DM~
Member
I don't think it would sell very well, I know I wouldn't buy one...
DM
DM
L frame 5 shot 41 mag?
- Thread starter horsemen61
- Start date
- Status
AABEN
Member
I like my 41 mag and my 44 mag and my 375 Dan Wesson. My best friend has a 357 max and 460 S&W we shoot other gun's. The 460 is one flat shooter.
RealGun
Member
Perhaps one should include whether or not they have fired one. Anyone who is happy shooting 44 Special from a 44 Magnum should consider what that means and then look at a .41. Until one is shooting the full up round for the caliber, or reloaded to somewhere above bunnyphart level, they either own the wrong gun or have some special application justification.
Of course, then we have the 41 owners who get into making their own 41 Special, but what are you going to do? "To each his own" must prevail, I guess.
A 5 shot L frame 41 magnum would weigh MORE than a 6 shot N frame because of 1 less hole in the cylinder and the full lug on the L frame. A lot more than an N frame 44 magnum because of the 6 larger holes. The actual sizes of the guns are so close that many of the same holsters are interchangeable. The grip frame is larger on the N frames, but unless someone has tiny hands there are solutions with various grip options.
I'd just as soon buy the N frame.
I'd just as soon buy the N frame.
Dain Bramage
Member
I'd probably agree with you for most applications.
However, let's objectively look at your weight conjectures. For some reason, the official S&W website doesn't list weight for the Model 57, but using different sources, I come up with about a 3 oz. weight penalty for a .41 mag Mdl 57 vs. a .44 mag Mdl 629 (six chambers all).
Now, they list a Mdl 69 as 37.2 oz. (L-frame, half-lug 4.25" barrel, 5-shot) vs. 41.5 oz. for the closest Mdl 629 (N-frame, half-lug 4" barrel, 6-shot). That's a 4.3 oz. difference. Add 2.5 oz. to the Mdl 69 for a .41 mag chambering (prorated for 5 chambers) and you get 39.7 oz vs. 41.5 oz.
True, that's approaching the .44 mag N-frame weight, but it doesn't exceed it. Also, the better comparison for a .41 mag L-frame would be the .41 mag N-frame, where the smaller revolver still keeps a nearly 5 oz. advantage.
Last edited:
Having carried a S&W 696 L frame round butt .44 Spl. for about 17 years I would be all over the same gun in .41 Mag. There would be more steel around the chamber and bore - more strength - less felt recoil. More weight but I prefer a heavier gun for fast shooting. It would also have a real forcing cone (unlike the .44 barrel in an L frame). A 3 in. full lug .41 Mag would be a awfully good CCW revolver. Been reloading the .41 mag for almost 35 years and have found some really sweet loads. I also have a old S&W 57 N frame .41 that is easy to shoot even with heavy loads but it's a little more work to carry around all day (but can be done). The L frame round butt also fits my hands much better than the N frame square butt. It lets me get a little more meat around the grip.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
Dubious about these factoids. First of all, an N frame is definitely bigger than an L, and I have yet to notice a decently crafted leather holster specifying either L or N for fit. It is typically either K/L or N, not both.
"One less hole in the cylinder" is comparing cylinders of two different sizes. The frame window sizes are not the same nor is the resulting caliber/round count capability of the cylinders the same. Clearly, if you want to maintain round count of 6 in .44 or .45, you have to move up to an N frame platform. Reviewing S&W model specs will bear all that out. It's not my opnion.
Both guns have full lugs...at least there are comparable guns in L frame versus N frame. My 629, for example, is full lug .44 Magnum. My 686-6 is full lug, L frame .357 Magnum.
On grips, the penalty with N frames is that a small handed person might need a grip that exposes the backstrap, allowing the shorter reach to the trigger. This can be counterproductive in terms of punishment from firing the gun. Smaller hands may gravitate to the L frame platform. Nevertheless, I do okay with my smallish hands and exposed backstrap on my 629. I don't shoot a whole box of ammo at an outing though. I stop where the fun stops.
SwampWolf
Member
I'm doubly dubious. The N-frame is significantly larger than the L-frame; so much so that I seriously doubt that one less hole in the cylinder of an L-frame would make it heavier than an N-frame and, as RealGun said, the lug lengths are the same. And, again as RealGun pointed out, quality holster makers are careful to distinguish between frame sizes.
But I would disagree with him in terms of the suitability of K-frame and L-frame holster compatibility. The K and L may share the same grip size but their frame sizes are different enough to make for separate sizes for each. K, L and N size frames each require different size holsters if an ideal fit is desired.
DM~
Member
Over the years I've owned several S&W and Ruger 41 mags, shot even more... I've fired factory loads and my own hand loads...
I also owned 44 mags at the same time, and after extensive testing, I never could see ANY advantage to the 41, so they are all long gone...
DM
wlewisiii
Member
.41? Meh. If they had come out with the 41 Special first? That would be different and fill a real niche.
Now, a 3" barreled, 5 shot L frame in .45 Colt? I'd buy three of them. One for me, one for my wife & one for my son & I'd load them up with 250 gr. LSWC over 10 grains of Unique.
Now, a 3" barreled, 5 shot L frame in .45 Colt? I'd buy three of them. One for me, one for my wife & one for my son & I'd load them up with 250 gr. LSWC over 10 grains of Unique.
RealGun
Member
Would you allow that you can put 6 rounds of 41 in a smaller gun (than a 44)?
RealGun
Member
But what holsters are actually offered, aside from custom made?
DM~
Member
IF you feel you need more capacity, there's all kinds of semi auto's built today that fill that bill in spades, and they can be bought in all kinds of sizes and power levels.
My comparison between the 44mag and 41 mag, was with full power loads or at least "near" full power loads and for that, I also want to be able to hit something when firing them.
I have M-19's for a "smaller to carry" SD gun and they do the job just fine...
DM
RealGun
Member
Seriously argumentative there, sir.
SwampWolf
Member
Any quality holster maker generally "form-fit" their holsters to accomodate specific frame sizes, most requiring some overnight, force fit "break-in" before the handgun fits the way it is intended. I took the time to peruse catalogs from Galco, Bianchi, DeSantis and El Paso (decidedly not "custom made" leather) and determined that all of them make holsters that are differentiated in terms of the three Smith & Wesson revolver frame sizes in question (K,L and N).
dawei
Member
Like you I have a Taurus® TRACKER™ Mdl 425SS4 in 41 Remington Magnum; albeit a steel frame. The unloaded gun weighs 34oz exactly on my electronic scale. I thoroughly love the gun and it accompanies me whenever I'm in the woods or on the stream. I don't use this revolver as a hunting handgun, rather as a critter defensive tool.spaniel said:
Not trying to disparage any S&W® aficionados here, but I think; it is indeed ironic that S&W® is copying Taurus® designs. First with the Governor as a Judge™ clone, and now the model 69 as a copy of the 44 Mag TRACKER™. Just a case of "what goes around comes around" I guess.
Instead of offering two target revolvers in 9x19 the larger one should have been made in 10x25mm. The .41magnum has nothing to offer and is on it's "last legs". The 10mm and .44Magnum are far better choices being that .40S&W and .44 special cartridges can be fired in them respectively. Carrying .41 magnum vs. .44 magnum is just like carrying 12ga framed shotgun chambered for 16ga shells.
RealGun
Member
You may be unable to grasp the concept or simply won't allow it. The .41 magnum makes complete sense to me, but we've already covered the reasons why.
tightgroup tiger
Member
I don't think it's any more on it's last legs then the 45colt was when the 44 mag came out. The 45 colt lasted through because of it's cult following until Ruger started chambering it in their super strong guns and people realized that the 45 colt could be loaded way over it's original offering and look at it's popularity now.
It found a nitche and is more popular now than it's ever been since the 44 mag/special guns came out. What could the old 45 colt do that the 44mag/special couldn't do? Nothing. That argument doesn't fly.
The 41 mag is a very popular hunting gun and has the same cult following that the 45 Colt had. I know I sure love mine.
I'm not trying to start an argument, it's just my point of view on this. I prefer the 41 mag over the 44 magnum. Just my own personal taste and I'm not the only one.
TheGrimReaper
Member
Me....I'd get one in a heart beat. Heck I'm all about the mighty .41!!!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
That's been repeated about a gazillion times, starting about a year after its debut...yet it's still here. I may be the odd man out, but with the .41 I find that I have little use for the .44 Magnum and don't own a single example, having sold all mine off years ago...but kept all the .41s. In my way of thinking, if I need more than the .41 can deliver, I need a lot more than a small step up to the .44
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,712
Except... get me to buy one.
I'm with you. My three .44s are long gone and not missed.
I also parted with my 6" M57, and I regret that. Fortunately, I still have a 4" M57, and it's not going anywhere.
well the taurus version of this discussed weapon is no longer made if i recall. low sales volume coupled with tricky ammunition issues.
but there really is no purpose to the idea of doing it. doing it is easy, just switch out the barrel liners, and switch out the chamber reamers.
the issue is does smith and wesson have the production capacity?
i dont believe they do at all. from what ive seen. j frames and semi auto handguns and the x frame and their target revolvers have the production capacity.
but there really is no purpose to the idea of doing it. doing it is easy, just switch out the barrel liners, and switch out the chamber reamers.
the issue is does smith and wesson have the production capacity?
i dont believe they do at all. from what ive seen. j frames and semi auto handguns and the x frame and their target revolvers have the production capacity.
RealGun
Member
Well, now we have to defend or at least testify to liking both .41 and .44 (Magnum)
p.s. not to mention .45 Colt in multiple power capabilities
p.s. not to mention .45 Colt in multiple power capabilities
- Status
