Why can't I stop thinking about an L-Frame 41 Special conversion?

[westczek]

I think I first saw an L-Frame 41 Special conversion about a year ago here on the forum. And haven't been able to get it out of my head.

The idea of a three inch 686 with six shots of the shorter 41 caliber cartridge just seams right.

I reload. Brass is available and I could always cut 41 mag cases down. Bullet choice is limited compared to others calibers, but there are enough choices for me.

I like L-Frames and I am fairly committed to that size of gun. I'm not interested in the 41 magnum in an N-Frame. The appeal of the 41 Special is that it is fairly big-bore and still fits in the L-Frame.

I think I would pay for this conversion.

Westczek

 

[Shooting4life]

I would try and track down a 646 if you want a 6 shooter big bore L frame and spend the other $1000 on another gun.

 

[tekarra]

Westczek,
A few years back I read about a chap who did that conversion. The report was very favourable and I have, a couple of times, started down that road. Unfortunately, each time I had to relocate for my job and never made any progress. Keep us posted on your progress and good luck.

 

[Mack]

For the same reason I can't stop thinking about an L-Frame 10 mm. It makes sense.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
There is a conversion to 10mm for the Ruger gp100
So a 6 shot 686 should be possible..
Also it would shoot 40 S&W for targets..

 

[Cpo1944]

I like the .41 mag and for a very brief time I owned a Taurus .
It was about the same size as a 686, so I wonder why if a lowly Taurus can handle .41 mag pressures why can`t the S&W 686?
I emailed Mr Bowen the gunsmith in Tenn- who does a lot of these conversions ,and he advised against it.He stated the L frame wsn`t strong enough for the mag pressure, but I still wonder why not???

 

[westczek]

Shooting4Life, I like the S&W 646 concept, but the 41 Special... I don't need a magnum, but I want a revolver cartridge. A rimmed cartridge. It is a wildcat. There was never a SAAMI 41 Special...

David Clements in Virginia says on his website he does the 10 mm conversion of the GP100 and I know he has done the 41 Special to both GP100s and S&W 686s.

Westczek

 

[papajohn428]

I know it's irritating when someone turns your fantasy into a less interesting reality, but for under a thousand dollars you can buy a 5-shot 696 in 44 Special and get better ballistics. I'm just saying.

 

[westczek]

Papajohn428,

Don't think I haven't thought about the 696, that was my obsession before I found out about the 41 Special. Almost as good as 44 Special, but six shots instead of five. If you find them they are under $1000, but... still hard to come by.

Let's say the conversion is priced similar to the 10 mm, about $650, and I just need a suitable revolver for the conversion.

A 696 would probably be enough to cure me... but who says I want to be cured.

Westczek

 

[haggis]

There may be room to put .41 caliber cartridges in an L-Frame, but there's not going to be much metal between the chambers, so it had better be very low pressure. When they decided to put .40 S&W in the L-Frame 646, pressure concerns forced them to go to Titanium cylinders.

Buck

 

[k22fan]

I like the idea of six shot L frame size 10 mms and .41 specials. A friend had a blued GP 100 converted to .41 special. I forget which gunsmith he used but he was required to sign a letter saying the revolver was only safe with low pressure. I forget the specified pressure limit but remember him shooting bullets of around 200 gr. at 800-1,000 fps. Between a year and a year and a half ago someone posted pictures of a David Clements converted L frame .41 special with a Mountain Gun barrel on the Rugerforum. I sure wanted one but some how I got by without one. Clements has since quit converting L frames to 10 mm and .41 special. The gunsmith who converted my friends GP 100 to .41 special told him the metal around an L frame's ejector rod would get too thin to be safe. That may be the concern that caused Clements to quit but for all I know it may have been a lack of orders for L frame conversions, GP 100 cylinder steel being easier to machine or some other reason. A used 686 plus $650 for conversion come out to about the cost of a PC revolver, so it's not outrageous, but being a S&W guy I wouldn't spend that much on a Ruger.

[...] When they decided to put .40 S&W in the L-Frame 646, pressure concerns forced them to go to Titanium cylinders.

Buck

Are you sure about this? My gunsmith tells me that parts made out of the stainless and non-stainless steels used in revolvers are stronger than identically dimensioned parts made out of titanium. He says a titanium part with the same strength as steel will weigh less but it must be larger to have the same strength. The 646 was introduced at a time when titanium was relatively inexpensive, Taurus had a ton of titanium revolvers in the stores and S&W was touting the lighter weight of titanium cylinders in models such as the 329. The 646 was intended to be an expensive PC revolver and I think its titanium cylinder was just a marketing ploy. As I understand it, non-PC 646s were only made to use up parts after the PC couldn't sell their 646s. That's why non-PC 646s came in PC aluminum cases.

 

[haggis]

Are you sure about this? My gunsmith tells me that parts made out of the stainless and non-stainless steels used in revolvers are stronger than identically dimensioned parts made out of titanium. He says a titanium part with the same strength as steel will weigh less but it must be larger to have the same strength. The 646 was introduced at a time when titanium was relatively inexpensive, Taurus had a ton of titanium revolvers in the stores and S&W was touting the lighter weight of titanium cylinders in models such as the 329.

No offense, but your gunsmith doesn't know much about the metallurgy of Titanium versus steel. According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, "Titanium is as strong as steel, but 45% lighter". Other materials property textbooks show that the elastic part of the stress-strain curve is longer than steel, meaning that it will allow more elastic strain (deformation) than steel before having irreversible plastic deformation. That's why it's used in the 646. High stresses in thin steel cylinder walls may cause permanent damage to the structure, whereas in the Titanium part, the high stresses make the part give a bit more and let it recover its original shape and strength. Titanium is and always has been more expensive than steel. There's no way S&W uses it except where its properties are needed.

Buck

 

[k22fan]

No offense, but your gunsmith doesn't know much about the metallurgy of Titanium versus steel. According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, "Titanium is as strong as steel, but 45% lighter". Other materials property textbooks show that the elastic part of the stress-strain curve is longer than steel, meaning that it will allow more elastic strain (deformation) than steel before having irreversible plastic deformation. That's why it's used in the 646. High stresses in thin steel cylinder walls may cause permanent damage to the structure, whereas in the Titanium part, the high stresses make the part give a bit more and let it recover its original shape and strength. Titanium is and always has been more expensive than steel. There's no way S&W uses it except where its properties are needed.

Buck

Thanks for the reply haggis. I'm always happy to be corrected. I know titanium always has been more expensive than steel, but I read that a big jump in its price caused Taurus to drop their all titanium revolvers. I'll speculate that price jump also is the reason S&W makes their current Night Guard line with stainless cylinders rather than the titanium cylinders used in previous light weight snub's like the 296 and 396. Those two .44 specials as well as the 329 and the titanium cylindered .45 ACP N frames (625-10?) illustrate that S&W at least sometimes uses titanium cylinders for reasons other than needing more strength than steel can provide. My gunsmith questioned whether titanium was a good idea for a 329 cylinder because he thought it might stretch at a lower pressure than a steel cylinder and give stiff extraction, not that it would permanently deform. For all I know all grades of titanium may be stronger than all steels, but the problem with the CRC Handbook's statement that titanium is as strong as steel is that it doesn't say whether they're comparing titanium to heat treated tool steel or a soft steel. My gunsmith is more than a smidgen old fashioned, but he's spent most of his career machining precisely dimensioned metal parts for various industries so I don't discount his comments on metals lightly. Concsequently, while I appreciate the time you spent researching, I hope you don't mind if I invite an engineer or two to comment.

 

[haggis]

Consequently, while I appreciate the time you spent researching, I hope you don't mind if I invite an engineer or two to comment.

k22fan,

Always happy to have qualified people add to a discussion. For what it's worth (and it may not be much ) I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Vanderbilt University with about 40 years experience in industry and academia.

Buck

 

[ISOM]

L frame .41 Special conversion?

I have been shooting the .41 Magnum since it came out.
A lot of my shooting has been in the .41 Special category.
You might say I shot the Special before it was a Special.
I shoot 8.0 grains of UNIQUE--Old police load
5.0 grains of UNIQUE
Both loads are 210 or 220 grain bullets.

Get yourself a .41 Magnum, that you can afford and shoot light[er] loads in it. I have never trimmed a case for my guns.

 

[Nick B.]

Westczek, sounds like a fun conversion, have a look at John Taffin's books in particular 'Big Bore Sixguns' & 'Big Bore Handguns' .He has had a number of revolvers L frames and Single Actions successfully converted to 41sp.

Don't forget to report back when you have completed the project.
NB

 

[k22fan]

k22fan,

Always happy to have qualified people add to a discussion. For what it's worth (and it may not be much ) I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Vanderbilt University with about 40 years experience in industry and academia.

Buck

So, Professor, stronger it is. I hope you can forgive my taking a lot of the assertions on the internet with a grain of salt. A few of us post what we've read so many times we don't doubt it's true even though we're not experts on the topic.
Apparently 646s are the only S&W revolvers that needed titanium cylinders for strength. With only one other exception, for all of S&W's titanium cylinders, the same size cylinders are also made out of steel for the same cartridge with the same number of charge holes. The other exception is the 242, an L frame with a 7 shot titanium cylinder in .38 special.

[...] Get yourself a .41 Magnum, that you can afford and shoot light[er] loads in it. [...]

There's a 57 beside my computer. I usually down load magnums for casual target shooting which is fun, but doesn't make an N frame a good substitute for a smaller revolver. N frames are not as easy to shoot DA as K and L frames due to an N frame's longer trigger reach, and an N frame is not as convenient to carry, especially concealed. If it just looks like I'm rationalizing the desire for something unusual, you shouldn't be too surprised to see that on a collectors forum.

 

[papajohn428]

At one time I owned a 3-inch S&W 657 in 41 Magnum, and while it looked like a snubby, it didn't carry like one. It had, as one friend said, "The Illusion of Concealability".

Having said that, it's also prudent to point out that an L-frame isn't noticeably smaller. The difference is there, but pretty darn negligible.

It sure was comforting to tote around, though. I wore it off duty when I could hide it, but in warmer weather when I had to revert to a j-frame, I felt pretty close to nekkid.

 

[David Sinko]

Hamilton Bowen mentions in his book that there was a gunsmith in AL who did a few .41 Special conversions on the Ruger Single Six. I guess that would make it a Ruger Single Five, so to speak?

Dave Sinko

 

[haggis]

Apparently 646s are the only S&W revolvers that needed titanium cylinders for strength. With only one other exception, for all of S&W's titanium cylinders, the same size cylinders are also made out of steel for the same cartridge with the same number of charge holes. The other exception is the 242, an L frame with a 7 shot titanium cylinder in .38 special.

k22fan,

I think you're right that the other guns used Titanium only for its weight. That might also be true of the 242 as well. If you recall, S&W once offered the L-frame steel 686+ in 7-shot .357, and they apparently thought that it was sufficiently strong. Of course, a little extra strength surely wouldn't hurt in that design.

I generally tend to trust the S&W designers. I always thought it was amazing that the .500 S&W Magnum was completely designed with structural analysis software with no intermediate tests before the first commercial one was built. I don't think there were any significant changes from that first prototype.

Buck