L Frame 41 Mag?

[CraigC]

My stoopid idea is if there's gonna be a caliber between .357 and .44 Mag that's also a Magnum that can work it's a 10mm Rimmed Magnum...

You're describing the .401PowerMag. That would be great and I've come close to having one built but there was one thing that stopped me, bullet selection. Bullet selection for the .41 is far and away better than anything .40cal. Although I recently found a 220gr WFN at Cast Performance and ordered a bunch. In the .41, cheap 215's abound.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

You are correct the stop notches are a stress concentrator and a 5-shot moves them to the thick area between chambers, but the S&W had already made a 6-shot L-frame cylinder in 40S&W and the only difference between 10mm and 40 is the depth of the chamber. The pressure difference is ~7% but if S&W made the cylinder from stainless rather than the titanium used in the 646 that extra stress could be compensated for fairly easily. Obviously you would want a detail analysis but it seem very plausible for 10mm given the president set by the S&W 646 and probable for 41 Mag too.

Sure, if they can do it safely, 6 is preferred.

 

[CraigC]

Actually, now that I think about it, rim interference 'might' not be a problem with the .41. I forgot that guys were building them into rechambered .41 Specials. Pressure is still a concern.

 

[Buckeye63]

I would much rather have a 10mm Magnun L-frame.

A S&W 681 frame (fixed-sights, round-butt) with a 4-inch full-underlug in 10mm Magnum allowing the use of 10mm Mag, 10mm Auto and 40S&W in one revolver.

I agree

 

[Drail]

5 round cylinder - maybe. 6 round cylinder - no manufacturer would ever do it because of handloads. Can't blame them either.

 

[TTv2]

I would much rather have a 10mm Magnun L-frame.

A S&W 681 frame (fixed-sights, round-butt) with a 4-inch full-underlug in 10mm Magnum allowing the use of 10mm Mag, 10mm Auto and 40S&W in one revolver.

I didn't see your comment, but I have the same idea except instead of it being just for the rimless 10mm Magnum, it could also be able to use a rimmed version (think .45 Auto Rim) so that way you would have the option of not having to use a moon clip for extraction by having the rimmed 10mm Magnum (I call it 10mm RimMag), then be able to use moon clips for the rimless 10mm Mag, 10mm Auto, and .40 S&W.

.45 ACP and .45 Colt do this to some extent, but only in a double action .45 Colt revolver and there are not many of those, plus they are large size revolvers. The 10mm Magnum can fit into a GP100 or an L frame just fine and would appeal to owners of .40 and 10mm semi auto pistols.

.41 Magnum appeals to... well, a lot less people.

 

[mcb]

5 round cylinder - maybe. 6 round cylinder - no manufacturer would ever do it because of handloads. Can't blame them either.

So I don't own an L-frame and can't measure the exact diameter of the circle passing through the center of all the chambers, "bolt circle". It's fairly easy to find the OD of an L-frame cylinder on the web at ~1.565 inches. Using that dimension it easy to assuming a "bolt circle" diameter for the chambers and calculate the thickness of the chamber wall at its thinnest between two adjacent chambers and between OD of cylinder and a chamber. Assuming an appropriate "bolt-circle" diameter and using this to calculate for a 5-shot 44 Mag and then using the same diameter for a 6-shot 41 Mag there is no assumed "bolt circle" dimension that results in a 6-shot 41 Mag having thinner walls then the chamber to OD of a 5-shot 44 Mag cyclinder

In short if we don't move the barrel up or down in the frame between the two than a 6-shot 41 mag L-frame thinnest wall thickness will always be thicker than the 5-shot 44 mag L-frame thinnest wall (between a chamber and the OD of cylinder) that already exists in the form of a S&W Model 69.

 

[Charlie98]

.41 Magnum appeals to... well, a lot less people.

yea, but we’re the cool people...

 

[RJM52]

There "was" an L-frame .41 Magnum....the Taurus Tracker series. Makes the perfect .41 Special but you don't want to shoot the 210 JSP through them..it is a little too much of a good thing.

I have a stainless 4" and two titanium with 4" and 6" barrels... The 4" Ti is my woods walking gun...28 oz loaded.

Bob

 

[Jim Watson]

200 gr .357 at 1060 fps completely relieves me of any interest in .41 Special or Low Magnum. If I want more, I have a .44.

 

[TTv2]

yea, but we’re the cool people...

Maybe... back in 1965.

It's okay Chuck, happens to all of us.

 

[sgt127]

I own one .41 Magnum. It was my first carry gun around 1979. I usually shot the lead semi wadcutters.

Every once in a while, I shot the 210 Gr soft points.

Nostalgia makes me want another .41 Magnum.

When I remember the vicious recoil and the web of my hand bleeding, that nostalgia wears off pretty quick.

That, right there, is the nastiest recoiling revolver I’ve ever owned. Effective? No doubt. But, it’s like a wood splitting maul right in the web of my hand.

I love that gun though.

 

[TTv2]

You're describing the .401PowerMag. That would be great and I've come close to having one built but there was one thing that stopped me, bullet selection. Bullet selection for the .41 is far and away better than anything .40cal. Although I recently found a 220gr WFN at Cast Performance and ordered a bunch. In the .41, cheap 215's abound.

So, if you could have the option of an L frame or a GP100 in a .401 Powermag for the same price as a .41 or .357 Mag, you'd get one? How about if it was a .401 that could shoot .40 and 10mm Auto with moon clips?

I didn't know there was such a thing as .401 Powermag and that's pretty much exactly what I'm thinking of, but I figure that getting Starline to put a rim on their 10mm Magnum would be more acceptable and also less confusing for low information gun owners/buyers.

It's easy to understand .40 > 10mm Auto > 10mm Magnum/10mm Rimmed Magnum

Can't deny the .41 has a larger selection that can go up to .265, but the 10mm has the ability to go down to very light weights like 135 and 155. Heavy is fine and all, but for self defense the light bullets would be great for low recoil in 10mm Auto, while for the big animals you can use a 250 grain 10mm Mag on after sizing the .410 bullets down to .401-.403 so long as they're lead.

 

[CraigC]

It depends. The reasons I wanted to do a .38/40, 10mm (or .40S&W), .401PM convertible are all still there. Would have to have some good, heavier, cheap bullets for me to want one though. Something akin to the generic 215gr SWC's available for the .41. This Cast Performance 220gr I found is the first I've seen with a crimp groove.

 

[TTv2]

You wouldn't be willing to buy a Lee sizing kit to size the .410 bullets down? That's what I'd be doing simply because all those bullets would have a crimp groove.

This is all theoretical, it's never going to happen, but if it did I'd imagine the industry would bring some heavier .401 bullets to market for not just heavy 10mm Auto, but also the .401/10mm Magnum. They haven't done it yet because until Ruger came out with the 10mm revolvers a few years ago, 10mm Magnum was not a practical or easy conversion.

 

[CraigC]

I take it back. The bullets arrived today and they are not what the website described or pictured. No crimp groove and they are a truncated cone instead of an LBT design. This pisses me off because I didn't need more 220gr 10mm bullets.

No, I'm not gonna resize bullets. I'll have a .41Spl built before I resize bullets to use in a 10mm.

 

[wgp]

Years ago I had a Smith .41 Mag that was a 3" N frame but with a K or L frame round butt grip, can't recall which. It was a Lew Horton limited edition and it hurt to shoot it, so I sold or traded it. I don't think I've ever seen another one. I do still have a 696, the down-sized 5-shot .44 Special. I really like it, and again I almost never see another one anywhere. Perhaps there's still an opening for a big-bore in a smaller size.

 

[wgp]

Just looked up my old gun, now shows up as a "classic" for a bunch of money on the auction sites. Another good reason I shouldn't have sold it.

 

[wankerjake]

I’d be in for the 10mm magnum. I may have my GP100 reamed to 10mm mag.
I wish there was more data available

 

[Rodfac]

Good grief, YES, I'd buy one...had a M69 Smith till my #2 son took a shine to it...I found it to be an all-day carry gun here on the farm. Skeeter's loads usually, but with heavy magnums when the situation warranted. I do miss it, and I do think a .41 on that frame would be the Zoot Capri of all-day duty revolvers for non-LEO's. Rod

 

[CraigC]

I’d be in for the 10mm magnum. I may have my GP100 reamed to 10mm mag.
I wish there was more data available

I wish there was more bullets available.

 

[wankerjake]

Yes agreed

 

[TTv2]

I wish there was more bullets available.

If somebody would make a 10mm Mag revolver I'm sure they would come eventually. There are few .400/.401 diameter bullets intended to be shot in revolvers.

This all goes back to the cycle that keeps certain calibers in the doghouse. No guns able to shoot a certain ammo means no reason to make a 250 grain lead bullet in .401 diameter, no 250gr .401 bullets available means people won't buy the guns that could shoot that ammo if the bullet were available. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Charlie98]

I do miss it, and I do think a .41 on that frame would be the Zoot Capri of all-day duty revolvers for non-LEO's.

I often wonder if the original Model 57/58 would have been offered in an L-frame back in 1965, if it would have been more widely accepted. The biggest drawback to the N-frame is, of course, the weight and size; couple that with the anemic cast lead load Remington offered, and you have a 'why bother.' An L-frame .41, with good grips to control the recoil... not the original Magnas of the 58, which beat your knuckle into a pulp... and an 80% Magnum load with a 215-225grn JHP or JSP would likely have found more favor.

 

[CraigC]

If somebody would make a 10mm Mag revolver I'm sure they would come eventually. There are few .400/.401 diameter bullets intended to be shot in revolvers.

This all goes back to the cycle that keeps certain calibers in the doghouse. No guns able to shoot a certain ammo means no reason to make a 250 grain lead bullet in .401 diameter, no 250gr .401 bullets available means people won't buy the guns that could shoot that ammo if the bullet were available. Rinse and repeat.

There are plenty of revolver bullets designed for the original 10mm, the .38-40. Problem is they're the same weight as . 40/10mm auto pistol bullets. Beartooth has a 200gr WFN and that's as close as it gets to something useful. There are halfway decent 220gr bullets but they're designed to feed through a semi-auto. We really need a proper 220-250gr WFN/WLN.

We're probably more likely to see a new proprietary cartridge that mimics the .401PowerMag than a resurrection of the 10mmMag. As I said before, if there were more useful bullets, I'd build one. Until then, I'll probably do a .41 Special and not have to worry about any of this.