I would like to discuss the .41 Mag story...

[Shrek Of The Arctic]

Hey y'all!

So...I just recently fell into the .41 Mag world. I'm honestly still on the fence about my feelings on the cartridge. I've done a fair bit of online research and of course have learned the basics that it was the brainchild of Elmer Keith, Bill Jordan, and later on, Skeeter Skelton. The original velocities being planned at about 200-210 grain SWC at 900-1,000 FPS. The hunting load being advertised at about 1,500 FPS, etc.


It's commonly known that the world had a serious case of "Magnum-itis" at the time, and the original intentions were thrown to the wind. Now here's where it gets interesting: I once read that the pioneers of the .41 Mag had originally envisioned the caliber being used in a smaller frame gun, such as a K frame, or even the creation of something akin to what would later be the L frame. In other words, what is known today as the .41 Special. I REALLY like this story. It makes a lot of sense to me, and...It's very plausible. It's exciting to think that Jordan, Keith, and skelton were so far ahead of their time with envisioning an L frame. The problem is, that I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, and have been unable to verify it.



Is that how it really happened? Does anyone have any links or info? Book references?

I'd sure appreciate your thoughts, opinions, and discussion of the matter!

 

[jdlii]

I have not heard about the proposed smaller frame .41 but, I do know that when I shoot my Mod. 57, 6", even with inexpensive bullets, the groups are impressive up to 25+ yards.

 

[El Biblioitecario]

Skelton, Charles A. (Skeeter)
Good Friend, Good Guns, Good Whiskey
Peoria, IL, PJS Publications, 1988. 347p. illus.
No ISBN

Pages 275-278 of the above features an article titled: "The .41 Magnum: The Lawman's Workaday Cartridge.' Skelton discusses the pros and cons of the cartridge, and it's antecedents, specifically a wildcat cartridge developed by '20s gunsmith 'Pop' Eimer. He mentions the resistance of manufacturers "naturally reluctant to risk the cost of tooling for a new model with unknown sales potential." (p 276)

Skelton, Charles A. (Skeeter)
Skeeter: Hoglegs, Hipshots, and Jalapenos
Peoria, IL, PJS Publications, 1991. 286p.
ISBN 0 9621148 6 3

Page 120-125 of the above is an article originally published in August 1977 titled, "How The .41 Magnum Came About." While this piece repeats some material included in the previous reference, it complements it with more detailed information. Skelton states he was "niave to the extreme about the process and economics of gun manufacturing" and again describes the disinterest of the firearms industry in introducing a new cartridge and weapon.

 

[WILDPIG]

Well. There you have it.

WILDPIG

 

[SuperMan]

Welcome to The Cult....

From some of the gun rag articles I have read, the three were very disappointed in the final product but never said so in public. And yes what they were hoping for was a dedicated LE revolver of about the L-frame size that really only existed in the Colt Python/Trooper at the time...

There was already a cartridge on the market that would have better fulfilled the roll they were looking for and that was the .401 Herter's PowerMag. That round could have gone right into the Python/Trooper and probably the Heavy Duty/Outdoorsman. I have also seen pictures of I believe it was called the .40 or .400 Colt which was almost identical to the PowerMag...Colt dropped the idea however.

All Elmer wanted was a .44 Special round with a Keith style bullet at 950 fps... The ammo companies would not make such a round however because the thinking of the day was that the Triple Lock was not strong enough to handle a constant load like that ever though Elmer and many others were loading them up to 1200 fps...

I personally think that all three did not however understand the fact that 95% of the LEOs had no interest in firearms other than a tool for the job and simply want the lightest gun to carry using the lightest recoiling ammo to qualify with. That is why 90% of the LEOs carried Model 10s or Colt Police Positives with plain old .38 Special ammo rather that the easily available .38-44 Heavy Duty or a .357 Magnum...they just don't care.

The same can be seen today...what is the new standard...the light kicking 9mm....

The .41 is my favorite revolver cartridge...but it isn't for everyone...

Here is some reading for you...lots of good links and posts...

.41 Magnum / 41 Special Load Data Center

Bob

 

[Biggfoot44]

And to throw another name into the discussion , the the gunwriter Tom Ferguson was at the time rangemaster for San Antonio PD , and was instrumental in their adoption of the M58 . Likewise expressed disapointment in factory ammo .

But in the big historical picture , it was improvements in ammo in other cals that undercut the appeal of the .41 . The introduction of .357 jhp aimed at LE market made improved performance available without having to resort to the size and weight of an N frame .

 

[Benton Quest]

Odd how law enforcement played out this whole game again with the 10mm.

Sadly, there are no magic bullets. Shot placement is all.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Texas Star]

Actually, I think it may have been holster maker Chic Gaylord who I first saw mention such a ctg. in print, about 1960.

It's certainly true that the actual product was too big and heavy for most cops and kicked too hard, even with the milder load. I've also heard that the soft swaged bullets leaded bores pretty badly.

This was also the case with the .357 until jacketed bullets became the norm.

 

[clang444]

Some peripheral info:

The Colt Army Special was originally known to be built on the "41 frame" inside the Colt factory because the frame was built for the old .41 Long Colt cartridge. The Army Special became the Official Police and the frame was designated the "E Frame" after WWII.

The E Frame was developed into the I Frame (the most significant change being a frame mounted firing pin). The I frame was developed for the "357" which was Colts premium .357 Mag until the super premium Colt Python replaced it. The Python was also built on the I frame.

It's been noted the similarity in appearance and frame size between the Python and the S&W 586/686 L frame guns. There is speculation that the designers at S&W used the Python as a model for the 586/L frame for dimensions and appearance (including the full lug barrel).

If this is true, the L frame lineage has a dotted line going back all the way to the old Colt "41 Frame" and the Model 646 in .40 S&W brings the design just about back around to where it started - at least within 0.01", getting us fairly close to what the original .41 Mag proponents really wanted for a police load. Too bad we never got a 10mm version of the L frame revolver.

 

[rockquarry]

Felt recoil may be a subjective thing, but the difference between .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum factory loads seems pretty small to me. They're both heavy kickers; neither is for inexperienced handgun shooters that included many, many cops.

It's hard to imagine a "need" for the .41 Magnum when the .44 Magnum was already well-established and guns so-chambered could fire .44 Special cartridges. Whether or not .44 Special rounds were carried much, I don't know, but tend to doubt they saw widespread use.

One can bring up the fact that there also was a toned-down "police" load for the .41 Magnum, but law enforcement cast of mind would generally steer away from the use of a lighter load when magnum ammo was available.

Similar arguments can be levied at the real usefulness of the .40 S&W and 10mm, but that may be drifting a bit too far beyond the point of this thread. The wheel has been re-introduced many times, but the original version usually retains its shape and remains pretty effective.

 

[lrrifleman]

This post got me thinking. Personally, I have a soft spot for the 41 Magnum, along with the 686+ 3".

I am not a gunsmith or gun designer, but I was wondering, does a 686+ cylinder (either fluted or unfluted) have enough meat to it to be bored to handle 6 rounds of 41 Magnum?

Personally, I would love to have a 686 3" chambered in 41Magnum, preferably as a 6 shot!

 

[Sugar River]

Dave Clements has bored out 686s and GP-100s to 41 Special.

 

[Shrek Of The Arctic]

Felt recoil may be a subjective thing, but the difference between .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum factory loads seems pretty small to me. They're both heavy kickers; neither is for inexperienced handgun shooters that included many, many cops.

It's hard to imagine a "need" for the .41 Magnum when the .44 Magnum was already well-established and guns so-chambered could fire .44 Special cartridges. Whether or not .44 Special rounds were carried much, I don't know, but tend to doubt they saw widespread use.

One can bring up the fact that there also was a toned-down "police" load for the .41 Magnum, but law enforcement cast of mind would generally steer away from the use of a lighter load when magnum ammo was available.

Similar arguments can be levied at the real usefulness of the .40 S&W and 10mm, but that may be drifting a bit too far beyond the point of this thread. The wheel has been re-introduced many times, but the original version usually retains its shape and remains pretty effective.

Your post darn near perfectly illuminates my reasoning for suspecting the .41 Mag was intended for a smaller revolver. On the heels of .44 Mag success as well as the renowned .44 Special, I just don't see the three legends scratching their heads collectively and saying "Hey! let's make a brand new load with the same N frame size revolver as a .44 or .45, which can already shoot 200 grain bullets at approximately 900 FPS and then make it shoot a smaller bullet to duplicate the same results! bullet weight, velocity, and energy! It'll take the world by storm!"

 

[cowboy4evr]

He will no longer alter an L-frame smith, 586 , 686 etc . Only the ruger GP 100 , stainless or blued . Regards, Paul

 

[Shrek Of The Arctic]

Thank you guys for sharing your thoughts and information! I'm definitely excited to be learning more about this cartridge and it's history.

 

[rockquarry]

Your post darn near perfectly illuminates my reasoning for suspecting the .41 Mag was intended for a smaller revolver. On the heels of .44 Mag success as well as the renowned .44 Special, I just don't see the three legends scratching their heads collectively and saying "Hey! let's make a brand new load with the same N frame size revolver as a .44 or .45, which can already shoot 200 grain bullets at approximately 900 FPS and then make it shoot a smaller bullet to duplicate the same results! bullet weight, velocity, and energy! It'll take the world by storm!"

I don't know about the possibility of a smaller-framed gun for the .41 magnum. Maybe there was truly something to that idea, but I followed the .41 Magnum story beginning with its introduction. Just don't recall reading or hearing anything about a smaller-frame until today, but perhaps I missed something decades ago. As big a cartridge as it is, looks like the N-frame would be the logical choice rather than a new creation.

 

[Shrek Of The Arctic]

Well...I certainly respect your thoughts and experience on the matter. From my limited view...it seems plausible, but on the other hand, I figger some of the wildest and silliest conspiracy theories I've heard were started with "plausible" circumstantial evidence.

It's kind of exciting to think about diving into some dusty old books to learn about stuff the internet ain't savvy to!

 

[rockquarry]

Well...I certainly respect your thoughts and experience on the matter. From my limited view...it seems plausible, but on the other hand, I figger some of the wildest and silliest conspiracy theories I've heard were started with "plausible" circumstantial evidence.

It's kind of exciting to think about diving into some dusty old books to learn about stuff the internet ain't savvy to!

Dusty old books are something I have plenty of. Was looking through a 1970 HANDLOADERS DIGEST just a while ago. There's mention in it of the .400 Eimer Special, basically a .41 Magnum from 1924 based on the .401 Winchester case. It wasn't popular either.

 

[GaBoy45]

From what I remember of reading Mr. Skelton's writings, his idea was for the .41 to fill the same "void" that the 40s&w did later. He wrote about it allowing officers a bigger round than the .38/.357 but in a smaller size revolver than the N-Frames while allowing the officer the choice from a more sedate police load and a higher velocity load for such occasions as a barricaded subject or shooting at a subject that was in or behind automobiles. However he said S&W didn't want to tool up a new Frame line and Remington only released the full bore loads. It was a good idea at the time but was hampered by the companies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Art Doc]

The 41 Magnum isn't hard to comprehend. It's the 44 Magnum minus 15%.

I find the 44 uncomfortable and can't really shoot it. The 41 is just barely tolerable. So I have defined my recoil limit.

The 41 holes in the cylinder are smaller so they leave a little more meat around the chambers. Good thing. The 44 is a tad lacking in wall thickness IMO.

It's no secret that the 58 did not sell well. I've had 2, and both shipped about 4 years later than the serials would suggest. My current 58 was likely first month or 2 of production based on the serial but shipped in 1968.

I know Skelton, Keith, et al, lobbied for a 200 grain lead bullet at 900 or so FPS load for police use, but how does this differ from the 44 Special that's been around since 1907? Too big for the K frame platform S&W wasn't going to engineer a new intermediate frame in 1964 for this cartridge. It would come out in an N frame. There were already N frames using similar cartridges available. I'm not sure what these guys thought this new cartridge could accomplish or what need it would fill.