Why .41 Magnum over .44 Mag?

All I know is that I'd love to own a model 57. I do like the calibers that that have small followings. Like the 6.5 Swede absolutely my favorite deer cartridge. And a lot like the 41 mag when it comes to small cult like followings.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk
 
I became interested in the .41 as a service caliber in the late 70s (thanks, Skeeter). At the time, the selection of duty ammo in the various calibers was poor and bullet performance was primitive, as was the training. The .41 with the mid range lead SWC was way more effective than the typical .38s of the time, and much easier to shoot than a hot .357 or .44. It was the perfect bowl of porridge.
 
Back in the early days of my law enforcement career I not once got called a "Dirty Harry Wannabe" like the guys with the 44 mags did.
 
Like others have said, the big draw for me was the mod 58. Hard to find another big bore fixed sight revolver. The fix sight guns carry so much better without that sharp rear sight getting in the way. I am convince this is why a mod 58 is in more demand and re-sells higher than the 57. try it, you'll like it.

Charlie
 
I started with .44 Magnums and never felt like the hassle of loading for a .41. The only advantage that I can see is the .41 has several thousands more metal around the cartridge in the cylinder, making it a stronger gun/ammo combination. That said, my old .44 has held up well without that additional metal. I'm sure if I had bought one, I would like it a lot, as I like all N frame Magnums. :-).
 
I thought that all the to do about the 44 Magnum when Dirty Harry was first out, was too trendy for me. So, I stayed with my trusty 357's.
Until I heard about, and saw, the Model 58. Then I became a fan of the a 41 magnum.
It's just too beautiful to not give it a good home.
 
Many of my handguns are focused on hunting. I have a number of both calibers and have been using them for over 30 years. I roll my own for both and have found that a good load in the 41's shoot well in any of them. In the case of the 44 they tend to be load specific for each gun. I lean towards the 41 when carrying a wheelgun but am glad I can pick up a 44 if I choose. My humble opinion written here.
 
crsides said:
Like others have said, the big draw for me was the mod 58. Hard to find another big bore fixed sight revolver. The fix sight guns carry so much better without that sharp rear sight getting in the way. I am convince this is why a mod 58 is in more demand and re-sells higher than the 57. try it, you'll like it.

Charlie
Click to expand...

A 4" Model 57 sells for more than a 4" Model 58 :confused:
 
A point not mentioned here is the beautiful fit of the .41 Magnum in the Smith and Wesson N frame.

The .44 Magnum is a bit much for the N frame, given a consistent diet of heavy loads (I wore out a Model 29-2 with about 15,000 rounds of the old Keith hard cast load in the late '70s). The .41 is perfect, and I've not experienced the wear on my three Model 57s, despite heavy loads of hard cast bullets, that my old Model 29-2 suffered. I got my first Model 57 as I was experiencing the wear in the Model 29; I liked it so much that I sent the Model 29 down the road and haven't had another since (though I am on the hunt for that gun for sentimental reasons, #N403663). The difference in the cartridges is very small, only .019", as the .41 is an honest .410" while the .44 measures .429".

I love the gun and cartridge, but it is not magic. Some point out a flatter trajectory that I've never seen (in comparison to the .44). It's not much less recoil than the .44 (I forget who said that if you don't like the recoil of the .44, you won't like the .41 either, but he was right). It is a bit of a boutique caliber, such that it's addicts, like me, are an obsessive group by necessity and are complusive handloaders. I feel much the same about the 16 gauge in shotguns, and have a similar addiction. The good news is that components for the .41 are much more plentiful than they were 30 years ago.

The Model 57 is slightly heavier than the Model 29, for obvious reasons. To me, especially with the 4" gun, this is a bonus. It handles superbly and feels great in my hands.
 
GF1 said:
A point not mentioned here is the beautiful fit of the .41 Magnum in the Smith and Wesson N frame.

The .44 Magnum is a bit much for the N frame, given a consistent diet of heavy loads (I wore out a Model 29-2 with about 15,000 rounds of the old Keith hard cast load in the late '70s). The .41 is perfect, and I've not experienced the wear on my three Model 57s, despite heavy loads of hard cast bullets, that my old Model 29-2 suffered. I got my first Model 57 as I was experiencing the wear in the Model 29; I liked it so much that I sent the Model 29 down the road and haven't had another since (though I am on the hunt for that gun for sentimental reasons, #N403663). The difference in the cartridges is very small, only .019", as the .41 is an honest .410" while the .44 measures .429".

I love the gun and cartridge, but it is not magic. Some point out a flatter trajectory that I've never seen (in comparison to the .44). It's not much less recoil than the .44 (I forget who said that if you don't like the recoil of the .44, you won't like the .41 either, but he was right). It is a bit of a boutique caliber, such that it's addicts, like me, are an obsessive group by necessity and are complusive handloaders. I feel much the same about the 16 gauge in shotguns, and have a similar addiction. The good news is that components for the .41 are much more plentiful than they were 30 years ago.

The Model 57 is slightly heavier than the Model 29, for obvious reasons. To me, especially with the 4" gun, this is a bonus. It handles superbly and feels great in my hands.
Click to expand...

Very good point and likely the reason everyone says the recoil is noticeably less.

My brother in law picked up a 4" m57 awhile back. He was kind enough to let me squeeze a few off. I found it pleasant enough to shoot.. Want one in the worst way...

I have a 4" 29-2, 6.5" 629 Classic, 4" 19-3 and a 6" 28-2.. see what's missing?? ;)

But personally in my limited reloading experience, I have noticed that there are far more options for bullets even in from one manufacturer for the 44. I believe the 44 is more versatile.. You can send 180's at blazing speed, or 300gr Mack trucks, and everything in between... And thats not counting loading down to SPL specs for plinking.


And I don't see how/why a 41 would be flatter shooting or more penetrating than a 44 tossing 200 or 225 grainers...


Still want a 57 though! ;) Fully intend on it being my next S&W purchase...
 
Last edited:
WPWarhawk said:
No offense to the .41 aficionados, but I don't understand why the .41 Mag exists at all.
Click to expand...

It was to be a perfect law enforcement revolver. Didnt work out as they used a heavy frame. Too much for most cops to carry. The L frame would have been just right.

While it is true that the 41 Magnum can be made to shoot flatter than the 44 Magnum, you have to be a very good shot to use the difference. Not much difference at the ranges us mere mortals can hit any game animals correctly.

I have owned a great number of 41 Magnums over the years. The first one was a M57 that I shot a lot. Never had any problems with wear. Also, never had any problems with the M29s I had. I did hear of problems with M29s, like the cylinder popping open and the cylinder rotating back a chamber when fired. Didnt ever hear of these problems with the M57/58.

If you dont have a handgun or reloading equipment right now, I would say consider the 41 Magnum. A nice six inch S&W 41 Magnum fills the need for a magnum revolver for 99% of what you might want to do with one.

JMHO.
 
WPWarhawk said:
No offense to the .41 aficionados, but I don't understand why the .41 Mag exists at all.
Click to expand...

It originally came about as a compromise intermediate caliber for LE use. Some agencies felt the .357 Mag was not enough and the .44 Mag was too much. But it never really caught fire in that role, and then semi-autos came into vogue for LE use, and most revolvers went away. The .41 appeals to many who like out-of-the-ordinary calibers. There's nothing actually wrong with it if you want something falling between a .357 and a .44.
 
Murdock said:
Having just read the thread on the 50th anniversary of the .41 Magnum it is clear that the caliber has many devotees, and the pictures were real pretty.

But what is the salient reason for choosing it over the .44? What will the .41 magnum do that other, more common calibers, cannot?

In response, I'd say that it's a matter of personal desire and, conversely, the fact that other more common calibers cannot be a .41 magnum.

I have collected a considerable number of S&W revolvers; mostly older guns. I have guns chambered in .22 rimfire, .32 S&W long, .38 special, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, .410 shotshell, .45 ACP and .45 Colt. It's been a lot of fun to experience shooting all those different guns. What I felt were voids in my collection were guns in .17 HMR, .22 magnum, .22 Jet, .32 S&W, .32 H&R or .327 Federal magnum, .38 S&W, .41 magnum, .44 special and then the really big calibers.
I like to reload and don't really like super powerful loads, so I think that I naturally developed a desire and a priority to own and load for a .41 magnum. I am very pleased now to have two fine examples.
Perhaps the key is that I basically have only an amusement use for my guns. I shoot: holes in paper targets, bowling pins, steel plates and a few varmints now and then, for pure enjoyment. The future development of a pet .41 magnum load gives me a very likable and achievable retirement goal.
George
Click to expand...
 
Cleveland48 said:
All I know is that I'd love to own a model 57. I do like the calibers that that have small followings. Like the 6.5 Swede absolutely my favorite deer cartridge. And a lot like the 41 mag when it comes to small cult like followings.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My first Swedish mauser was a 1907 Carl Gustaf m96. With irons at 100yds she shoots 1 1/2" groups using S&B 131gr SP ammO. I bought a few more after seeing this accuracy.
She makes me look good on every outing. Even the SWAT guys shooting near me were impressed.
 
DWalt said:
It originally came about as a compromise intermediate caliber for LE use. Some agencies felt the .357 Mag was not enough and the .44 Mag was too much. But it never really caught fire in that role, and then semi-autos came into vogue for LE use, and most revolvers went away. The .41 appeals to many who like out-of-the-ordinary calibers. There's nothing actually wrong with it if you want something falling between a .357 and a .44.
Click to expand...

Your right something out of the ordinary or just something different to shoot. The trip to the range when everyone was almost snoozing shooting there quiet 9mm's I couldn't resist waking them up with six rounds of 41mag out of the m58.
Shooting the same calibers often gets boring.
 
Didn't Elmer Keith kill every north American game with the 357mag, the 41mag and the 44 mag?
 
Lonegle57 said:
Many of my handguns are focused on hunting. I have a number of both calibers and have been using them for over 30 years. I roll my own for both and have found that a good load in the 41's shoot well in any of them. In the case of the 44 they tend to be load specific for each gun. I lean towards the 41 when carrying a wheelgun but am glad I can pick up a 44 if I choose. My humble opinion written here.
Click to expand...

I have also found that to be true. Especially with .44s built before the mid to late '90s. But the chamber dimensions on the .41s we've owned haven't varied much over 0.001" and the throats are usually within 0.0005" of nominal. But maybe that's just happenstance. However, .44s are all over the map. Throats from 0.428" to 0.434". Chambers vary more too. Not so bad if you only have one or two, I suppose...

I like the reduced recoil in .41 full house loads. Makes shooting the "standard" looking variants tolerable over long sessions.

Can't say I've noticed a nickle's worth of difference downrange, either in terminal or actual ballistics. But I'm not shooting elk or moose. Just paper, steel and deer.

If the same variety of revolvers were available for the .41 as the .44, then I'd likely not bother with the .44.

And for cast bullet shooting (non-magnum) I'd take the .45 Colt over either. Far easier (for me) to work up good loads, especially in those guns sized to take 0.451-0.452" projectiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
41 magnum popularity
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
BoulderTroll
BoulderTroll
S
.357 Magnum question
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
oldman10mm
oldman10mm
ddeanjohnson
WTS: list of 22 guns that remain -- MORE PRICE REDUCTIONS -- collection liquidation
2
Replies
28
Views
15K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
B
41 Magnum Die identification?
Replies
14
Views
790
BMur
B
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN --WTS- GUN BOOKS -- MAKE AN OFFER
2 3
Replies
45
Views
8K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson

Latest posts

Back
Top