Is the M41 worth all that money vs Ruger?

[Rob47]

Is the S&W 41 worth $1000 compared to a $300 Ruger Mark III Target? Ive fired the Ruger but never the S&W. Is it worth the price difference?
I would consider the Buckmark but it irritates me that a pistol like that requires 2 allen wrenches to take down.

thanks

 

[avan47]

I have a Ruger Mark II Target, and I love it. If I recall, I paid over $400 for it. worth every penny though. It has a great trigger, and shoots tight groups. I have never shot a S&W 41. I don't have an opportunity to shoot in any competitions that would require me to spend $1000 on a gun, so in my opinion, no, it's not worth it. Be aware, if you are thinking of getting a Tactical Solutions aluminum barrel for it, the one for the Ruger is serial numbered, and must ship through an FFL dealer. The one for the Buck Mark is not.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It depends on if you can appreciate the finest .22lr competition pistol currently made in America. I'm personally partial to Hammerli pistols which are about twice the price of the S&W

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

It depends on if you can appreciate the finest .22lr competition pistol currently made in America.

Agreed. And for serious target competitions, I doubt if any competitors are using stock, out of the box Ruger pistols.

 

[scaatylobo]

YES

I own a couple of Ruger .22 pistols and if you shoot the S&W side by side with the Rugers,you will buy the S&W.

Long as you dont mind the 800.+ cost.

I am looking to get one myself .

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The same discussion comes up in the FINE WATCH forums, when they start comparing g a quality quartz watch to a fine self-winding Omega or Rolex. All of these watches will keep time beautifully, and do what a watch must do, but the Omegas or Rolexs give you bragging rights that a good quartz watch doesn't offer. But, a cheap Timex may be just as accurate.

With regard to quality .22s: you could get lucky with a Ruger Target Competition and a bit of local gunsmithing, or send it off to Volquartsen and end up with a gun that shoots just as well or better than a Model 41 or Hammerli. But except for the local gunsmithing job, you're going to spend similar amounts of money. https://www.volquartsen.com/

Any of these more-refined guns are both weapons and works of art -- sort of like the Rolexs and Omega watches: sought after for more than just functionality (time-keeping ability/accuracy and reliability.)

 

[Onmilo]

Yes
I own a number of .22 semi auto pistols and am looking for a Browning Contour 7.25" Target pistol right now
The Model 41 is and will remain my favorite of all of them.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I own more than one Ruger. My buddy owns more than one 41. I shoot each weekly. While I will admit the 41's have a great trigger, they are only marginally better than my Rugers with a Volquartsen sear, IMO. From a rest, his 41's shoot better groups than my 5.5" Rugers at 25 yards. However, my 10" Rugers do better than his 7" barrelled 41. For my kind of shooting, the 41 isn't worth the added cost. However, I am not a serious competitor.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I've often found it interesting that folks who question the value of a $1k .22lr pistol will not question that amount spent on a CF pistol...actually I've seen this at all price levels as folks balk at spending $500 for a RF trainer for their CF defensive pistol.

You're able to get a more use of the RF (less reluctance to practice due to the cost of ammo) and the RF will improve your shooting more...and usually faster (fewer shooter issues related to shot anticipation)

 

[foghornl]

IF you are into SERIOUS target shooting, yeah the 41 Smith or the Hammerli as others have mentioned.

If you are wanting a .22 that is a bit more than say a standard MKII/MKII without breaking the bank/budget, then the Ruger Target Model.

 

[DesertFox]

Best to actually drop the "hammer"/striker on each and decide for yourself. Every Model 41/46 I've fired has been smooth as butter. Rugers are fine, just not in the same class IMOHO.

 

[9mmepiphany]

You don't have to be that serious...you just have to appreciate a well designed and engineered pistol built to a higher standard.

I'm far from a serious target shooter, but my all time favorite American made .22lr pistol is the Camden High Standard Victor

 

[LongTimeGone]

An acquaintance at the range has 50 some HI Standard .22s.
I was shooting my M41 and Buckmark and he had three Victors with him.
He let me shoot a magazine and it was sweet.
It has replaced the 617 as the next .22.
As you said it's easy to get lots of trigger time with a .22.

Edit; Oh yea, I love my M41.

 

[LTR shooter]

A friend of mine who is a high master bullsye shooter told me the Model 41, for a lot of competitors , is a more ergonomic pistol.

I ended up installing a set of NILL grips on my 41 and that has resulted in an almost perfect fitting grip for me. Out of the box the MKII grip was a better fit for me.

The trigger on the Model 41 is actually good enough out of the box for most to compete with. I sent my MKII to Clark Custom Guns for trigger work and actually prefer that trigger to the out of box 41.

In regards to accuracy you might think the 41 holds some kind of overwhelming advantage but the two pistols , at least the ones I have , are really close.

In fit , finish and overall workmanship the 41 is WAY ahead of the MKII.

 

[TonyT]

You get what you pay for. The S&W41 comes with a superb factory trigger, outstanding accuracy and excellent wood grips. There is also a difference in the ergonomics between the two pistols - that's a distinct personnal preference item.

 

[9mmepiphany]

How a gun feels often is related to grip angle.

The grip angle of the S&W is closer to that of the 1911, that of the Ruger is closer to that of the Glock.

It is a matter of comfort. One is actually more optimized for competition, but aftermarket grips make it easily changeable

 

[sugarmaker]

A ruger mk 2 or 3 is no 41. For beginner / intermediate skill levels, up to master, it'll do. If you want HM, the 41, Hamerrli, etc. are better suited. Those points start to count.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Whether something is "worth it" also depends on your intended usage of it. I wouldn't want to take a M41 hunting in the rain, for example. I would prefer a stainless Ruger for that.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

This question is often asked about the M1911 also. If I was a serious 22 shooter, no there's no doubt I would buy a M41. I do have a vintage high standard which serves me well.

 

[mizer67]

My first gun when I started shooting was the Ruger.

Later, when I started competing, I purchased a M41.

I still own the M41. Never regretted purchasing it, nor selling the Ruger.

 

[Confederate]

I used to have a S&W 41 and it had an unusual feature. The front sight would extend beyond the muzzle to increase the sight radius.

To answer your question, if you are into competition, yes, the 41 is a nice one-handed pistol that beats out the Ruger. But if you've got a grand to spend on a .22 pistol, you'd do better to buy the Ruger and then hire a good gunsmith to work it over. The off-the-shelf Ruger is a better gun than the 41 in that it's more rugged and reliable. As a survival gun, the 41 is horrendous. I wouldn't have one for my bugout bag unless I had nothing better. Back when the U.S. had sanctions against South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), the people of those countries bought Rugers because they realized they wouldn't need parts replacements. They knew they wouldn't be able to get parts, so they stocked up on guns they knew would last and last. And the Standard Autos and Mark Is were at the top of their lists!

The 41s are very nice guns, don't get me wrong. But they're not rugged, nor were they designed to be. They were designed to be competition guns. Rugers, however, can be made to be good competition guns, and that's where they nail the 41. You can have a lot of work done on a Ruger for the kind of money you'd spend on a 41.

The folks at AMT made their version of the Ruger called the Lightning. It had Millet sights (front and rear) and an outstanding Clark trigger with backstop adjustment. Although I never was able to compare the 41 and the Lightning side-by-side, I'd bet the Lightning could give the 41 a run for its money! The trigger on the Lightning was superior to that of the 41 and the sights were outstanding on the Lightning.






.

 

[rcmodel]

Yes.
But only if you are already skilled enough to shoot a Ruger to winning level NRA Bullseye scores.

If you are, the Model 41 will add some points to your highest score.
Otherwise, it is probably not worth it to you.

I had occasion to re-build some Ruger Standard Target 6"s into 5" bull-barrel match pistols years ago for some AMU teammates who prefered the grip angle.

I made steel triggers with zero backlash and NRA barely legal pulls.
(Aftermarket Ruger pistol parts had not been invented yet then)
Barrels were made from air-gaged Winchester Model 52 match rifle takeoffs.

The very best shooter in my 5th. Inf AMU unit could sometimes match his highest Model 41 scores, but not always well enough to keep winning.
He went back to the Model 41 to continue winning.

rc

 

[tuj]

If you can outshoot a ruger, you probably need a higher grade target pistol than a M41; Pardini or FWB are the options.

 

[jfrey]

I've shot my Buck Mark(with a little of my own polishing of the sear) against my FIL's 41 on many occassions and my BM has a better trigger and shoots just as good. He has even sent his 41 off to Clark for trigger work and my BM is still better. Maybe I just got lucky and got a really good one but I'll take my BM over a 41 or Ruger any time. Both our guns wear Ultradot sights and he only shoots CCI standard velocity ammo in his. I shoot Blazer or Federal Champion ammo in mine and there is no difference in accuracy between the two guns. Other than the Ultradot sight, my BM is all stock without any of the after market gizmos.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Since we have strayed on to the Buckmark, I will say that I know two different fellows with them a that are just as slick as the 41's that I have shot.