RevolverGuy: "Some Thoughts on the .41 Remington Magnum"

My readers that like revolvers and/or firearms history will probably like Kevin McPherson's article on the .41 Remington Magnum and the revolvers that shot them. I will say up front that have zero practical experience with the cartridge, probably for the same reasons that the cartridge never became popular: I don't see any real advantages that it brings to the table. At .410 caliber versus .429 for the .44 Magnum, it is not so much as an intermediate between the .357 Magnum and the .44 Magnum as much as it is an almost .44 Magnum. In that regard, it has all the .44 Magnum's downsides (including recoil and the size and weight of the guns shooting it) with no real advantage over the .44 Magnum. Keeping in mind that the .44 Magnum had been released years before the .41 Magnum, I'm sure that most shooters felt the same as I did which is why it had so little traction out the door. On top of that, as the article emphasizes, the ammunition selection and availability is pretty slim, so you pretty much have to be a handloader to assure yourself of ammunition for it.

    McPherson relates that Elmer Keith was the driving force behind the cartridge with an assist from Bill Jordan. From McPherson's description, it appears that the purpose of the cartridge was to create a police revolver better than .357 Magnum but not as large and punishing to shoot as the .44 Magnum. He relates that Keith and Jordan met with gun industry leaders at an NRA meeting in Washington D.C. in 1963:

    They spoke with leadership from S&W, Colt, Ruger, and Remington about the concept. By that time, Keith thought that the cartridge should be offered in two levels: A cast or swaged (plain lead or copper coated) SWC moving at 1,100 FPS for urban law enforcement use, and; A jacketed soft point (JSP) loaded to 1,400-1,500 FPS for rural and anti-vehicle applications.

    It’s an indication of the status that Keith held in the industry that he could secure verbal commitments from these companies to make the project a reality. S&W agreed to chamber the new round in its large (N) frame and look at the possibility of a five-shot, medium (K) frame variant. Ruger was on board with their Blackhawk single action, Colt thought the proposed round would be a natural fit for its .41-framed Python. Remington promised to develop ammo if the gun companies made the revolvers. Keith predicted that S&W would release the heavy frame gun with a full contour bull barrel in 4- and 5-inch lengths for police use, and a lightweight tapered barrel version (like the 1950 Target Model) for sporting use. He thought the .41’s sales would eclipse those of the .357 and .44 Magnums.

But Keith was wrong. 

    First, the size and pressure of the round probably convinced Colt to give the cartridge a pass. S&W decided to skip on the medium (K) frame variant and tapered barreled version. So, in the end, the weapons were only offered in the same size and weight as the .44 Magnum. 

    Second, as McPherson relates, although the revolvers and cartridges were adopted by a few departments (and even saw unofficial use in Vietnam) and the terminal performance was very good:

    The .41 Magnum’s performance came at a price. The .41 Police load was a big step up for officers in the mid-sixties who were used to the recoil produced by standard velocity, 158 grain lead .38 Specials. The soft, swaged lead SWC used by Remington leaded barrels to varying degrees, and some agencies switched to the JSP load because of leading issues. The JSP load produced a whole new level of recoil though, even for seasoned pistol shooters. Shooting that round through the Model 58 with Magna grips made achieving proficiency quite difficult for most cops.

    Another strike against the Model 58 was its weight. It was a big, heavy bruiser with its bull barrel. The smaller diameter charge holes and bore made it even heavier than a .44 or a .45 of the same size.  Large officers and dedicated shooters likely didn’t mind the weight of the hefty N frame, but it was a challenge for smaller statured officers to carry it and learn to shoot it well.

So, as the article points out, after a brief flash in the pan, the cartridge and weapons to fire them quickly fell into obscurity. It only hangs on because the cartridge retains some popularity with handgun hunters and long range metallic silhouette shooters. 

    McPherson believes if the cartridge had been more on par with the 10mm in terms of power and recoil, it would have been more successful. But, he admits, that is assuming that Colt would have produced a Python version of it or that S&W had developed its L-frame. I'm not so sure. I would note that even when the 10mm came out and was adopted by law enforcement, it was quickly replaced by the more manageable .40 S&W. The resurgent interest in the 10mm is largely being driven by outdoorsman and competitive shooters--basically the same types of people that championed the .41 Magnum in the past--not law enforcement or people looking for a self-defense weapon. 

    There seems to be a sweet spot for recoil in a self-defense or duty pistol that is represented by the 9mm and .38 Special. Enough people can tolerate a bit more such that you can get a fair number of people that will opt for .45 ACP, .40S&W, or, in an all steel revolver, even .357 Magnum, but that seems to be the limit; and after that, the interest and popularity rapidly falls off. The 10mm seems to fall into the same recoil class as the .357 Magnum, so it represents the upper limit of what is tolerable in a self-defense or duty pistol and will, for that reason, never develop the popularity of the 9mm or even the .45 ACP.