Smith & Wesson model 41 question

[mtlucas0311]

I'm in the market for a S&W model 41, it'll be used as a training pistol for those who keep asking me to teach them to shoot and I'll use it for bulls eye (I have always shot the High Standards that my father bought when I was a kid, now I'm in my 30's so I could probably break down and get my own gun!). Are there any that are more desireable than others (years of production, revisions, etc. etc.) or any that should be avoided? I ask because I know High Standards are dependant on their year and place of manufacture.

 

[DJW]

There are those who claim the older ones with loaded chamber indicators and "muzzle brakes" are more valuable but my 5 yr. old model shoots great and I know when it is loaded.....plus, I have no intention of selling it! For a training pistol you could find many more "cost effective" models.......for Bullseye it is a super choice.
Best, Dave

 

[Smokey Joe]

Gotta agree...

with DJW--a S&W M-41 is too nice a tool to be used for training non-shooters! Use it for bullseye yourself--That's what it was made for!

But a "training pistol" is likely to be dropped, mis-handled, wrongly adjusted, etc, etc, etc. And after that kind of abuse you'd use it for bullseye????

All I can say is Ecch! By all means get the 41 for your own use--you'll be glad you did--but for pete's sake get an "el cheapo" for use in training--a milsurp pistol that won't mind the abuse as much, and that you won't feel bad about if it gets ruined, and that you won't have to depend on for your scores in league shooting.

 

[1SOW]

My shooter is an older High Standard, that I only let a select few shoot.

If I could afford that 41, I might let them handle it under my supervision.

PS. I'm in my 60s. You don't take your first flying lesson in an F22.
A great gun is a great gun to be used properly and appreciated.

 

[Justin]

Nothing wrong with plinking or training newbies on a Model 41. It's a fantastic pistol with a much better trigger than any of the Ruger or Browning guns.

Just make sure they understand that they're getting to shoot something special and out of the ordinary. They'll treat it much better that way.

Some people claim that the older 41s have a better trigger pull, but I suspect that the new ones are just fine. At most they might need to just have a few hundred rounds put through them, or have a gunsmith lightly smooth the trigger pull out.

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

There's been hundreds, probably thousands of new shooters trained on our club's 41s in the past few decades, and we've yet to have a problem. In fact, I think its a better training tool than a Ruger or Browning not only because its a far superior pistol, but because the heft, layout, controls and to a degree the action are far more similar to a centerfire gun than any other rimfire, .22 conversions excluded.

 

[Justin]

You guys are, no doubt, still using the same ones from when I was there. I think the one I adopted had a serial number that ended in 46 or 48. Something like that.

 

[mtlucas0311]

Thanks for the input guys. It will be more for me than anything else, but it seems like I always have people that want me to take them shooting who have a little experience with rimfire or centerfire rifles but no experience with handguns. I don't want to start them out with my PPC gun, a polymer frame handgun or one of my .45's, because I do worry about something spooking them and them having an accident. I am also a firm believer in learning on rimfire guns then moving up to other cartridges, but I've been spoiled my whole life with my dad having multiple high standards, a 41 of his own and a few other rimfire bulls eye guns. But with as many guns as I have aquired over the years it seems silly to have a gap in my collection like no rimfire pistol, especially with their reletively low cost. It looks like there is no such thing as an undesirable 41 from what I've read, and that was what I was most interested in. Thanks again, Mike.

 

[mike_in_md]

The good thing about the newer model 41's is that the barrel is already drilled and tapped in case you want to mount a red dot. If you plan to shoot bullseye you will probably want to eventually use a red dot scope. A weaver number 62 mount cost about $7.00 and an Ultra dot scope is about $120.

 

[eight433]

love my early 80s model 41, but as mentioned above, if you want optics, the newer ones are the way to go, although I've heard its reasonable to have the older style drilled and tapped. I just would not have the heart to let anybody near my 41 with a power tool.

 

[Sunray]

"...used as a training pistol..." Re-think buying a $1,300 MSRP pistol that is extremely particular about ammo for that. Buy a $417 MSRP Ruger Mk III or a $356 MSRP M22A Smith. Used would be better. Not so fussy about ammo.
"...more for me..." Different thing. You'll still have to try a box of as many brands of ammo as you can to find the ammo the pistol will both shoot well and cycle the action. The price of said ammo means nothing.
A 41 is far more particular about ammo than most .22 target pistols. No two 41's will shoot and cycle the same ammo either. Love mine, but it'll only shoot and cycle with Remington Target and IVI Standard velocity. Have all kinds of part boxes of assorted .22 ammo round here.
On the other hand, .22 HV hunting ammo, including hyper-velocity ammo, doesn't bother 'em in the least. Lots of 41's are used where small game handgun hunting is legal.
The factory grips aren't great either. Aftermarket grips are horrendously expensive too. Herrett Nationals run $78. Great things(mine cost me $20Cdn a very long time ago), but pricey. http://www.herrett-stocks.com/national.htm
"...if you want optics..." Smith 41's don't need girly optics. Real men stand on their hind legs and shoot a .22, one handed, with iron sights. snicker.

 

[JoelSteinbach]

I am fortunate enough to own 2 - 41's. One purchased about 5 or 6 years ago and one at least 35 years ago, they seem to shoot equally as well, but not as well as they once did years ago.

 

[earplug]

Grips and Bullseye

When you get serious with Bullseye you will want to change out the grips.
to some sort of anatomical grips fitted to your hand.
When you do that the training aid aspect of the M-41 will end.
Have you considered for the training pistol, a 22 conversion kit for a center fire?
Advantage Arms and Tactical solutions conversions for a 1911 get good reviews, and the CZ Kadet for the CZ-75 series guns.
I have a Marvel conversion that is almost perfect, except for the lack of a last round slide lock, that may be a issue for some.
My M-41 is used for Bullseye.
One problem on Highstandards that has not been brought up is the rear sight gets in the way of working the slide if you mount a red dot on them.
I have a Citation that shoots great, but its a bear to hand cycle if it hiccups.

 

[racine]

"...Real men stand on their hind legs and shoot a .22, one handed, with iron sights. snicker..."
I shoot with a real old coot from time to time who is a heck of a crack shot. Only problem is that he shoots one handed and tells me that if handguns were meant for 2 hands they would have been called "...HANDSGUNS..." Funny thing is, he's serious as all get out :^)

 

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

Funny, the comments about getting serious about Bullseye and leaving the 41behind or needing anatomical grips...

My Ruger without anatomical grips has earned me NRA Master this season. The 41 is certainly capable of that in pretty much stock trim.

Is the 41 a training gun I would hand to someone inexperienced? Probably not. I would suggest a cheaper Buckmark or Ruger MK series. The Ruger with a trigger job and/or spring kit but maybe not to drop trigger pull down to 2 pounds. Keep it at a crisp 3. The buckmark trigger out of the box would be fine for a new shooter and still a good backup gun to the high standars you're shooting now. Neither of these are as picky on ammo fed to them.

-Steve