.41 Magnum thread

got any guzzaline?

Sure, if you want a 4 shot j-frame. .41 never took off because the factory ammunition as so often happens was not what it was intended to be,especially for a police round. It was all balls to the wall and stuck between .357 and .44mag.

>>33176536
They already did its called the glock 20

File: IMG_0156.jpg (21KB, 475x223px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 475x223px

>>33178587
Basically this. .357 was already fully adopted as a "man stopper" and .44 magnum as a better hunting round. Not a whole lot of call for a heavier service revolver or a weaker hunting revolver.

FWIW Ruger makes a snubby .41 now if you insist on special snowflake carrying one.

>>33176536
Real reason was .41 mag was newer than 44 mag and anyone who already had a .44 magnum did not need a .41 or they simply fell back to .357 magnum. But complaining about the weight of the handgun even if it shoots a slightly less energy but faster velocity round should never be an argument.

The .41's failing was coming out too late. The .44 was already there and had a following. There is also no "special" chambering outside of wildcats.

If they could fit a 7th shot in an N frame or a 6th shot in an L frame it would make more sense.

>>33176536
Talk about recoil.

>>33176536
.41 magnum is basically just 10mm

>>33179884
No, it's more powerful than 10mm. Some of the hot 10mm loads come close to the anemic 41 mag loads, but they are not the same.

>>33180631

>anemic mag loads

can you pls explan what this means. google doesn't have anything

>>33179050
I never understood the 44 or 357 mag approach
A lot of the guys involved in making the 44mag went back to 44special.

>>33179884
The hottest 10mm out there doesn't even match the hottest .357 Magnum out there, much less .41 Magnum.

>>33181654
Neither does the bullet weight of a .357 mag match the bullet weight of a 10mm....