44-40) that was primarily used in the Western [Movies]

I fixed it for you. The west was no longer a frontier by the time metallic cartridges came on the scene. In 1848, San Francisco was a couple hundred people. By 1852, it was over 36,000. They brought guns like the Colt Walker, Paterson, Dragoon, and pocket models, later, the Navy.

By 1873, most of the 49'ers were already dead and by then even the Comstock Lode was declining. The civil war was over. The west was all part of the United States, and even the sagebrush in Nevada was considered a state. There were cities and railroads all over. Even the transcontinental was complete.

In short, the industrial revolution had already profoundly impacted the west by the time metallic cartridge revolvers came on the scene, and there was no frontier.

 

[RealGun]

I fixed it for you. <snip>

Nevertheless, you should never edit the wording of a quote except for trimming, or you will misrepresent what was written. "I fixed it for you" is the province of list administrators.