Model 41 conundrum

[tlawler]

Good afternoon everyone. I am corresponding with a gentleman about his model 41. I’m not really in the market for one, but while looking through some local ads, his description intrigued me. He had it listed as a 41 in the title and as a 41-1 in the body of the description. I contacted him to ask about it, and he says it has .22 LR CTG on the right side of the barrel and Model 41-1 on the right side of the frame below the barrel marking.

It is a ~1963 gun with serial 77xxx, 7 3/8” barrel with compensator.

My thoughts are that it is a Model 41-1 frame fitted with a Model 41 barrel. I’m not too well versed on the early Model 41’s and especially the 41-1’s other than knowing it’s a relatively rare pistol, so I’m turning to the experts.

 

[gmborkovic]

With 5mags, I would have asked him his asking price. Did you?

 

[Tom S.]

Model 41-1 is the .22 short frame, so yes, someone put a .22 long barrel on it. I wonder what mags he has - .22 short or long?

 

[gmborkovic]

Did the 41-1 22short have an alloy slide?

 

[tlawler]

Model 41-1 is the .22 short frame, so yes, someone put a .22 long barrel on it. I wonder what mags he has - .22 short or long?

They look like .22 LR mags to me. I think he’s been shooting .22 LR in it, but didn’t say.

Did the 41-1 22short have an alloy slide?

According to the SCSW, yes it is an aluminum slide.

It would seem to me that mixing parts would kill any collector value and maybe affect the selling value by a couple hundred dollars. Wouldn’t that make it less desirable than a 7 3/8” barreled Model 41 of that vintage with original slide and frame mated together?

 

[Fullmetaljacket]

For sure less desirable than the correct .22 short chambered barrel mated to the 41-1 frame. Speculation on my part but I think regular use of .22 lr with the aluminum slide designed for .22 short would beat the poor thing to death. Are the mags original to the 41-1 frame, i.e. .22 short? If so I suppose you could shoot .22 shorts through the .22 lr barrel. Maybe. All in all, unless I had a line on a .22 short barrel to swap out, I would move on. Just my .02 worth.

 

[chief38]

Beginning in 1960, only around 1,000 of the Model 41-1 were built. They featured a lightweight aluminum slide to function properly with the .22 Short cartridge. Other than being able to physically see and handle it I'd say your assessments are correct and you really can't know for sure.

 

[Tom S.]

IIRC, the .22 short mags looked like the .22 long mags except they had a spacer mounted in the back of the mag to make up the difference in length between the two, about 3/16" thick.

EDIT: Found a picture, memory is still working!

 

[Bastogne71]

A model 41-1 can be converted to a standard model 41 by replacing five parts. A 22lr barrel, steel slide assembly, standard recoil spring, ejector, and a 22lr magazine are all that’s required. S&W did offer a conversion kit to change a 41 to a dash 1 consisting of the same five parts but for the 22 short.

The question is are all five parts changed in the pistol trawler is interested in. Shooting 22lr with an alloy slide and reduced weight recoil spring will result in rapid and serious damage to the pistol.if this has occurred I’d pass on this one.If it has been properly converted, it’s substantially no different than any other model 41 of that era. Now if the seller has the original dash 1 parts, we are talking about a substantial increase in value.

 

[SlamFire]

Shooting 22lr with an alloy slide and reduced weight recoil spring will result in rapid and serious damage to the pistol.if this has occurred I’d pass on this one.If it has been properly converted, it’s substantially no different than any other model 41 of that era. Now if the seller has the original dash 1 parts, we are talking about a substantial increase in value.

An all original 22 Short M41 would be valuable as collector piece, but who is going to be shooting one in competition? Nobody, as that issue was obviously settled early in the 1960's.

As far as an aluminum slide, that had to be a bad idea even 60 years ago. Aluminum has a finite fatigue life, regardless of how thick it is. Steel has a longer fatigue lifetime, and if the stresses are low enough, an infinite fatigue lifetime. It would be very bad for the shooter to have a slide fly off the pistol and land in an eyeball.