41 special?????

[KevMT]

I've seen a couple of articles floating around the web about the 41 special. The 41 special cases are formed by trimming back 41 mag cases to 44 special length. It seems that the logic goes that if you are to used reduced loads in the 41mag, the reduced case capacity of the "special" makes for better load performance? Sounds good to me but when I looked at the case length of the special it only seems to be about .14" shorter than the mag. Can this much difference in case length really make that much difference? And if it does it would seem that with many boolits simply deep seating them (with appropriatly reduced chares) would give the same result without the nessesity of trimming the cases? Gotta admit that my 41 is my only handgun. Some of you folks with experiance in 38 spec/357's and 44spec/44mag may have some better insight into this.

[Cherokee]

In your case, I would simply down load 41 Mag, which is what I do. My experience with 38/357 has been mixed. Some real good 38 special loads turn bad when loaded in 357 Mag case and shot in the same gun. You can also load 38 special close to mag levels in a mag gun. Had the same thing happen in 44 special and mag. The appeal of the 41 special is for smaller framed guns . JMHO, YMMV

[felix]

Kevin, I'd pass on that 41 special idea. Why? Because the 41 mag case has a large pistol primer. The mag case length has an over-ignition problem, and a shorter case would make that even worse. ... felix

[9.3X62AL]

I don't see the point of the 41 Special if you already have a 41 Magnum. 210 grain SWC's at 900-950 FPS shoot so well from my Blackhawk and a friend's M-57 x 4", that's about the only load we use. Powder doesn't seem to matter a lot--WW-231, Bullseye, Unique, Herco all work with standard LP primers.

[StarMetal]

Back some time ago either in Guns&Ammo or Shooting Times, someone did an article on that short 41, but it was for a special made up single action revolver. I forget the circumstances as to why it had to be a shortened 41 mag but there was a reason.

Joe

[KevMT]

I don't see the point of the 41 Special if you already have a 41 Magnum. 210 grain SWC's at 900-950 FPS shoot so well from my Blackhawk and a friend's M-57 x 4", that's about the only load we use. Powder doesn't seem to matter a lot--WW-231, Bullseye, Unique, Herco all work with standard LP primers.

Well in my own reduced loads with 700x and imr 4227 I've seen some pretty severe vertical stringing. I was wondering if it wasn't due to erratic ignition with low charges.

[felix]

The primer selected is very important in this literal case size. You want the softest one you can find, and that probably cannot be deciphered by brand because of the various lot numbers. The federal 150 large pistol standard primer used to be the hottest burning giving the least amount of force, and that is the one to use. Most primers have too much force, blowing the boolit out of the case way too quickly for the powder to do its designed specs. Suggestion is to try the federal 150's. The additional upside of these primers is that they typically are easiest to strike because their cups are "thin". But, that is a downside for the heavy duty loads, and for them I use the remington standard pistol primers. ... felix

[KevMT]

The primer selected is very important in this literal case size. You want the softest one you can find, and that probably cannot be deciphered by brand because of the various lot numbers. The federal 150 large pistol standard primer used to be the hottest burning giving the least amount of force, and that is the one to use. Most primers have too much force, blowing the boolit out of the case way too quickly for the powder to do its designed specs. Suggestion is to try the federal 150's. The additional upside of these primers is that they typically are easiest to strike because their cups are "thin". But, that is a downside for the heavy duty loads, and for them I use the remington standard pistol primers. ... felix

You know felix, primers are definatly an area where I have not experamented much. Typically all my loads have been done with CCI large pistol primers. But I'll give the federal 150's a try.

Kev

[doghawg]

All I use is Win LP primers and have never had a problem with them. A 210 gr. cast bullet over 7 1/2 gr. of Unique and Win LP primer makes a good "special" load in any of four .41 Mags. in my experience. I personally don't see any big advantage in the .41 Special except for a custom gun built on a small frame for concealed carry possibly.

[floodgate]

Guys:

The original concept of the ".41 Special" was very different, and long precedes the advent of the .41 Magnum. The idea was a modernization of the old .41 Colt, using the latter's (and the .38-40's) .401" groove diameter with an inside lubed bullet in a case of increased diameter (allee samee the .44 Russian vs. the heel-crimped .44 American), and of ".38 Spl. / .44 Spl" length. This would upgrade the 6-shot .41 Colt frame revolvers like the Official Police, and provide a 5-shot medium-caliber piece on the S & W M&P's K frame, starting with the Ideal #40143 bullet. "Pop" Eimer, made some of these up using cut-down .401 WSL cases, on Colt SAA's, back in the '30's. A number of us were working on a similar idea in the '70's, my gunsmith buddy and I using cut-back and reamed-out .303 Savage cases with a .357 Ruger "Flattop" test bed, and a 5-shot conversion of an couple of old .38 Spl. "Gold Seal" S&W M&P's, when the .41 magnum hit the market, with its .410" groove specs and the N-frame S&W in six-shot format, and changed the whole picture. The smaller S&W's ended up, with some HEAVY mods, as a pair of 5-shot "K-44's" in .44 Special, but that is a story I've already told, so I won't bore you with it. (Makes a bitchin' carry piece, though.)

Floodgate

[9.3X62AL]

Doug et al--

IIRC, the 400 Eimer landed right in the middle between the 40 S&W and 10mm in power. Same boolit diameter, too. Oh, yeah--the 10 and the 40 are just brand, spanking new all right.

It's no state secret that a 180 grain bullet going 950-1100 FPS is a real fine social engineering item. I would venture to say that the 41 Magnum lead bullet load was likely the best purpose-built defensive revolver caliber ever crafted--the Model 58 is an absolute classic.

The 45 Colt is no slouch, either--once its dimensions are all squared away. The 44 Special would be better with a bit more oomph and something other than the RN 246 grain bullet. But--a 5-shot 3" K-frame round butt in 400 Eimer would beat out even the 41 for a carry piece.

[Hackleback]

I think I would try a can of Trail boss first. This may be the most simple way to make a 41 special.

[KevMT]

I think I would try a can of Trail boss first. This may be the most simple way to make a 41 special.

Agreed. Unfortunatly I have seen no data for the 41 mag. and trail boss. I even e-mailed Hodgedon to ask that they PLEASE not leave the 41 mag out when developing low power cast (Cowboy) load data for trail boss. I recieved a reply from a tech with Hodgedon who sent me a quite a bit of data for the 41 mag with a large variety of boolits and powders which is not shown on their web site?????
However there was no Trail Boss data.

The data does show some "special" level loads with cast that I am going to try. Particularly there are some heavy boolit (240g+) lite charge loads with Titegroup that am interested in trying because I have a 6 cavity 240g mold.

If anyone wants a copy of the data send me a PM.

My interest in the "41 special" case length stems from some folks claims that the shorter case would work better in reduced loads.

http://www.reloadingroom.com/page11.html

However, Felix points out that this may not fly in the "makes sense" department.

Kev

[475/480]

I have found a case full of WC680/AA1680 in any of the MAG cases makes for a good special load,the reason I use WC680 is I usually have a couple 8 lb jugs at the house,I much prefer a case full of powder ,less chance of a double charge.

Sean

[HORNET]

IIRC, there was an article in Gun Digest #56 (2002) about the .41 Special. The writer recommended using powders in charges appropriate for the 44 Special with 246 gr. cast. This remains a very good way to get more mileage out of Mag cases when the mouths start to crack. He claimed that he had trouble finding a load that didn"t shoot well, kind of like using .38 cases for light loads vs. using full length .357"s.
If you want some real fun, I recall Russ Gaertner writing in Handloader about an eon ago about forming short .41 cases from .45 Auto brass (too much work for my liking).

[KevMT]

IIRC, there was an article in Gun Digest #56 (2002) about the .41 Special. The writer recommended using powders in charges appropriate for the 44 Special with 246 gr. cast. This remains a very good way to get more mileage out of Mag cases when the mouths start to crack. He claimed that he had trouble finding a load that didn"t shoot well, kind of like using .38 cases for light loads vs. using full length .357"s.


Hornet, the link above appears to be a reprint of the article you are refering to.

Kev

[Hackleback]

There is an article in the winter issue of Black Powder Cartridge news on Trail boss. the author says he is using 6gr in his .41 Black hawk. Don't take my word for it; read the article and make your on decision.

[26Charlie]

If I recall correctly, the G&A .41 Special article was about converting the original small-frame Blackhawk .357 Mag to a larger caliber. It was also converted to the .44 special by some, John Taffin comes to mind. The cylinder is not long enough to handle the full-length .41 Mag, I think. The Blackhawk went to all .44 Mag frame-size sometime in the 1970's or 80's, including the .357 Mags ( I have one of each size). The reintroduction this past year of the small-frame flattop .357 and the Vaqueros in .357 and .45 Colt will make a lot of shooters happy, including those who want a .41 Special conversion.
The part about more efficient low level loads is probably mere self justification.

[KevMT]

There is an article in the winter issue of Black Powder Cartridge news on Trail boss. the author says he is using 6gr in his .41 Black hawk. Don't take my word for it; read the article and make your on decision.

Hackleback. Is that issue 51?

Kev

[Lloyd Smale]

the cyl in an old model is long enough for .41 mag ammo but it will be selective about the bullets you can use if you want to crimp in the crimp grove a 210 grain bullet is about the max in size you can use. I have an old model converted and its worked real well. FOr heavier bullets i just crimp above the top driving band with a lee crimp die. Felix i have never experienced the problems you have with primmers in the .41s. I do use mostly fed primmers and have a single six that was converted to a 5 shot 41 special by galagher and it will shoot under an inch at 25 yards with loads it likes while pushing a 210 to 1000fps. It does however suffer from the same problem as the old model as it needs to use short bullets.
If I recall correctly, the G&A .41 Special article was about converting the original small-frame Blackhawk .357 Mag to a larger caliber. It was also converted to the .44 special by some, John Taffin comes to mind. The cylinder is not long enough to handle the full-length .41 Mag, I think. The Blackhawk went to all .44 Mag frame-size sometime in the 1970's or 80's, including the .357 Mags ( I have one of each size). The reintroduction this past year of the small-frame flattop .357 and the Vaqueros in .357 and .45 Colt will make a lot of shooters happy, including those who want a .41 Special conversion.
The part about more efficient low level loads is probably mere self justification.

[Hackleback]

Kev MT, It is in issue 52, green cover with a photo of a 12 YO boy shooting sillouette with a 45-90!!

[Bear4570]

I find the concept of the .41 special intertesting. Love the .41 mag, and thought it would be fun to have a smaller framed .41.

Bought one of the Ruger GP100 double action only for a platform, will have the cylinder and barrel bored out, mayhaps the barrel cut down to 23/4 inches.

Why? Cause I want to..... can have the whole thing done for under $500 and end up with a solid, decent caliber custom revolver that is easy to carry.

[Blackwater]

26 Charlie has it right. The only reason for the .41 Special was that that was about the maximum diameter that would fit the small Single Six cylinder's diameter, and the length reduction to the "Special" length was the longest that would fit that cylinder's length. I believe it was also converted to a 5-shooter, maybe partly to keep the cylinder latch cutout between chambers where it wouldn't thin, and thus weaken, the thin cylinder walls resulting when you bored that small cylinder out to .41 case diameter.

The reason for the .41 Special was, it simply was all that could be fitted into the Single Six cylinder, and the author commented that even then, the cylinder walls were thin enough that he didn't push the loads any.

IMO, the .41 Special offers no advantages whatsoever, since you can load the .41 mag. down with total satisfaction. It WAS a very neat little "trail pistols," though, but too high a price for what you get in the end. Anything that can't be done with a .38 Spec. wadcutter, or at most a .38 or .357 SWC, will probably require a .41 or .44 mag., if not a .454.

Just my take on it, anyway. Neat article, neat pistol, but mostly it just serves to show what CAN be done, not necessarily what SHOULD be done by us more "average" shooters. Too much moola involved that would be better spent on more moulds, lead, primers and powder.

[StarMetal]

Well I found somemore on the 41 Special. This is what I remember reading in the gun rag:

The Colt version of the .41 Special may have disappeared, however some of us--with the aid of gunsmiths such as Hamilton Bowen--have tried to rewrite history by building our own .41 Specials. Bowen converts the Colt Single Action, the Ruger Old Model .357 Blackhawk and the S&W L-framed Model 586 to .41 Special. Brass is made by simply trimming .41 Magnum brass to .44 Special length. Some would view this as a step backward. I see it as using an excellent cartridge, and at the same time, trying to provide a legitimate ancestry to the .41 Magnum.

Joe

[Lloyd Smale]

got to argue a few points here. My single six 41 special will shoot 230s to 1000fps and thats a significant step up from a .38 special and in my opionion id rather have a 41 230 cast bullet for deer at 1000fps then any .357 bullet at any speed in a handgun and this gun will do that easily. The gun is a 5 shooter (well actually a 4 as its an old model) The gun is very handy it will ride comfortably in your back pocket with the 4 inch barrel. The cost was about 1000 bucks for my conversion which is a steal cosidering it takes more work to build then a 500 linebaugh. I got to admit I had this thing built mostly as a novelty gun just thought the idea was neet. But IVe found its a real handy piece its just slightly bigger then a bearcat and packs alot of punch. Gallagher has discussed with me the possiblity of a 44 special on a single six he said he could build it so the 41 is not the most that will fit in a single six. Granted loads would have to be light but he said it would take anything a charter bulldog would.
26 Charlie has it right. The only reason for the .41 Special was that that was about the maximum diameter that would fit the small Single Six cylinder's diameter, and the length reduction to the "Special" length was the longest that would fit that cylinder's length. I believe it was also converted to a 5-shooter, maybe partly to keep the cylinder latch cutout between chambers where it wouldn't thin, and thus weaken, the thin cylinder walls resulting when you bored that small cylinder out to .41 case diameter.

The reason for the .41 Special was, it simply was all that could be fitted into the Single Six cylinder, and the author commented that even then, the cylinder walls were thin enough that he didn't push the loads any.

IMO, the .41 Special offers no advantages whatsoever, since you can load the .41 mag. down with total satisfaction. It WAS a very neat little "trail pistols," though, but too high a price for what you get in the end. Anything that can't be done with a .38 Spec. wadcutter, or at most a .38 or .357 SWC, will probably require a .41 or .44 mag., if not a .454.

Just my take on it, anyway. Neat article, neat pistol, but mostly it just serves to show what CAN be done, not necessarily what SHOULD be done by us more "average" shooters. Too much moola involved that would be better spent on more moulds, lead, primers and powder.

[44man]

Felix, I am happy to see you post about primers. I even use the Fed 150's in the .44 mag and the .45 Colt with 296 and H110 because they cut the group size way down. I would sure not use hot primers in the .41.
As for a .41 special---WHY, unless it was chambered in a small gun with a short cylinder.

[KevMT]

WHY, unless it was chambered in a small gun with a short cylinder.

Then why do folks shoot 38's in a 357 and 44 specials in 44mag and 45 in 454's??? Unless the smaller cases provide some sort of benift with lighter charges.

Kev

[ddixie884]

David Clements is building me a .41 special on a 3 inch S&W 686. I am looking forward to having a medium frame, medium bore, medium weight carry gun.

[Blackwater]

LLoyd, is the OM your Ruger is built on an OM Blackhawk or Single Six? I accept your correction in good spirit. Makes sense, too. If it were me, I think I'd stick with the .41, though. I know the old Charter Bulldogs have taken a lot of loads that were well beyond the recommended maximums. The reason Keith went to the .44 Spec. for his heavy loads, though, was because the smaller .44 left thicker cylinder walls compared to the .45 LC. I blew up a SuperB once, so maybe I'm like the cat that once sat on a hot stove lid and now won't sit on a cold one either. A gun like that would make a REALLY neat "river gun" down here in Ga. Nice just totin' around gun, too, for whatever shows and needs to be shot. I keep looking at the little Bearcat, thinking it'd make a REALLY neat little .32 S&W Long. Now THAT would make a neat river gun, too, and it would fit my young grandson's hands very well to boot.

Isn't shootin' fun! More ways to skin a cat these days than there are stars in the sky, I think. Do you know of anyone doing a .32 on the Bearcat frame???

[Hackleback]

I was discussing this subject with a local 41 fan that has messed around with 41 sp loads. He made the observation that the 41 sp if anything is good for load ID. If you are like me, you have multiple loads with the same boolit(s). I have had a suprise once or twice when I dropped the hammer expecting a light load and it was a hunting load.

[Ricochet]

I long ago gave up (for the most part) shooting .44 Specials in my .44 Mag Super Blackhawk in favor of loading Special-level loads in the Magnum cases. The Special cases are shorter, the chambers get sooted up in front of the case mouths, and shooting Magnums afterward before cleaning can lead to sticky extraction.

[Lloyd Smale]

I have an old model single six converted to .41 special 5 shot and a old model .357 converted to .41 mag 6 shot. I beleive John Linebaugh will build you a .32 mag bearcat but it wont be cheap.

[USBP SW]

I don't like using "special" anything in "magnum" anything, I don't like the ring left in the chamber until I scrub it out. Besides, I have had no trouble getting top notch accuracy out of 41 mag loads from the slowest to the fastest and everything in between. I'll admit that, once I tried something that shot well for me, I didn't feel any need to do any more experimentation. I did have much more success with the 41 mag than I did with either the 44 mag or the 357 mag. Regarding the issue of extending the life of the brass, that would have been more of a consideration 30 years ago when 41 mag brass was only available in rare runs from Remington. I reloaded that brass more than a dozen times and didn't discard the brass until the mouth split, if the mouth didn't split too far down to benefit from from a 41 special length trim, it probably would have lasted for one more loading before splitting again. In my opinion, that would entail more work that it would be worth.

Good luck,
Steve

[Lloyd Smale]

pic of mine http://mywebpages.comcast.net/johnk454/pics/Lloyds41spA.jpg

[9.3X62AL]

Lloyd--

That's a sweet-looking little trail companion, for sure. If you're willing to part with the dollars, the 41 Special in a platform like that makes perfect sense--as does the 230 grainer at 1000 FPS for deer.

[ddixie884]

I found this old thread in my old posts, and thought I would bring it to the top

[Lloyd Smale]

since this ive had a bearcat in 32 mag built by Alan harton too.

[ddixie884]

Lloyd, would you share pictures? I'll bet that is some nice little gun. My first handgun was a Bearcat. Bought it with lawnmowing money, $39.99 At Sears. My Mom had to sign for it, as I think I was 14.

[Lloyd Smale]

only pic of the bearcat i have is the top strap fitted with the smith adj. sight. I gave the gun to my buddys daughter a week after i got it. the other is the 41 special and its now owned by boge quinn.

[ddixie884]

Thanks for the pictures, Lloyd. You sure have good taste in single actions.

[Cayoot]

I really hate to do this, but we have recently experienced a couple major crisis in our family. I have had to sell almost all of my guns off. That being the way it is, I am selling my unfired .41 spl brass (head stamped ".41 Special" by Starline.

I have 1,500 pcs. I'm selling them for $325 shipping included.

If anyone is interested, please contact me at:
bcote14221@charter.net

Thanks

[Shooter6br]

I have a Mod 657 6in. I load it to about 1000 fps with a 210 LeeTL. IF i did not handload and IF there was commerical 41 Special ammo and IF the weapon was on a smaller frame i think the 41 Special would have it's place. To me it sounds like fun to play with but really dont see the use for it.

[ddixie884]

Thats a lot of gun to drag around for 210grs at 1,000 fps. JMHO