If you like it, fine, but just I do not see how one can rationally say it is "better" than the 44 magnum. That's like saying 5'-5" women are "better" than 5'-6" women. Okay, maybe if you're 5'-5" yourself.
Any advantage of "it could be" made in a smaller gun is lost, because it isn't. The only guns for it are retooled 44 sized weapons.
To say the 'only' disadvantage is unavailability of a big selection of factory ammo is a pretty
huge disadvantage to me. Ergo, unless you handload, forget it.
It is smaller than the 44. If smaller is better, why is it better than the 357?
I am a 44 Special lover, and I will certainly grant that the 44 special has benefitted tremendously from being usable in 44 magnum guns, and the 44 magnum guns have benefitted from being able to use the Special rounds. I will grant that a lot of the old plusses that helped the 44s along are mostly lost to the 45 Long Colt round in modern guns with modern components, but the fact is, when the 44s were carrying the mail, the guns and components were not there for the 45. The 357 has the 38. The 41 doesn't have those advantages or history.
I don't think it's the 280 Remington of handguns because even the 280 has benefitted from all the bullet development for all the hot, and not so hot, 7MMs, and the 41 never got saddled with name changes, a la 7MM Express.
I am not disputing that the .41 Mag is a fine round, capable of very good accuracy and terminal performance, and no question it is better than the .41 rimfire. I will modify my original assessment to say that is has a
vociferous minority of supporters.