Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Handgun Hunting

A survey was done long ago. It was fact. It was because of bullet performance. Most made for people shooting. Super fast expansion and no penetration.

The .41 suffered at the start with poor hunting bullets. It was made for police and humans but they could not take the recoil so it was fading. Nothing wrong for hunting with a good boolit. For many years there were no bullets/boolits worth a darn.
It is a caliber with a following but darn near going away.

There's a certain point where you just get too much bullet weight for any caliber, it might still be shooting accurately but anything can be over done. I'm only talking up to 250 grs in the 41 maggie, beyond that the 44 rules, but then you can drag the 45 Colt into the fight & its a whole new ball game. Anyone thats REALLY used the 41 maggie will tell you how good it is & how close it is to the 44 (my favorite)

Dick

I could not ever see a need for a bullet over 250 grains in the 41 mag they way they penetrate.

I've used a GP100 in .357 mag, and a .44 mag SuperBlackhawk.

I am a huge fan of the .44 mag over the .357 from a handgun. Either will do the job at the distances you describe though.

If I were going out to purchase a new hunting handgun for deer, it would not be a .357. I'd pick .41 mag, .44 mag, .44 special, or .45 colt. However, if I had a very accurate .357 already I would not hesitate to use it.

My first choice bullet is the 158 grain XTP HP. Most any 158 grain JHP works ok broadside into the rib cage. If you have to shoot from a forward quartering angle, then maybe a little more weight would be good. I am very intrigued by the Speer 170 grain JFP but I haven't had a chance to shoot any yet. A Barnes X (140?) would be another interesting option.

Tom

A .357 is simply a .44 Magnum set the "stun"!

In all seriousness, I will take a .44 pretty much every time. One of the significant advantages of a larger bore is that you don't have to push them nearly as hard.

Personally I prefer the big, slow, easy push of the .44 over the sharp snap of the .357.

There really is no need to push a heavy for caliber, big bullet past 1200ish, when you are hunting under typical and reasonable ranges/ conditions.

With higher velocities, most of the time you are only gaining a slightly flatter trajectory. Those said trajectories are most often not really an issue under average conditions.

I would use your current situation as a perfect excuse to acquire a Redhawk, Blackhawk (Bisley) or Model 29 Smith and Wesson. A great .44 from S&W is the 5" Classic. In my usage of various lengths of .44 barrels I found the 5" to be a perfect "compromise" between packability and shootability. For purely shooting and less emphasis on packing, the 6.5" Model 29 is Pure Joy.

For the regulars here, yeah I know I sound like a broken record...



Cheers all!

So is the 44 Mag that much better than a 41 Mag? I have both, and much prefer the 41 mag.

after watching several friends use a 41 mag I see the results are a bit more similar to the 44 mag than the 357 mag , but with only a few deer and hogs being shot, with the 41 mag compared to the 44 and 357 , Id be reluctant to suggest its any less effective than the 44 if properly loaded and used.
a quick look at load data suggests the 44 has a small but noticeable advantage


44
http://handloads.com/loaddata/default.asp?Caliber=44%20Magnum&Weight=All&type=Handgun


41
http://handloads.com/loaddata/defau...ype=Handgun&Order=Powder&Source=

357
http://handloads.com/loaddata/defau...ype=Handgun&Order=Powder&Source=

I don't necessarily think the .44 is that much better. I think it is an advantage to shoot Elmers favorite for logistical reasons.

Though if a person forward projects and buys components before they become scarce and the ammo companies are only producing the most popular calibers,a guy can be well set up.

As far as in the field use, unless you are using the heaviest bullet weights, I doubt a person or animal would know the difference.

I've been carrying/shooting a .44 since my teens, so I am inclined to stick with what has proven to work for me.

My personal "magic formula" for deer handguns is .40 cal minimum, 200 grain bullet minimum, 1200 fps minimum. I've often thought about trying to locate a Buckeye Special in .38-40 / 10mm.

For deer I don't think the .44 is particularly better than the .41. It's not worse, either. In a practical sense, availability of bullets and cases is more important than performance differences.

The place the .44 separates itself from the .41 is bigger game like maybe black bear but particularly elk. Look for a .41 caliber jacketed bullet over 220 grains. OTOH, most every bullet maker makes 300 grain .44s and I think there are a couple heavier. While saying that, though, if you switch to cast bullets, everything that can be said in favor of the .44 over the .41 can also be said about Ruger-level .45 Colt over .44 magnum.

Tom

sooner or later bob will convert you to the darkside with the .41magnum

you made me go back and look at some of my reloading notes:
as i have a buckeye special ruger in 38.40/10mm.
using a 200gr xtp and same round in a glock 20 and the blackhawk:
glock ruger
1212 1318fps
1211 1302
1218 1303
1213 1290
1224 1301
says a lot for accuracy no 9 powder in my opinion.
as i mentioned .45colt, this was fired out of a 8inch tube smith model 25, 270keith style saa cast to 282grains, with 2400
1034fps
1045
1007
1005
1028
1022 These were not "ruger only" type loads. so the .45colt gave up 20% or so velocity, but 200grain to 280 grain bullet. Which to me it works out in the wash.

45 Colt

Not sure we're saying exactly the same thing or picturing exactly the same situation, so I don't necessarily want to argue, but I can't agree either.

For deer, 200 is enough to be reliable. Once you reach 100% reliable, more weight is not better, it's just more weight and recoil.

On the flip side, my perception, shooting iron sights out to the edge of my comfort zone, is I don't have to hold over at 1200 fps. I do at 1000.

To me it matters. To you, I don't know. Go with what makes you happy, I'm not telling you you're wrong for you, only why your answer isn't right for me.

Once we're talking about something bigger than deer, I'll probably grab the loads you've chosen and cut the range to 40-50 yards instead of 90-110. When the question changes, generally so should the answer.

In the .45 Colt, my 7-1/2" barreled blackhawk shoots very well with 300 grain speer or hornady bullets and 22.5 to 23 grains of Win 295, roughly 30,000 cup and a hair under 1200 fps. There's not a lot I wouldn't hunt with that in the lower 48 states. Eventually I'll probably get an LBT mold in the 320-350 grain range and slow them down a little, but .. no rush while I have a big pile of jacketed bullets.

Tom

I appreciate the experiences shared so far. Some have promoted the use of a 10mm Glock and that idea intrigued me. I've looked into the caliber more and would be comfortable using it.

Today I went to local shops to find a M20 and one of the new S&W M69s. Did not find the M69 but was able to check out the M20. I reconfirmed my previous opinion that the Glock just does not fit my hand. For the time being I'm holding off making a purchase until I check out the M69 unless I come across a deal on a M629 I just can't pass up. Given that I have brass and dies for the .44 mag. that seems like the most sensible choice.

I think you are making a good choice. IMO there is no compelling reason to pick a .41 over a .44 unless you just happen to like having a less common caliber. Anything the .41 can do the .44 can do as well or better, the ballyhoo about slightly less recoil notwithstanding. They are peas in a pod, but ammo, component, and gun availability favors the .44. You are setup to load .44 so I would go that route.

Talk recoil for a second. The .41 has a very slightly smaller frame and a fluted cylinder, less weight. I find the .41 is less pleasant to shoot with a sharp recoil and more noise.
I have shot too many .357's that had sharper recoil then the .44 with double the muzzle blast.
Go to your gun shop and find .41 rounds, you need to load your own. They are not stocked because hardly anyone uses them.
My friend has his .41 here until he comes to shoot, I don't like it but can shoot my SBH .44 all day and I use a 330 gr boolit.
Shoot a SBH hunter with a 7-1/2" barrel and you will wonder where the recoil went.
But recoil does not bother me at all and my .500 JRH and .475 BFR's are no worse then the .44. But to have a .357 bash my knuckle worse then a .500 is kind of stupid.
I can shoot through pain but sure do not like it.
You are on thin ice if you tell me the .357 or .41 kicks less.

HA!

The Force is strong in this one

Being an Idahoan and a long time reader of Keith, coupled with hunting lots of the same grounds, converting me away from the .44 that I have shot since a kid will be pretty tough.

In the not so distant pass I had 13 different hunting handguns 10 were in .41 RemMag and 3 were in various .41 caliber wildcats. I now have only one a .41 wildcat left. At the height of my .41 usage I loaded one load for all of those guns; a 250g WFN LBT over 17.5g of 2400. That load measured 1134-1265fps depending on the action. I had both revolvers and TC Contenders. That load killed things very dead very quickly. I'm now loading the Barnes 180g XBP in my Contender .41 wildcat. Always said if Barnes made a 190g X I'd switch and never look back. Their 180 is close enough.
The two problems you will have with a .41 RemMag is; first, ALWAYS having people telling you that you must have a .44 or larger to kill deer; second, is finding a .41.