41 magnum recoil vs. 44 magnum
- Thread starter Wfevans4
- Start date
Doug M.
Member
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.
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
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.
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.
DR505
US Veteran
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.
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.
dickydalton
Member
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.
Last edited:
The Norseman
Member
Yendor357
Member
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.
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.
Pisgah
Member
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.
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,943
- Reaction score
- 6,826
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
Still have my 44's. just can fined brass and bullets easier.
And did/still mold lead bullet's for the 44's
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.
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.
Hair Trigger
US Veteran
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
Rock185
US Veteran
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
But the .41 and .44 Magnums are both relative pussy cats compared with the .454
Fishinfool
Member
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
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.
gwpercle
Member
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.
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
