41 mag......good all around revolver round?

[MrInox]

Thinking semi-seriously about a "4.2 redhawk in this caliber for woods/trail/camp/fishing and maybe even occasional cold weather carry....

A round that punches above 357mag but handles better than a .44 holds some appeal for me.



So what say ye?

[LtDave]

So long as you can handload for it, it is an excellent choice. If you have to rely on factory ammo alone, or need to pick up ammo at the local Wal Mart or out of the way shops you are probably better off with a 44 magnum.

In my experience full power .41 mag loads are just as unpleasant to shoot as full power .44s. I’ve had .41s since the mid ‘70s.

[Jeep]

So long as you can handload for it, it is an excellent choice. If you have to rely on factory ammo alone, or need to pick up ammo at the local Wal Mart, you are probably better off with a 44 magnum.

Very much agree. Wonderful round but when you have to take out a mortgage to buy a box of ammo--if you can find that box--you are probably better off with something else. And you can always load the .44 with Specials, which have a number of excellent protection-from-humans loads.

[Wheeler]

It's sort of a boutique cartridge these days with a strong cult following. Handloading is going to be the way to go if you plan to shoot it more than once every couple of months. With that being said, I'm a rather big fan of .32 Mags and have managed to justify keeping those around, so you'll find a ready participant in your enabling experience here. :)

[BillSWPA]

I suggest looking in the semiauto sub forum for GJM’s thread about field pistols. His conclusion was that an HP .45 ACP pistol that is rated for .45 super, loaded with Underwood penetrator ammo, is the best option.

He also found that any service pistol caliber loaded with the Underwood penetrator ammo would be adequate for most field purposes. So, unless you are going where grizzly or Kodiak bears live, you may be well served by different ammo for something you already own.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ACP230]

The .41 is my favorite revolver round.

I reload for it and have for years. Used it in Bowling Pin, steel plate matches,
and for general plinking, and woods wandering. Have also carried various .41s while
trout fishing. There are bears here and I like to have a revolver along while on the
streams. A 210 to 230 grain lead SWC over enough Unique to drive it at 1,000 fps
works well on pins and plates.

Have not managed to hunt deer with a 41. The DNR pulled an early doe season
that I thought would have been perfect for my long-barreled 657.

Georgia Ammo makes .41 ammo, and I think Buffalo Bore might as well.
Winchester does make .41 rounds but they are pricey. I put up some Silvertips
when they were a bit less expensive. Federal made (and may still make) some
heavy bullet .41s.

Get a .41. You can always buy a .44 later, but after the .41 you may not
want to.

[Jeep]

I suggest looking in the semiauto sub forum for GJM’s thread about field pistols. His conclusion was that an HP .45 ACP pistol that is rated for .45 super, loaded with Underwood penetrator ammo, is the best option.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And that was a very reasonable conclusion--but it isn't the only one. A 210 grain hard-cast .41 magnum load (particularly if you can find hard-cast wadcutters) can do everything a hopped-up .45 auto round can do and then some. So like usual it depends on your most likely tactical situation--and with the .42, whether you reload or not.

[41magfan]

Only if you reload, otherwise just skip it and get a .44 Magnum.

[FPS]

I think people forget that there is a very large power range in .44 magnum from very pleasant shooting on the low end to "I'm going to pass on shooting that again" on the high end. Whatever your pleasure, you can load for it with .44 magnum (or .45 Colt for that matter) and supplies are easy to find. Additionally, if you want to resell the gun at a later date, it will probably be easier to move a .44 magnum than a .41 magnum.

[Alpha Sierra]

I suggest looking in the semiauto sub forum for GJM’s thread about field pistols. His conclusion was that an HP .45 ACP pistol that is rated for .45 super, loaded with Underwood penetrator ammo, is the best option.
That so?

Let me clarify what he meant:
His conclusion was that an HP .45 ACP pistol that is rated for .45 super, loaded with Underwood penetrator ammo, is the best option FOR HIM

[OlongJohnson]

It's sort of a boutique cartridge these days with a strong cult following. Handloading is going to be the way to go if you plan to shoot it more than once every couple of months. With that being said, I'm a rather big fan of .32 Mags and have managed to justify keeping those around, so you'll find a ready participant in your enabling experience here. :)

I've gone down the rabbit hole a few times on .32 Fed Mag, and can't convince myself I have to have one...or, have always managed to convince myself I don't need one.

At any bullet weight, the .32 Fed Mag achieves basically the same velocity as a 9mm loaded to that same weight; a 90gr .380 HP at 9mm +P pressure will get moving. I handload and have a 5.3-inch barrel 9mm.

Light bullets from a .357 will do everything the same weight bullet will do from the .32, and a lot more. The only advantage is a slight external ballistic edge, flatter shooting for varmints at range. And arguably, the smaller cased rifle-ish rounds blow away the .32 in that department.

The only reason I can see for needing the .32s is to put six rounds where you can only fit five rounds of .38/.357.

There's a guy on Ebay selling a .32 H&R Contender barrel who wants you to convince me I'm wrong.

[1slow]

I recently bought a S&W #58, 4" barrel fixed sight .41 Magnum. I just think it is a neat revolver.

In the 1970s I was told that in a N frame the .41 Mag made sense because of thicker cylinder walls. No idea of the importance of that.

I mainly shot 4" model 29s in S&Ws or Super Blackhawks and Redhawks.

[Alpha Sierra]

In the 1970s I was told that in a N frame the .41 Mag made sense because of thicker cylinder walls.

Whoever told you that is an idiot who thinks he's smarter and more knowledgeable than Smith & Wesson's engineers and metallurgists. He's not.

[1slow]

Whoever told you that is an idiot who thinks he's smarter and more knowledgeable than Smith & Wesson's engineers and metallurgists. He's not.

I tend to agree, I think the top strap is a limiting factor as well as cylinder walls. I new a lot of people who shot 29s. The consensus seemed to be that like K frame .357s they would shoot lose with a lot of full power magnum ammo.

[Stephanie B]

I got to shoot a buddy's Model 57 recently. Nice gun and it felt a bit less sporty than my Model 29.

I liked it. But as others have said, unless one is a handloader, it is better to pass on a .41 magnum in favor of either a .357 or a .44. Or, possibly, a GP.100 in 10mm.

[Alpha Sierra]

I tend to agree, I think the top strap is a limiting factor as well as cylinder walls. I new a lot of people who shot 29s. The consensus seemed to be that like K frame .357s they would shoot lose with a lot of full power magnum ammo.

I just don't put a lot of stock on those anecdotal stories. What's "a lot" of full power magnum ammo?

Lots of people confuse correlation with causality.

[JAH 3rd]

My two thoughts have been echoed by others. The .41 magnum gives a bit more metal around the cartridges in the cylinder as well as the barrel. Whether it makes a difference, I dunno. Secondly, a .44 magnum has the option of shooting a .44 special. I believe some thought the .41 magnum was supposed to be the ideal cartridge for police work but the N-frame S&W was heavy on the hip and the recoil was pretty stout. The S&W model 58 had the fixed sights where the model 57 was the twin of a model 29 except for caliber.

[BillSWPA]

My two thoughts have been echoed by others. The .41 magnum gives a bit more metal around the cartridges in the cylinder as well as the barrel. Whether it makes a difference, I dunno. Secondly, a .44 magnum has the option of shooting a .44 special. I believe some thought the .41 magnum was supposed to be the ideal cartridge for police work but the N-frame S&W was heavy on the hip and the recoil was pretty stout. The S&W model 58 had the fixed sights where the model 57 was the twin of a model 29 except for caliber.

The .41 magnum may have been ideal for some very serious shooters, one of whom was 6 feet, 7 inches tall. It didn’t work so well for others for exactly these reasons. We have at least one retired LEO here who used some powerful revolvers, and has hand and wrist damage as a result.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[revchuck38]

I enjoy my 4" nickel M57-0. It works well as a defensive revolver loaded with 175-grain Silvertips and the recoil is about the same as with an M27 or M28 with full-power .357 Mag 158s due to the 57's heavier weight. It's a nice field revolver loaded with 210-220 grain LSWCs at 900-1000 fps. And what's not to love about a 4" nickel N frame? :) It's my barbeque gun, if I ever go to a barbeque.

[Alpha Sierra]

I enjoy my 4" nickel M57-0.

We gotta see it. Don't deny us.

[45dotACP]

I am super ghey for the Smith model 57. The one I own with the 8 3/8 inch barrel is so accurate it's crazy. Unlike many guns, handload development involved just putting 16 grains of 2400 and primer in a case, topping with a 215gr SWC and that's it.

Offhand shots at 20 oz coke bottles 50 yards away are more hit than miss and I'm not even that good of a shot.

Any thoughts as to why the .41 seems so inherently accurate?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Alpha Sierra]

Any thoughts as to why the .41 seems so inherently accurate?

I don't think it's the cartridge. I think it's the handgun. Seriously. I don't know why but a S&W revolver in proper tune and timing is just more accurate than any semi auto handgun costing the same.

[mtnbkr]

Any thoughts as to why the .41 seems so inherently accurate?


I don't think it's the cartridge. I think it's the handgun. Seriously. I don't know why but a S&W revolver in proper tune and timing is just more accurate than any semi auto handgun costing the same.

My view is that the 41mag, being a modern cartridge not carrying the baggage of the BP era, doesn't suffer from the variety of dimensional options that older cartridges seem to have. This is especially noticeable in the 45Colt where you have a somewhat defined bullet diameter of .454, yet guns can have bores or throats all over the place, even up until the 80s. Ruger AND S&W are guilty of this. It's also present, to a lesser degree, in the 38special as exhibited in my 38Special revolvers ranging from from a mid 50s Target Masterpiece to an early 2000s j-frame.

The 41, on the other hand, was developed well past the BP era. Therefore, it stands to reason the specs are better defined and accepted by industry.

Chris

[BillSWPA]

That so?

Let me clarify what he meant:

GJM’s recommendations were based on a great deal of testing as detailed in his thread. While everyone is free to pick whatever they believe works for them, he makes a very good argument for his recommendations that I do not see being effectively countered here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willie]

The .41 Magnum hit the market in about 1964 to serve as the ideal police ground. Two versions of the same round were offered. One was a lead bullet load at slower velocity. The other was the full blown magnum version that we see today. The concept, though well intended, fell flat. Compared to cheaper .38 Spl ammo, this caliber was prohibitively expensive. The N frame Smith is heavy. Commercial ammo was infrequently available. Nominal difference in the diameters of the .429 44 round and the .410 round 41 round is slight. Thinking that ballistic concern was the developers' intent is giving them too much credit. Elmer Keith, his grandmother, and everybody else took credit. When shooting the .44 Mag and .41 Mag side by side, for me the two are indistinguishable. I own and like both. The 4 5/8 .41 Mag Ruger Blackhawk may be the world's greatest packing handgun.

[Pistol Pete 10]

.44 is better because of factory loads available. A .357 is better if you must use factory loads. This being said I would buy a 4" S&W in a NY minute if the right deal came along. I do hand load and could set up for it. A 4" .44 would be my first choice unless the 58 was a real bargain.

[Hambo]

Only if you reload, otherwise just skip it and get a .44 Magnum.

In which case you should also reload.

[JAH 3rd]

According to "Dirty Harry" Callahan, he shot a "44 light Special" in his model 29!

[Alpha Sierra]

he makes a very good argument for his recommendations that I do not see being effectively countered here.

It doesn't need to be countered because it's not relevant to anyone except him and anyone who agrees with him on that subject.

[okie john]

Thinking semi-seriously about a "4.2 redhawk in this caliber for woods/trail/camp/fishing and maybe even occasional cold weather carry....

A round that punches above 357mag but handles better than a .44 holds some appeal for me.



So what say ye?

I think it depends on how you define "handles better." A 41 might kick a little less but ammo can be hard to find and expensive. In most guns the 41 will be a bit heavier because the cylinders and barrels are made from the same stock as 44 cylinders and barrels but the holes are smaller.

I prefer the 44 because of its greater versatility and easier logistical support.


Okie John

[okie john]

I tend to agree, I think the top strap is a limiting factor as well as cylinder walls. I new a lot of people who shot 29s. The consensus seemed to be that like K frame .357s they would shoot lose with a lot of full power magnum ammo.

Very few normal shooters had trouble with the earlier Model 29s, but silhouette competitors who went through thousands of VERY hot loads every year did have problems. Apparently the cylinders would rotate past the bolt notches and the gun wouldn't fire unless the shooter re-indexed the cylinder manually. (An hour spent on the S&W forum will answer any question you ever had about the issue.) The problem largely went away when S&W added the Endurance Package starting with the Model 29-3 but by then most high-volume 44 users were shooting Rugers. Most Smith guys still feel like the 29-2 and earlier guns are at their best with a bullet no heavier than 250 grains going no faster than 1,100 fps.

Not sure if the Endurance Package was ever added to the 41-caliber guns.


Okie John

[Wheeler]

I've gone down the rabbit hole a few times on .32 Fed Mag, and can't convince myself I have to have one...or, have always managed to convince myself I don't need one.

At any bullet weight, the .32 Fed Mag achieves basically the same velocity as a 9mm loaded to that same weight; a 90gr .380 HP at 9mm +P pressure will get moving. I handload and have a 5.3-inch barrel 9mm.

Light bullets from a .357 will do everything the same weight bullet will do from the .32, and a lot more. The only advantage is a slight external ballistic edge, flatter shooting for varmints at range. And arguably, the smaller cased rifle-ish rounds blow away the .32 in that department.

The only reason I can see for needing the .32s is to put six rounds where you can only fit five rounds of .38/.357.

There's a guy on Ebay selling a .32 H&R Contender barrel who wants you to convince me I'm wrong.

The beauty of rabbit holes is the odd places they tend to lead us. :) I like .32's just because I like them, there's a lot of history tied up in the caliber and it's various progeny, and finally I think it's just cool. If I'm carrying a .32 Mag J frame I can certainly make the rational argument that I have one more round than a .32 and better ballistics. I can also make the rational argument that I have one more round than a 9mm J frame and equivalent ballistics. I might add that the .32 Mag out of an Airweight is quite sporty with the OEM grips, moreso than heavy 158s out of a 642.

As far as rifles go, there are .32 H&R Mag rifles available, (if one wants to pay though the nose,) and Henry had started producing a Big Boy in .327 Mag. The potential ballistics for a small critter-gitter are quite promising.

The best part of the .32 family in my opinion is that I can and do reload for them. Back during The Great Ammo Shortage I could reload .32L cheaper than I could buy .22LR. To clarify that was with cast bullets from wheel weights but the option was viable then and will be viable again, especially given the continued class warfare conducted against gun owners.

Finally, I'm not trying to convince anyone that .32s are better. As a matter of fact I sincerely hope that everyone else loses interest in them. :D

[willie]

Those who buy 41's love them. Ammo availability is not good but is a moot point for the person who reloads. I say buy a .41 revolver and 300 new cases and get after it. It's so easy to load for. Some may not know that a 240 grain round nose cast bullet loaded heavily will shoot flatter than any .44 mag load. All that means is hitting dirt clods and stumps at long range is easier. Though I have bragged on the .41 Mag, I would advise a young man not terribly serious about handguns to buy a .44 instead, and I would recommend a Ruger Single Action with a long barrel. Here I say if you think you want a .41, then by all means make the purchase. I'd bet money that he or she would like it.

[willie]

Very few normal shooters had trouble with the earlier Model 29s, but silhouette competitors who went through thousands of VERY hot loads every year did have problems. Apparently the cylinders would rotate past the bolt notches and the gun wouldn't fire unless the shooter re-indexed the cylinder manually. (An hour spent on the S&W forum will answer any question you ever had about the issue.) The problem largely went away when S&W added the Endurance Package starting with the Model 29-3 but by then most high-volume 44 users were shooting Rugers. Most Smith guys still feel like the 29-2 and earlier guns are at their best with a bullet no heavier than 250 grains going no faster than 1,100 fps.

Not sure if the Endurance Package was ever added to the 41-caliber guns.


Okie John

Smith engineers discovered that Model 29 rapid wear from magnum loads was caused by battering of parts within the action. Violent back and forth movement was the culprit. I think that the enhancement package after adoption for magnum calibers has been applied throughout the revolver line. The hand used today when compared with the older type is referred to as a floating hand. This type makes timing their revolvers much easier. True, dyed in the wool double action shooters never liked them, but since many have died out, and few others know the difference, nobody complains. When picking up and dry firing a brand new Smith double action, one can feel resistance of the hand against ratchets. Thankfully it goes away soon after shooting and dry firing. One other tidbit of information is that more than 50 years ago Smith elected to use the same steels with the same heat treating throughout their revolver line. This step simplified manufacture.

[Malamute]

Very few normal shooters had trouble with the earlier Model 29s, but silhouette competitors who went through thousands of VERY hot loads every year did have problems. Apparently the cylinders would rotate past the bolt notches and the gun wouldn't fire unless the shooter re-indexed the cylinder manually. (An hour spent on the S&W forum will answer any question you ever had about the issue.) The problem largely went away when S&W added the Endurance Package starting with the Model 29-3 but by then most high-volume 44 users were shooting Rugers. Most Smith guys still feel like the 29-2 and earlier guns are at their best with a bullet no heavier than 250 grains going no faster than 1,100 fps.

Not sure if the Endurance Package was ever added to the 41-caliber guns.

Okie John


Smith engineers discovered that Model 29 rapid wear from magnum loads was caused by battering of parts within the action. Violent back and forth movement was the culprit. I think that the enhancement package after adoption for magnum calibers has been applied throughout the revolver line. The hand used today when compared with the older type is referred to as a floating hand. This type makes timing their revolvers much easier. True, dyed in the wool double action shooters never liked them, but since many have died out, and few others know the difference, nobody complains. When picking up and dry firing a brand new Smith double action, one can feel resistance of the hand against ratchets. Thankfully it goes away soon after shooting and dry firing. One other tidbit of information is that more than 50 years ago Smith elected to use the same steels with the same heat treating throughout their revolver line. This step simplified manufacture.

I never had problems with the cylinder going past proper index, only hands/ratchets wearing and going out of time. The majority of loads shot in my 4" 29-2 were medium loads, full power loads never were much fun to shoot, the new wore off after a couple thousand rds. 9 grs Unique in magnum cases or 44 spl level loads are more pleasant and do most of what Ive needed done.

I thought the floating hand was only used a couple years? I think they went back to the older type.

The newer Smiths are re-timed by replacing the ratchet in the cylinder, which is supposed to be a drop in or nearly so operation, the hand isnt changed.

The ones with modified lockwork for endurance had the bolt notches longer and the leade is somewhat off-centered on the notch rather than centered like the older guns. The idea I believe is so the locking bolt can float forward and back and remain locked rather than bouncing out of engagement under recoil.

With regard to the 41 vs 44, I never saw any particular need for the 41 for my own use since I loaded nearly all the rds I shot in the 44 and could cover all the same ground with room to go up in the power scale as desired. Most of my handguns have only seen a very small amount of factory ammo over their lifetimes. I guess its nice to know you could get ammo if need be, but Ive very rarely bought factory loads in most stuff I shoot.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I've lusted after a .41 Magnum since I was a teenager.
But I have to acknowledge that not being a reloader, a .44 Magnum or .45 Colt revolver makes imminently more logistical sense.

[TheKuduKing]

I love the .41 Magnum. Have had them over the years in all their limited offerings. It's a great round that as a practical matter does everything that a .44 Magnum does, with a little less recoil. All the revolvers I've had - S&W and Ruger alike - were very accurate.

But unless you are well-heeled, you have to handload since factory ammo is expensive... unless you don't plan on shooting it much.

IMHO the Redhawk is just too massive of a gun for the .41 Mag. That's a helluva anchor to be dragging around. That gun makes more sense in .44 Magnum or .45 Colt for "modern loads", since the recoil on those two boomers can be pretty high. Plus the price is frankly ridiculous for what it is, a polished hammer.

I bought the new generation S&W 57-6 Classic when it came out, and ignoring the MIM travesties, it's a very accurate revolver, and the trigger pulls are suprisingly very good as well. It retails for less than the Redhawk and the appearance and fit is noticeably better than the Riphawk. The Endurance Package is part of the new N frames and this includes the .41 Magnum. The only downside is that Smith only offers it with the 6" barrel, although that's about the ideal length for the .41 Mag. A four-inch would be nice.

The Ruger Blackhawk is also a very nice size and weight for the .41 Magnum if you like SA guns. Both the new S&W and the Blackhawks would shoot 3" groups off the sandbags at 50 yards, if you can shoot. The Blackhawk can be had in 4-5/8" barrel and that carries very nicely in the field. Shot a wild boar with that one, very effective.