If I have a .41mag and a .45LC do I really have a need for a .44mag or .44spl?

[chaim]

I know gun buying often isn't really about need. Also, I'm not usually one to try to consolidate calibers. Typically my view is that I buy what I want and don't worry about "logistics", I'm not an army. For a few of the calibers I shoot more often I will stock them- 7.39x62 and .223/5.56 in rifles, 9mm and to a lesser degree .45acp in auto calibers, .38spl and/or .357mag in revolver, .22lr is small and cheap enough to stock without any trouble, and I may add .45LC to the mix soon. With other less used calibers I just plan ahead and buy some volume of it when I plan to shoot it, or just spend a little more and buy it at the store when I'm going to use it. Still, if not needed, why add a caliber, the more guns that can share ammo the easier things are.

I own a S&W 57 in .41mag and now I have a .45LC lever rifle (so soon I will add .45LC revolvers). Between those two calibers, most every big bore need is covered. The .41mag is close to .44mag power levels, and .45LC can be loaded up to (and above) .44mag levels in the right guns and it is often loaded similarly to .44spl levels.

So am I thinking clearly here or, with the .41mag and .45LC combo already there, is there actually still an arguement for .44mag and .44spl?

 

[Sarge111]

No...

But if you had a good .44 Mag revolver, .444 rifle, and a loading press you could sure get rid of all that other stuff- and never miss it.

 

[Edward429451]

I agree with sarge. If you reload, 44 is as versatile as it gets. Many many different bullets, moulds to choose from. Loaded from so light there is zero muzzle rise all the way up to OMG.

Sometimes I do get a hankerin for a 45LC though.

 

[cratz2]

Need? Not really...

But I think for the kind of guy that has a 41 Magnum, another revolver or two won't hurt. But I agree with the others that if you don't have anything bigger than a .357 and you don't do CAS, I think a 6.5" 44 Magnum and some handloading equipment goes a long way do being able to do everything.

 

[461]

If you're looking to justify the .44, you could just give me the .41, and then you'd have a real need.

In seriousness, the .44 mag is a wonderful round but a hot .45 can do everything it can do and sometimes more depending on the launch platform. The .41 can do anyhting needed of a rervolver unless you are in Grizzly land and then a handgun is questionable anyhow. Need is not gonna be able to enter into this one. Keep in mind, Want is always a good backup for Need

 

[HSMITH]

Get a blackhawk or a redhawk 45 and put that 44 mag in the dust....

 

[Mike Irwin]

When did need ever have anything to do with it?

If you do purchase a .44, though, be damned sure to keep your cartridges straight.

Nothing like dropping a .41 Magnum into a .44 Special or Magnum.

That's REALLY special.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I rely on four handgun cartridges:

1. .22 Long Rifle -- everyone should have a .22 pistol. I have a Ruger MKII, a Colt Officer's Model Target (once Colt's top of the line .22 revolver) and two M1911 frames, one with a Ciener conversion kit, the other with a Colt Service Ace kit -- the kind with the floating chamber.)

2. .357/.38 Special -- probably the most versatile revolver cartridge ever developed. I have a Colt Model 357 and a Colt SAA (Second Generation).

3. .45 ACP. My carry gun is a Kimber Custom Classic, and I could re-convert either of the two frames currently dedicated to .22 LR in about a minute.

4. .45 Colt. I have a Colt New Service (7 1/2 inch barrel, made in 1906) that makes a perfect woods gun. I load a 255 grain Lee wide flat nose bullet cast of wheel weights and lubed with Liquid ALOX ahead of 19.5 grains of H4227 for around 1,000 fps. I also have a Ruger Blackhawk, and use the same bullet ahead 25 grains of Hodgdon's Li'l Gun, for abouit 1400 FPS.

Note that nowhere in that list do you see a .44 Magnum. I have lived into my 60s without owning one, and despite the dire predictions of my friends, manage to kill deer and perform my husbandly duties with perfect satisfaction.

I think the .45 Colt will do everything the .44 Special and .44 Magnum will do, and do it a bit better -- you can shoot everything from cowboy loads to reall screamers from a Ruger -- and in fact, the old Colt will take deer very cleanly.

 

[JBP]

___________________________________________________________
The .41mag is close to .44mag power levels, and .45LC can be loaded up to (and above) .44mag levels in the right guns and it is often loaded similarly to .44spl levels.
___________________________________________________________
You definetely should add a 44 mag to your collection. The 41 mag (of which I own 3) is normally loaded to the low end of the 44 mag power levels; it can't come close to the high end loads delveloped specficially for the SRH. In the right revolver (certainly not the Italian cowboy models) the .45 LC can be loaded hot and can do everything a .44mag can do. I'm still kicking myself for passing on a Ruger BH with dual 45 cylinders that On Target had for only $250. I'm not real fond of the 44 spl. I have a S&W 2nd Model HE that's fun to shoot but I'd never consider getting one in a modern revolver. I can always shoot 44 spls out of my SRH & SBH.

 

[riverdog]

Articles at sixgunner.com/linebaugh , particularly Heavyweight Bullets pt 1 and Part 2 go into detail comparing the .44 Mag and .45LC. Needless to say, they really like the .45LC because it matches .44 Mag performance but with lower chamber pressure.
I'd recommend reading all the articles, I found them compelling and a strong argument for the .45LC.

That said, I don't own a .45LC I've got two .44Mags, a 6' S&W 29-3 and a 3' 629. I don't shoot anywhere near the power levels in those articles and find the .44 Mag just fine.

 

[riverdog]

The 41 mag (of which I own 3) is normally loaded to the low end of the 44 mag power levels; it can't come close to the high end loads delveloped specficially for the SRH.

The Model 57 can probably handle the same power levels as the Model 29 even with the slightly smaller bullets. It has a lot more steel in the cylinder walls due to the smaller holes leaving more steel in place. When you shift to Ruger's family of .44 Mags, you are in an entirely different class from the Mod 29 from a pressure POV. But if you want to go for higher power levels, why not go with a SRH in .454. The you can load to crazy power levels ...

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Backwoods]

Do you need a .44 spl/mag? No, you don't "need" them if you have the .41 mag and .45 Colt. Especially if you reload for the two calibers you have already.

That said, I think you can find a wider variety of loads available across the counter in the .44 caliber cases than either the .41 or .45 calibers.

I've got a handgun in each of those bore sizes so it would be a poor thing for me to advise you not to get a .44 caliber whether you need it or not.

Don in Ohio

 

[Majic]

I've shot .41s for close to 20 years and love em. I've shot .45 Colts longer than that, but just in the last few years have started loading them heavy. Now I do like and own .44sp, but have no real need for the magnum as I have those bases already covered. The one .44mag I do own I bought only because it was the last blued N-frame S&W made, but it's days are numbered here with me as it's destined as trade bait or outright sale.
So as to do you need a .44mag, not if you already have a .41mag and a strong .45 Colt. Wanting is an entirely different subject.