JWinAZ
Active Member
You wouldn't be the only one here to make that promise, or break it.
40 S&W
- Thread starter Petrol & Powder
- Start date
You wouldn't be the only one here to make that promise, or break it.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Glaciers, I am completely in agreement. While I too am a revolver guy, I also embrace pistols. Deep down in my DNA, the DA revolver probably wins out in my own internal preference.
The Beretta 92 is a remarkable pistol. Perhaps the last of the “Old School” duty pistols. It is a bit large for its class, but for a mass-produced handgun, it is extremely well made. The machining and fitting of forged parts of the Beretta are second to none in a mass-produced pistol of that class. The SIG 365 is solidly in the modern era of pocket pistols and if that pistol meshes well with you, I suspect it would serve you well.
As I noted in the first post of this thread, the gap between the 9mm and the 45 ACP may not be as large as often perceived. While there is room in there for something around 10mm (40 caliber diameter), the 10mm Auto probably fills that gap better than the 40 S&W. That is of course an opinion but there you have it.
The world of rimmed, centerfire, straight-walled revolver cartridges from 32 caliber up to 45 caliber is well populated and proven. There’s a lot of usefulness encompassed in that range of cartridges.
I’m sort of with you on the 41 mag and it’s a cartridge I don’t play with. The 44 Special and 44 mag can fill that role nicely and I don’t wish to complicate things with the 41. That being said, I do think the 41 mag would have been far more successful if two factors had been different in the early days of that cartridge. 1. The label “Magnum” ruined any chance of it being accepted in law enforcement. There were agencies and civilian oversight panels that saw the word “Magnum” as evil. Had the cartridge been named the 41 Special, or the 41 Target, or just the 41 revolver, etc. it might have had a fighting chance with the idiot liberals handing out the money. 2. The original loads should have been confined to the 200 grain SWC / 900 fps loadings until the cartridge was well established. After that beachhead was established, the magnum loading could have been rolled out.
I may someday play with the 41 Magnum but for now, I think I’ll keep my logistics simpler.
The Beretta 92 is a remarkable pistol. Perhaps the last of the “Old School” duty pistols. It is a bit large for its class, but for a mass-produced handgun, it is extremely well made. The machining and fitting of forged parts of the Beretta are second to none in a mass-produced pistol of that class. The SIG 365 is solidly in the modern era of pocket pistols and if that pistol meshes well with you, I suspect it would serve you well.
As I noted in the first post of this thread, the gap between the 9mm and the 45 ACP may not be as large as often perceived. While there is room in there for something around 10mm (40 caliber diameter), the 10mm Auto probably fills that gap better than the 40 S&W. That is of course an opinion but there you have it.
The world of rimmed, centerfire, straight-walled revolver cartridges from 32 caliber up to 45 caliber is well populated and proven. There’s a lot of usefulness encompassed in that range of cartridges.
I’m sort of with you on the 41 mag and it’s a cartridge I don’t play with. The 44 Special and 44 mag can fill that role nicely and I don’t wish to complicate things with the 41. That being said, I do think the 41 mag would have been far more successful if two factors had been different in the early days of that cartridge. 1. The label “Magnum” ruined any chance of it being accepted in law enforcement. There were agencies and civilian oversight panels that saw the word “Magnum” as evil. Had the cartridge been named the 41 Special, or the 41 Target, or just the 41 revolver, etc. it might have had a fighting chance with the idiot liberals handing out the money. 2. The original loads should have been confined to the 200 grain SWC / 900 fps loadings until the cartridge was well established. After that beachhead was established, the magnum loading could have been rolled out.
I may someday play with the 41 Magnum but for now, I think I’ll keep my logistics simpler.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Jon's text about the 41 Magnum and the police milieu are right on the money. Lotus eaters and compassion fascists don't get shot at for a living, and that lot has way more input about the tools and procedures the gendarmerie uses to stay safe and well than those of us at the tip of the spear. These same elitist shotcallers are none too fond of hunting, either--and it never occurs to them that our quarry or other beasts of the field might take exception to our presence in their neighborhood and resist with some vigor and effectiveness.
It's reminiscent of my own faith--Roman Catholicism--and its tenets concerning contraception. The Vatican decrees THOU SHALT NOT USE THEM--though their ENTIRE leadership and priesthood claim 'Chastity, poverty, & obedience'. If you aren't in the game, you don't get to make the rules, fools.
It's reminiscent of my own faith--Roman Catholicism--and its tenets concerning contraception. The Vatican decrees THOU SHALT NOT USE THEM--though their ENTIRE leadership and priesthood claim 'Chastity, poverty, & obedience'. If you aren't in the game, you don't get to make the rules, fools.
Excellent points on the 41.
OBJECTIVELY:
Ballistically, there'd have been nothing at all wrong with the 44 Special with the right bullet and a tiny bit more steam. I've never seen or heard of a 41 Mag in a frame-size half way between anything - they're the same size as the 44s and 45s, so no advantage there. The 44 Special already existed and retooling for another new cartridge/chambers would have been omitted. WHY a guy who harped so long and so hard on the 44 Special decided that a marginally smaller diameter bore was required for "social-work" is beyond me.
Politically, the 44 Special did not have the magnum stigma attached. For anyone who bothered to do a little research, it was an innocuous, early twentieth-century, NON-military TARGET ROUND, which "sounds" no more menacing that the already well-known 38 Special. Maybe that was it - "Special" had the stigma of being ineffectual.
I think the 41 Mag is a fine round, but contrived to do something which was already more than adequately covered by other existing rounds. At least with the "forty," you could get it into smaller guns meant for the "nine." That may or may not be an advantage, depending one one's needs, but it's there. I have never seen any advantage of the 41 Mag over the 44 Mag (or 45 Colt), but if it's what you've got or what you like, I don't see a huge DISadvantage in the 41 over the 44 or 45 for most uses - in the same size gun, remember.
But, what one likes is what one likes. As long as they don't constantly make excuses for it and go on and on about how it's "as good" as something else - even when no one else has offered the challenge, it's all good.
OBJECTIVELY:
Ballistically, there'd have been nothing at all wrong with the 44 Special with the right bullet and a tiny bit more steam. I've never seen or heard of a 41 Mag in a frame-size half way between anything - they're the same size as the 44s and 45s, so no advantage there. The 44 Special already existed and retooling for another new cartridge/chambers would have been omitted. WHY a guy who harped so long and so hard on the 44 Special decided that a marginally smaller diameter bore was required for "social-work" is beyond me.
Politically, the 44 Special did not have the magnum stigma attached. For anyone who bothered to do a little research, it was an innocuous, early twentieth-century, NON-military TARGET ROUND, which "sounds" no more menacing that the already well-known 38 Special. Maybe that was it - "Special" had the stigma of being ineffectual.
I think the 41 Mag is a fine round, but contrived to do something which was already more than adequately covered by other existing rounds. At least with the "forty," you could get it into smaller guns meant for the "nine." That may or may not be an advantage, depending one one's needs, but it's there. I have never seen any advantage of the 41 Mag over the 44 Mag (or 45 Colt), but if it's what you've got or what you like, I don't see a huge DISadvantage in the 41 over the 44 or 45 for most uses - in the same size gun, remember.
But, what one likes is what one likes. As long as they don't constantly make excuses for it and go on and on about how it's "as good" as something else - even when no one else has offered the challenge, it's all good.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
As for the 44 Special - I have lobbied for years for the creation of a 44 Special +P SAAMI standard.
You wrote: "Ballistically, there'd have been nothing at all wrong with the 44 Special with the right bullet and a tiny bit more steam...."
SPOT ON!
The spread in acceptable maximum pressure between the 44 Special and the 44 Magnum is HUGE. (15.5K verses 36K psi).
Everyone that is familiar with the 44 Special “Skeeter Load” knows that with just a little more pressure (that most modern 44 Special revolvers can easily and safely handle) the 44 Special is transformed into an entirely different (read that as “better”) cartridge without need to go all the way to magnum pressures. A 240-250 grain bullet and 900-1000fps is a very useful load, but it requires a little more than 15,500 psi to get there.
And your observations about the frame size of the revolvers chambered for the 41 Magnum are spot on. If I’m going to carry an N-frame, I might as well carry one chambered in 44 caliber. All that extra steel in the fat 44 sized cylinder might as well be put to some use other than just making the gun heavier.
You wrote: "Ballistically, there'd have been nothing at all wrong with the 44 Special with the right bullet and a tiny bit more steam...."
SPOT ON!
The spread in acceptable maximum pressure between the 44 Special and the 44 Magnum is HUGE. (15.5K verses 36K psi).
Everyone that is familiar with the 44 Special “Skeeter Load” knows that with just a little more pressure (that most modern 44 Special revolvers can easily and safely handle) the 44 Special is transformed into an entirely different (read that as “better”) cartridge without need to go all the way to magnum pressures. A 240-250 grain bullet and 900-1000fps is a very useful load, but it requires a little more than 15,500 psi to get there.
And your observations about the frame size of the revolvers chambered for the 41 Magnum are spot on. If I’m going to carry an N-frame, I might as well carry one chambered in 44 caliber. All that extra steel in the fat 44 sized cylinder might as well be put to some use other than just making the gun heavier.
Last edited:
The 41 mag is an inherently accurate cartridge. Having fired far more groups at 150 and 200 meters with 357, 41 and 44 mag than I could remember, the most consistently "good" groups were with the 41.
41 MAG 9 inch revolver 5 shot group from the bench, scoped 200 meters. The half size ram is 9 inches from belly to back.
41 mag 9 inch revolver 150 meters 1/2 size turkey, from the bench scoped. The high shot in this 5 shot group was a called flyer.
41 MAG 9 inch revolver 5 shot group from the bench, scoped 200 meters. The half size ram is 9 inches from belly to back.
41 mag 9 inch revolver 150 meters 1/2 size turkey, from the bench scoped. The high shot in this 5 shot group was a called flyer.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Res ipsa loquitor, Rick.
Rick is right on the money. I've had several 41 Magnums in hand--my own and others. All have been very closely-dimensioned with .410" throats and grooves. I think that accounts for a lot of their intrinsic accuracy.
The 41 Magnum should have been rolled out initially in 1964 as the '41 Special' with that 210 grain lead SWC bullet at 950-1000 FPS as its factory load and 1.29" brass. It wouldn't have taken Cranks Like Us very long to exploit its platform's capabilities with jacketed and cast offerings. That lead-bullet police load was an excellent goblin stopper, and I still regret NOT buying a Model 58 when i had a chance in 1976 at under $200--NIB. Just too much month left at the end of the money when I was in college.
Rick is right on the money. I've had several 41 Magnums in hand--my own and others. All have been very closely-dimensioned with .410" throats and grooves. I think that accounts for a lot of their intrinsic accuracy.
The 41 Magnum should have been rolled out initially in 1964 as the '41 Special' with that 210 grain lead SWC bullet at 950-1000 FPS as its factory load and 1.29" brass. It wouldn't have taken Cranks Like Us very long to exploit its platform's capabilities with jacketed and cast offerings. That lead-bullet police load was an excellent goblin stopper, and I still regret NOT buying a Model 58 when i had a chance in 1976 at under $200--NIB. Just too much month left at the end of the money when I was in college.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The K-frame cylinder was far too skinny at 1.446” to fit the 41-magnum cartridge and the only option for a 41 magnum would be to create a new frame size OR use the existing N-frame. I doubt S&W was interested in creating an entirely new frame size in 1964 for the .41 Magnum and the L-frame hadn’t been invented when the models 57 & 58 were introduced. That leaves the relatively large 1.710” N-frame cylinder as the only option to house the new 41 Magnum. Had S&W created a new frame size, like say an L-frame on steroids, but not quite an N-frame, they probably could have used it for both the .41 Magnum and .357 magnum, but that’s not how history played out. When the L-frame was introduced, it became a great platform for the 357 Magnum and wasn’t any larger than it needed to be for that application. I’m glad that’s how it ultimately played out.
The L-frame was introduced in 1980, 16 years after the model 57. Even with the slightly larger cylinder of the L-frame over the K-frame, it’s still unlikely the L-frame cylinder could accommodate 6 rounds of 41 Magnum and a 5 shot would be out of the question. In the end, I think the 41 Magnum was destined to be mated to the N-frame. That resulted in essentially the same complaint about the model 27 & 28; a platform that is plenty strong but far larger than needed as a duty gun.
Sometimes when you look back at history, you realize it worked out just fine.
The L-frame was introduced in 1980, 16 years after the model 57. Even with the slightly larger cylinder of the L-frame over the K-frame, it’s still unlikely the L-frame cylinder could accommodate 6 rounds of 41 Magnum and a 5 shot would be out of the question. In the end, I think the 41 Magnum was destined to be mated to the N-frame. That resulted in essentially the same complaint about the model 27 & 28; a platform that is plenty strong but far larger than needed as a duty gun.
Sometimes when you look back at history, you realize it worked out just fine.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Not an option in the LE market.
Thumbcocker
Active Member
8.0 of power pistol under a Keith boolit gets Skeeter velocity at standard pressure and is quite accurate.
40 S&W, 41 Mag, 44 Special... The "forty" was only recently (and quickly) cast into this pigeon hole, but it's in good,... no, EXCELLENT company.
All "underdogs," all a little niche, a bit off-beat, all have a fanatical following somewhat significantly than the "crowd," and seem to have a bit of a Goldilocks thing going. This is a new thing for the forty, but still - it is. That endears each of them to me to one degree or another. They stand on their own feet and don't need my sympathy though, it's just that the less popular has always attracted my attention and I've found a lot of good in a lot of the less popular because I stopped to look.
The 44 Special is my own personal favorite, but I'm sure a lot of people are sick of hearing how great the 44 Special is. Many who favor the underdogs expend considerable energy trying to convince others how their pick is "as good" or even "better than" the more popular stuff. My ol' man indoctrinated me on the 44s. First the Mag and then the Special. Never heard of Elmer Keith until later in life, so that wasn't the catalyst for me. Its what we had. What we used. Compatibility with light, compact Charter Arms revolvers was a big influence as well.
When I was five or six, I had done something rather stupid with a rather stupid friend - don't even remember what it was. My maternal grandmother, a consummate smart-ass/hard-ass (all the rowdy men in the family were scared to death of the much wiser women), barked at me "if your friend Keith jumped off a bridge, would that be a good reason for YOU to jump off a bridge?!" Not very original, and I doubt she was referencing Robert Frost's poem, but it stuck with me. Following the crowd, one misses a lot of good stuff.
As this thread progressed and veered, it started to become obvious to me that the "forty" has earned an enviable position to be in the company of a couple other very fine cartridges. To me, that's validation I had not considered presenting at the start of the thread, because I didn't see it yet. NOW, I'm no longer simply indifferent to it, I'm feeling kind of fond of it.
OH! I remember the stupid thing now! We were jumping out of a hay loft!
All "underdogs," all a little niche, a bit off-beat, all have a fanatical following somewhat significantly than the "crowd," and seem to have a bit of a Goldilocks thing going. This is a new thing for the forty, but still - it is. That endears each of them to me to one degree or another. They stand on their own feet and don't need my sympathy though, it's just that the less popular has always attracted my attention and I've found a lot of good in a lot of the less popular because I stopped to look.
The 44 Special is my own personal favorite, but I'm sure a lot of people are sick of hearing how great the 44 Special is. Many who favor the underdogs expend considerable energy trying to convince others how their pick is "as good" or even "better than" the more popular stuff. My ol' man indoctrinated me on the 44s. First the Mag and then the Special. Never heard of Elmer Keith until later in life, so that wasn't the catalyst for me. Its what we had. What we used. Compatibility with light, compact Charter Arms revolvers was a big influence as well.
When I was five or six, I had done something rather stupid with a rather stupid friend - don't even remember what it was. My maternal grandmother, a consummate smart-ass/hard-ass (all the rowdy men in the family were scared to death of the much wiser women), barked at me "if your friend Keith jumped off a bridge, would that be a good reason for YOU to jump off a bridge?!" Not very original, and I doubt she was referencing Robert Frost's poem, but it stuck with me. Following the crowd, one misses a lot of good stuff.
As this thread progressed and veered, it started to become obvious to me that the "forty" has earned an enviable position to be in the company of a couple other very fine cartridges. To me, that's validation I had not considered presenting at the start of the thread, because I didn't see it yet. NOW, I'm no longer simply indifferent to it, I'm feeling kind of fond of it.
OH! I remember the stupid thing now! We were jumping out of a hay loft!
Same with about 10gr dipper of unique in magnum cases. Even works well in the lever.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
10 grains of Unique in a 44 magnum casing with a 250 grain bullet is going to put you way over the 15,500 psi max for a 44 Special load.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Agreed--with the #429421 in the 5.5" Redhawk 10.0 x Unique runs about 1075-1100 FPS. 8.2 x Unique and 9.0 x Herco in 44 Mag cases gets you to Skeeter's load velocities and (likely) pressures. Of course, the arm is chambered in 44 Magnum to begin with, so no worries.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Hardly, use Unique for anything other than 9 mm & 38 Special and I purchase it in 8# jugs. Never in rifle or carbine, since I don't do low-node shooting. I prefer 2400 for 357, 44 Spl (performance loads) 44 Magnum, and 45 LC Ruger only loads. The slower powders yield less perceived recoil, IMO. More versatile with down-loading, too.
If push came to shove, I could load all pistols/revolvers, with either Unique or 2400 powder.
If push came to shove, I could load all pistols/revolvers, with either Unique or 2400 powder.
Unique is what I cut my teeth on for 30+ years... worked fine for cast in lots of pistol loads. The 9-10gr of Unique in my 629 classic is plenty accurate for minute of soda can, and is what I considered a mid range load.