I have never shot a 41 magnum. Is there really a noticeable difference between a 41 and a 44 magnum in recoil or are they about the same? I have fired a 357, but would like the extra power for a hunting sidearm.

I doubt that you or the game intended will notice the difference most if the time. If you are still shopping, it is easier to get factory ammo in .44 and the ability to shoot .44 special for non hunting use adds flexibility.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

The difference is likely negligible...but a .41 gun will weigh somewhat more than a .44 in the same frame revolver as there's more steel left in the barrel.

That might mitigate some of the recoil difference compared to a .44. Still...likely not enough to make a difference. The shooter's stance and grip design and construction (rubber vs. wood) can change felt recoil as well.

As you might expect, with ammunition of the same power (220 grains at 1350-1400 FPS or so) there is no reason to think recoil will be any different between the two calibers. I suppose the .44 is capable of being loaded with slightly heavier bullets than the .41, but aside from that, I’d never notice the difference. They are both mean and nasty to shoot with full-power ammo. If recoil concerns you, maybe think about a revolver with 8-3/8” barrel, or one of the “Classic” models with the Python-style barrel.

I like this one for hunting using stout .41 magnum ammo. I load up 265 grain hard cast LSWC ammo.



This is a 657-2 Classic Hunter and it seems to recoil a bit less than my plain-jane 6" Model 29-3 .44 Magnum with similar loads.

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

I got my first 41 mag a few months ago and can't tell the difference in recoil.

I have a friend who handgun hunts extensively. He has both a 44 and a 41 Magnum. He has stopped hunting with the 44 because he feels the 41 recoils less and he likes the fact it shoots flatter. He uses standard magnum loads - bullets weighing 210 grains for the 41, 240 grains for the 44.

Welcome.

I reload for the 44Rem Mag and 41Rem Mag.
It’s subjective but the recoil and blast is
negligible to me in both.

Of course I shoot both and like both. I would
recommend either one.

All good hints above. The Best to you and
your Endeavors.

41Rem Mag

Attached Images

IMG_2020.jpg (95.1 KB, 47 views)

In my opinion, full power 44 vs full power 41, the 44 recoils a bit more.

But if you handload, that is a non issue.

There are a lot of 41 fans that are hoping Ruger/ Marlin makes an 1894 in 41M.

I am sure there are .44 Mag loads that would distinguish themselves against a .41 mag, but in my experience with common loads I doubt a blindfolded shooter could tell any difference.

__________________
Pisgah

Availability is one thing. But with the cost of ammo these days, reloading is necessary regardless of which of the 2 calibers you chose.

Although considered a wildcat, .41 Special is an option like .44 Special. Starline sells the brass and load data IS available.

I sold my 41 magnum several years a go.
Still have my 44's. just can fined brass and bullets easier.
And did/still mold lead bullet's for the 44's

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

I prefer the 41 because standard weight 210 bullets recoil a little less than 240 grain 44s. If you load 240 grain bullets full-house in a 41, recoil is indistinguishable from 44.

The 41 is a perfect carbine round as well - my grandson loves the Henry Big Boy 41 I bought for him to use and shoots it well.

I was excited when I found out that Marlin had several runs of 1894 rifles in .41 Magnum pre-Remington … until I saw what they sell for 😵‍💫 Paying over $3,000 for a 1980s or more recent Marlin is just not happening - there are so many rifles I’d want first.

Henry can hook you up.

The weight difference is negligible . My M29-2 weights 3 pounds and one ounce, my M57 weighs less than a half ounce more when weighed on the same digital postage scale. Both are 6" guns, and if it makes any more difference than the bore size, the M29-2 is nickel plated. There might be some negligible difference in weight of the stocks as well. Holding one in each hand I can't tell the difference in weight.

Most standard factory loads for a .44 Magnum use a 240 grain bullet, most for the .41Magnum use a 210 grain bullet. The .41 should have slightly less felt recoil, but most probably wouldn't notice it much. Slight difference in powder type and weight to give similar velocities make it hard to quantify.

I would add, both are substantially greater recoil than .357 Magnum.

Attached Images

M57 & M29-2.jpg (257.9 KB, 29 views)

I had model 29 .44s, and model 57 .41s. I did like the idea of having slightly more steel in the cylinder surrounding that high pressure cartridge with the .41. I loaded the .41 for years, later the .44. Loading the .44 with 240 grain bullet and the .41 with a 210 grain to the same velocity results in nearly 15% less recoil with the .41. I did feel like the .41 recoiled a bit less. But as Hair Trigger indicated, both have substantially more recoil than the .357.

But the .41 and .44 Magnums are both relative pussy cats compared with the .454

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

Though a died in the wool .44 mag guy, I have owned several .41 mag revolvers in the past. In my opinion, the recoil with either using full power loads is about the same.

Both are reloaders cartridges, and can be fine tuned to their intended use, be it big game hunting, or shooting at paper targets.

Any slight trajectory advantage the .41 mag may give you is really offset by the question of how far you intend to take a poke at a big game animal with your revolver? Most folks really shouldn't be trying past 50 yards...

I'd go with the .44 mag simply based on availability of ammo and components.

Larry

There will be slightly less recoil with the 41 Magnum when fired from comparable firearms and the 41 Magnum is less abusive to the N-frame, but those are the only advantages of the 41 Magnum. With 41 Magnum, you likely will need to reload your own ammo as there is little factory ammo available at most retailers and there is not as wide of a selection in bullet weights and bullet styles as you will find with 44 Magnum. Another advantage of revolvers chambered in 44 Magnum is the availability of 44 Special ammo.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

The Grips will make a big difference in felt recoil .
These appear to be Kim Ahrends Retro Combats ...
my model 58 (my avatar) is wearing a set of Kim's Retro Combats and they make shooting a whole different experience ... A much better and what feels like a somewhat lighter recoil .
I have been a 41 magnum fan for years and much prefer it ...
But adding some good grips helps a lot !
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

Given factory loads at std 210 & 240 gr. weights, I think you see a difference of 10-15% recoil difference. Pressure the same, base of the bullet sees 9% less area (F= pressure x area), not sure about case volume, (would assume .41 is less?). .019" is not alot of difference!

My first .41 was a 4 5/8 Blackhawk. Neither a 44 or 41 were comfortable in those guns. next was a 657...that was manageable.

Those are indeed Kim Ahrends Retro Combats. I wish he was still making stocks.

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

I was PCing some bullets last night. New to me molds that I hadn't used before. First was a NOE 215gr. full wadcutter for my .41s. Second was a vintage Lyman 429421. The Lyman has nice equal length driving bands and casts at ~.4305 with COWW alloy. Mr. Keith would be unhappy with the round bottom lube groove, however.

I couldn't help but notice, the difference in caliber is almost visually undetectable. I don't think there is appreciable difference for the shooter or the target either.

I miss Kim Ahrends stocks as well.

Good points about Grips. Told you, all is
subjective. Case in point.

When I got my 45Colt S&W Mountain Gun it
had the wood combat grips, they fit my hand
good.

I wanted to shoot it right away, with the 6
reloads I bought along, man, I could barely
stand the punishment from those wood
grips.

The next week with S&W rubber grips off
another “N”, it was comfortable and I easily
went through the 20rds I had.

This is why I like the rubber grips and have
them on all my S&Ws. Shooting is comfortable,
a pleasant experience, I have better control
over the gun, and I can stay on target better.

Just my experience and preference.

That is one reason, why shooting my 44 or 41
magnum the recoil has very little difference.

I just went out and shot a 4 in 44 mag and a 6 in 657. The 44 was loaded seven grains of 231 and a 240 grain bullet the 657 was the same seven grains behind a 210 grain bullet. In terms of felt recoil the 657 was notably lighter. In overall weight the 6-in 657 is 5 oz heavier. This really doesn't prove anything but I felt like posting

Same platform (gun/grips/barrel length), same bullet weight, same velocity, same recoil. Add same Meplat and results on game is the same.

JMHO FWIW,

Paul

The short answer to your Q is No, they are about the same.

I would really like to test this ammo in two identical guns and compare as best I could the difference if any.

Attached Images

hornmady 44_41 ammo_r.jpg (59.3 KB, 26 views)

If one looks at the factory loads for both the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum that were available in the mid 1960s when the .41 came out, the 210 grain JSP was doing an honest 1250 fps from a 4" barrel. The .44s of that time were 240 grains and running over 1300 fps.

Had both a 4" 29-2 and 4" 57 in the late 1970s and recoil with the 29-2 was not something one would want to more than a cylinder full through. Especially with the Winchester 240 grain Soft HP.

If one compares apples/apples, same guns, same grips, bullets of the same sectional density and velocity, then a .41 220 at 1000 fps will kick just slightly less than a 240 .44 at 1000 fps as the bullet weighs slightly less and the gun slightly more. But the .44 will make just a slightly bigger hole and slightly more foot pounds of energy...

A difference that makes no difference...both are great rounds...

Bob

Well I had two boxes of the .41 ammo and just received two of the .44's now to schedule a range trip with my Ruger Hunters.

Attached Images

ruger_hunters_x2_nsn_r.jpg (75.7 KB, 8 views)

I doubt if a deer could tell the difference at 40 yards but of course handgun hunting is prohibited in Canada.

Count your blessings,

Al

44 Mag is Dirty Harry. Nostalgia and of course good performance. Everybody has one and those that don't want one.

41 Mag is (to some) a red headed stepchild. THAT in itself makes me want to have one. No, I NEED one. Of course I have one. Also good performance, and also an iconic item.

I don't currently own a 41, but I don't remember the recoil with the ones I did own being much different than most 44's. But I've noticed the same 44 load to feel different when fired from different models, depending upon weight, grip angle, grip style, etc. I once owned a 629 that seemed to have particularly sharp checking on the stocks. It was more uncomfortable to shoot with hot load than any other 44 mag I remember ever shooting.

I shoot both regularly. The difference in recoil is noticeable side by side with similar bullet weights at similar velocities from similar weight guns. That said, with full power loads, both have noticeable but manageable recoil. If recoil attenuation is a goal, both cartridges benefit from heavier physical weight guns and longer barrels.

If you reload, of course you can work up varied power loads for both but you have significantly increased projectile weight and types available for 44. If you don't reload 44spl is available over the counter whereas 41 special is not.

The felt recoil between the two is not enough to talk about. Proper grips for Your style of holding the gun will make a significant difference. Of course if You use wimp loads You're not going to get a fair comparison. A deer will not notice the difference if You make an accurate shot. If You can't make an accurate shot, don't shoot.

Move up to 260-300 gr 44's and you will feel a noticeable difference in recoil.
I never noticed any difference on deer....41 220 HC/ 44 265 HC, both do the job.
Both will blow through a deer from almost any angle and give fast kills.
Sold the 44's, kept the 41's.

I handgun hunt and reload, everything from .357 to 10mm, .41, 44 Spl. and Mag., as well as .45 Colt. Yes, that's too many, I know.
Of them all, my favorite is the S&W M57 6" .41. I load Hornady 210 gr XTP's at approximately max loads. Very effective on deer.
And, just IMHO, it does feel to me like a bit less recoil than the M629 6" .44 Mag.
As mentioned - felt recoil is kinda subjective. I like OE S&W Target grips and use them for hunting. I have no love for rubber grips. The M57 wears some Eagle 'Coke' repros, which I really like.

Also have an early 60's S&W M27-3 5". Even with max .357 loads, it feels like a popgun compared to the .41 and .44.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

.
Not possible. Same bullet weight, same velocity, same platform = same recoil.
.
FWIW,

Paul

I have owned all three in 6 1/2" barrel length, Model 657, Model 29 and Model 27. Assuming factory ammunition for the .41 and .44 magnums there isn't enough difference to really be noticeable. If you are hand-loading then you do whatever you want for bullet weight and load.

If this satisfies your curiosity then pick the one easiest to feed and most convenient, the .44 Magnum.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961