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

[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.

[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.