L frame 5 shot 41 mag?

[RealGun]

well the taurus version of this discussed weapon is no longer made if i recall. low sales volume coupled with tricky ammunition issues.

I usually ignore any posts with no capitalization, but I believe the character of the Taurus line changes with MBA leadership more than gun savvy marketing. I am not giving up my 441 (5 shot, 3" .44 Spl) anytime soon. There are no other players in the medium frame game,, and people seem to think they should shoot .44 from a Magnum. My .44 Special shooting is exclusively lead, so I am not messing up my Smith 629.

Can we really presume to know exactly why models disappear?

 

[Drail]

The .41 Rem. is one of the best cartridge designs we have come up with, especially when chambered in a platform designed to be strong enough to handle the .44 Mag. I bought my first one when I started reloading in 87 and I'm still reloading for it. And 3 others.

 

[PabloJ]

The .41 Rem. is one of the best cartridge designs we have come up with, especially when chambered in a platform designed to be strong enough to handle the .44 Mag. I bought my first one when I started reloading in 87 and I'm still reloading for it. And 3 others.

I would consider 10x25 to be better. By the way Winchester loads Silvertip 10mm and .41 Magnum to same ballistics.

 

[RealGun]

I would consider 10x25 to be better.

I prefer whole wheat toast. Can we stick to revolvers here?

 

[Panzerschwein]

With the new Model 69 that was introduced recently by S&W, which is a 5 shot .44 magnum on an L-frame, I doubt we will be seeing a .41 L-frame anytime soon.

It's been said that the .41 magnum was supposed to carry like a .357 and hit like a .44.

Instead, it carried like a .44 magnum and hit like the .357, but recoils almost as much as .44.

Now that you can get a .44 magnum that carries like a .357, why bother with a .41? It's just another nail in the coffin of that obsolete and pointless cartridge.

It offers NO benefits over what .357 mag and .44 mag can do especially when most commercially made .41 magnums are built on .44 magnum frames. Want less recoil than .44 magnum? Just make/buy a lighter load. It's not the difficult.

It's no wonder that the .41 magnum wasn't remotely popular back when it was introduced, and up until now. Just like the .327 Federal Magnum that came out a few years ago, it promised so much but fell short on the delivery. Just like the .41 magnum.

JMHO.

YMMV.

 

[Dain Bramage]

By the way Winchester loads Silvertip 10mm and .41 Magnum to same ballistics.

I take it by the smiley that you know this would only have relevance if they were top loads. I can load .357 mag down to match .38 spl ballistics.

Both of the Silvertip loads have energy in the 600 f-p range. Buffalo Bore loads heavy 10mm in the 700 f-p range, where it most closely matches the **ta-da** .357 mag.

Their .41 mag heavy load tops 1,000 f-p.

 

[RealGun]

YMMV.

My mileage does vary, especially since my never fired S&W 57-6 just arrived today, complimenting my 657 8 3/8". Also, my 327 Federal Magnum Ruger SP101 has been in the collection barely a month, and I'm loving it. But what do I know?

My .44 Mag is a S&W 629 5". It's cool too. The .357 is a 686-6 (4"), a Ruger Security Six 4", a Ruger SP101 3+", A Ruger GP100 5". There's a place for each.

Is it really so important to bully the fans of the .41 Mag and the .327 Federal Magnum? <deleted>

JMHO

JMHO is no excuse for being disrespectful of others fondness for the round.

Now that you can get a .44 magnum that carries like a .357, why bother with a .41?

I wouldn't let that concern you.

 

[336A]

The .41 magnum hits a whole lot harder than the .357 any day of the week. It has never been said anywhere or by anyone (except by you) that the .41 magnum was supposed to carry like the .357 magnum. Yes it was and is a heavy gun since it's built on large frame revolvers. The performance difference between the .357 magnum and the .41 magnum is almost 30%. While the difference between the .41 magnum and .44 magnum is only a measly 12%

What hurt the .41 was that even with the mild Police loading most LEO found the recoil to much. Also the magnum loading was produced first so that is what the different agencies procured, recoil was certainly an issue for some. The .41 magnum is doing much better today than it ever has in it's history. The only two loads one could find was the police load and the full power stuff. Now there are loads from 170gr all the way up to 265gr. Federal alone offers 4 different loads for the .41 magnum, so it's far from being dead or obsolete. For the reloader bullets such as the 275gr TC SSK style bullet can be used. Which makes the .41 magnum that much better than the. 357 magnum and still only slightly behind the 43 magnum.

 

[Drail]

Only two reasons killed the .41 Mag. - police officers who claimed the gun was too heavy compared to their K frames and the fact that almost none of them could deal with the recoil of the hot JHP load. they were not experienced handgunners and if they had only been exposed to the 210 gr. lead bullet load it might have turned out differently.

 

[1911Tuner]

What hurt the .41 was that even with the mild Police loading most LEO found the recoil to much.

This has been said a lot, but I have a hard time telling the difference between the 210-grain "Police" load fired from an N Frame, and a full-throttle 158 grain JHP fired from a K Frame...and if you were to try the original 158 LSWC offering in a K Frame...you'll find that it's quite a bit more rambunctious than the .41 LSWC load.

And I have something to base that on. I own 4-inch Model 13s and Model 58s, and I have small lots of both rounds. The 13s fired with the original loading are decidedly more punishing.

For those who don't have any of the ammunition, you can duplicate the .41 Police load with a 210-grain cast SWC and 7.5 grains of Unique...and the .357 with a 158-160 grain cast SWC and 15 grains of 2400...but approach the .357 load carefully. This one produces high pressure signs in many revolvers the same as the original loading did. You may need to stop at 14.5 grains...and I suggest limiting it to a "need" basis in K Frame revolvers...and to moderate use even in an L Frame. This one's the real deal.

And when the Model 58s were introduced, the original .357 loading was pretty much the only game in town for the caliber.

I think that the issue wasn't so much the recoil as it was the weight of the guns. Police officers carry their sidearms a lot more than they shoot them. At the end of the day, the 3/4 pound difference is telling. Stir in the size of the grip frame and the trigger reach, and it's easy to see why the Model 58 fell into disfavor.

 

[RealGun]

My understanding is that the police weren't very interested in the concept of .41 Special either, because the .40 S&W guns had changed the weight and round count of what they could carry. I don't believe the .41 Magnum should really be viewed as a police weapon...well maybe the 58.

Then you have Dirty Harry and all that business as a distraction. The ordinary Joe won't have that many pricey Smith & Wessons, so maybe .41 got pushed to the back of the wish list.

 

[Panzerschwein]

If I want "lighter" .41 magnum performance then I'll just use a 10mm or .40 S&W. If I want a super hot .41 magnum, I'd just use .44 magnum instead.

See where this is going? The round simply doesn't do anything that other, commonly available cartridges can do just as well if not better. That is one of the reasons why it's been relegated to a niche, handloader exclusive cartridge.

Is the .41 magnum a good cartridge? Sure, why not. But the point of the thread is discussing an L-frame 5-shot .41 magnum, and I simply DO NOT see S&W ever releasing one, especially with the Model 69 out. Just not enough demand for something like that. The cartridge is just not nearly as popular as the other magnum handgun rounds, and with good reason.

While some claim it to be the darling of the magnum handgun family, I think history has shown us that most do NOT.

 

[1911Tuner]

See where this is going? The round simply doesn't do anything that other, commonly available cartridges can do just as well if not better.

Yet...after 50 years...it just seems to hang on. There are some very good reasons for that, too...and it's not all simply nostalgia or born out of a desire to be different or odd.

The same could be said of a good many cartridges. The 7X57 is still here, despite the availability of the "superior" 7-08. The .308 hangs on, despite not doing anything as well as the .30-06...and the old '06 hangs on, even though it's been overshadowed by more modern .30 caliber rounds.

I've run the gamut from .357 to .454 Casull, and while I wouldn't want to be without a .357 or three...if push came to shove and I had to make a choice...the .41 Magnum revolvers would be here after all the others went away. I don't even own a .44 any more, and haven't for over 20 years.

That said, IMHO, the cartridge is in its element in single-action revolvers like the New Model Blackhawk or the Freedom Arms offerings.

 

[Drail]

Apparently my .41 Mag. revolvers will still be here after all the others have gone away. About a year ago I found myself in a hard place and needing some cash badly and quickly. I took 3 .41 Mag revolvers to several dealers who wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole because, they said, of the caliber. I guess I'll just keep them (and the dies) since they have no value.

 

[RealGun]

Apparently my .41 Mag. revolvers will still be here after all the others have gone away. About a year ago I found myself in a hard place and needing some cash badly and quickly. I took 3 .41 Mag revolvers to several dealers who wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole because, they said, of the caliber. I guess I'll just keep them (and the dies) since they have no value.

Yet Gunbroker shows them selling for serious money, full retail and higher. Some models are much higher and into real collector territory.

 

[RealGun]

Is the .41 magnum a good cartridge? Sure, why not. But the point of the thread is discussing an L-frame 5-shot .41 magnum,

I think that has been addressed, in that an L frame should hold 6 rounds of .41 Magnum. We have gone on to defending, disrespecting, or simply ruminating over the cartridge.

and I simply DO NOT see S&W ever releasing one, especially with the Model 69 out.

I don't think there is any harm in discussing the concept anyway, if that's okay.

 

[SwampWolf]

I think that has been addressed, in that an L frame should hold 6 rounds of .41 Magnum.

If Smith & Wesson introduced an L-frame revolver, chambered in .41 magnum, that held six rounds- I'm in line with cash in hand.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

If Smith & Wesson introduced an L-frame revolver, chambered in .41 magnum, that held six rounds- I'm in line with cash in hand.

I'll be right behind you! IF I get wind of it first, I'll be in front of you.

 

[horsemen61]

^^ what they said cash in hand shut up and take my money

 

[whitecoyote]

I would be very interested in one with a 3" barrel.

 

[CraigC]

I don't own a .41Mag yet but I can certainly see its appeal. Deer don't take a lot of killing and anything bigger than the .357 makes for a fine whitetail/hog/antelope cartridge. There's a big gap between the .357 and .44Mag. The .41 fits right in there offering plenty of big game capability without .44Mag recoil. Yes, you can download the .44Mag for less recoil but you lose range. What I find interesting is that there are 900 million rifle cartridges (slight exaggeration) with every conceivable gap filled by a dozen cartridges. Yet in the handgun world, 'we' (not me) seem to believe that we need only a handful and any new offerings that claim to fill in the gaps are arbitrarily dismissed. Such as the .327 and .41Mag's.

I think that has been addressed, in that an L frame should hold 6 rounds of .41 Magnum.

That ain't gonna happen. It would still have to be a five-shot.

 

[RealGun]

Quote:
I think that has been addressed, in that an L frame should hold 6 rounds of .41 Magnum.

That ain't gonna happen. It would still have to be a five-shot.

It will take more than that to win your point. Perhaps it would work better on the Ruger GP100, references to which are where I first encountered the idea.

I am not presuming what Smith might or might not do but rather more what is possible. We know that 6 shot 357s have been bored to 41 without changing cylinders. I am not sure about Smiths though. I have example guns all around, so I could do some comparative measuring of cylinders.

Logically, if the 686 can be 7 shot in existing models, there must be room there to have a 6 shot 41.

 

[CraigC]

It will take more than that to win your point.

Bowen built the first .41Spl's back in the late 1980's. At that point in time, it was deemed safe to get 215's to 1200fps in the six-shot Colt SAA but not the rechambered L-frame. Mind you, this is a custom gun and custom gunsmiths cater to a more discerning crowd who is less needy of a wide safety margin. Mass manufacturing requires looser tolerances and a broader safety margin. The mid-frame Blackhawk, which has similar dimensions to the Colt SAA, is indeed safe as a six-shot .41Mag but their cylinders are significantly larger in diameter than the L-frame or GP100. So no, there will be no six-shot .41Mag L-frame. Believe it or not, some of us have been pondering and researching such things a lot longer than just the last week.

 

[BSA1]

Which is why we NEED a six shot L-Frame in 41 Special. It would fill the real gap of not having a big bore double action frame size between the K and N frames. For real world practical use 41 Special will cover most of the bases.

In the meantime I'll just have to get by with my Single-Six 41 Special. It does need prettier grips though;

 

[CraigC]

Which is why we NEED a six shot L-Frame in 41 Special. It would fill the real gap of not having a big bore double action frame size between the K and N frames. For real world practical use 41 Special will cover most of the bases.

Yep!