Wondering as I have 657's now in 41 mag, how would a 44 special loaded up or a mag loaded to say 1200 fps do on deer.

Better, same, worse? I would GUESS recoil and killing power similar, but want to hear from those in the know about preferences.

Use in short 4-5.5" gun for plinking, paper, and deer/hogs at shorter range with iron sights.

Have heard some large bore handgun users shoot heavier bullets slower with greater effect on game but less recoil than smaller caliber high vel. loads with lighter slugs.

Thanks for all those who have taken deer with them or hogs for that matter.

I make no bones about the fact I believe "fast & light" is best left to the backpacking community.

Either caliber is going to perform equally well with similar weight and design bullets.

Thanks, LOVE the 41, but getting an itch to try the 44special and trying to justify! May end up with both (add one and keep my 657's), but I try keeping things simplified, less brass/components, etc.

FWIW, I own nine .41s and only two .44s... I don't even shoot my 629 Classic any more. I cast my own, and have yet to find anything the .44 can do that the .41 cannot do with less powder, less recoil and a flatter trajectory.

The .44 Special thrives on a 200-grain bullet, but you can't launch it anywhere near as fast as you can a 210 out of the .41 Mag.

In short, it is nice to have them all, but the .41 is every bit the hunting revolver that the .44 is, with the possible exception of the big bears. And I think maybe my .411-275 NEI bullet hasn't yet had its say on that subject...

Regards,
Doubless

Thats strong support of 41 in field......I have yet to kill anything with mine, shot a deer with 44 mag-240 @ 1050fps, and a 7TCU contender, so......not that I have any lack of faith in the 41 mind you.

If using a 44 special, I would be throwing 240-250's at 1100-1200 and imagine 1200 or so is what I would get in the 210gr 41 in a shorter barreled gun, which is a 4-5.5" that I am thinking of here. Re: 275gr in 41, if you have the twist to shoot it, and the chamber length to house it, then it should PENETRATE like crazy.

In my case, looking at guns i.e. Freedom Arms 97, Taurus tracker, etc. so bullet weight may be limited due to shorter cylinder. On deer in 41, I feel a 210 should do all I need, but not sure about the XTP HP on hogs.

In 44 Special, it would be mostly cast flat nose solids.

Trajectory should not be a big issue at ranges I am intended to use this set up. Do have scoped 657's that should reach to 100 yds or so should I need......assuming I get more practice......been a few years since doing a lot of handgun shooting with centerfires.....

I may be wrong but it sounds like you are pushing the 44 special why not use a 44mag I load mine around 1000fps with 245gr bullets (I use a Lyman Gas Check mold and am not exactly sure about the weight it might be a few grains heavier) and it is very comfortable to shoot. I have always wanted a 41 but have yet to spring for one.

Not intending to criticize good luck with your choice.

I think the performance mentioned re: 1100-1200 with 240-250gr is entirely within safe pressure in a good gun, not a colt per se or a smith, mind you Elmer Keith, John Lachuk fired THOUSANDS of these 17.5 or 18.0 of 2400 w/o ill effect given bullets were of proper diameter, etc.

I don't think the load is unsafe given how many people load the round to it's potential in suitable guns, granted a 'triple lock' and such old revolvers have no business shooting those loads. See John Taffin's book of the 44.

Owned and shot 44 magnums, MORE than I need in many regards, Including gun weight. Wanting to save that as well. Hence consideration of 5 shot guns.

Penetration isn't much of a problem with the .41... This is a 255 CPBC WFNGC on top of 22 grains of H110 at 1350 from a 5.5" gun... Went through 6 gallon jugs of water, one 3/4" piece of marine plywood and then burried itself in a 4x4 post...how much more do you need....



As I recall this is the load I shot in that M97 I borrowed. To shoot it in a Taurus all you have to do is crimp in front of the front driving band and probably reduce the powder charge two grains..


Bob

well said!!

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
I make no bones about the fact I believe "fast & light" is best left to the backpacking community.

Either caliber is going to perform equally well with similar weight and design bullets.

They say a pic is worth a thousand words, heck that nose is wider than the 44 cal 240 I used on my deer years ago, and it did not travel far, at all.

I think someone had said that the 97 can handle the 255's, but perhaps not 275's in 41. I have no doubt as to it's adequacy, heck I'd hammer an elk or bear with it, but honestly would not want to worry about STOPPING a bear charge with anything.

That said, I'll have to decide if I need to scratch the itch for a 44 special, just because or just stick to the 41, which I have dies, brass, and bullets. One guy did tell me he could not hunt in his state with a 44 special, so he was looking at the 97 in a 41mag or 45 LC likely in a 3.5" for a back up gun. Myself...I like the 4.25 and 5.5 in the guns....handy.
Thanks RJM for the pic and info. OH, one more thing, will that bullet fit a Taurus do you know, if you have any loaded, let me know the OAL if you ever get a chance. Appreciate it if you can. I sold a 425 SS awhile back, but reconsidering another...but if I get a FA 97, I might get to liking it so much I will use it the most......what I am expecting. Have considered shortening a std 657 or Classic Hunter, one 6" (would look good at 5") and the other a 6.5" ( would cut it 4-5" if I do shorten it). Definitely taking the scope off one or both, just seems more natural, less weight to hold when not using off rest.

As much as I like the 44 Mag [I have no use for the 41, sorry my good friend RJM, nothing against its ballistics, but guns for it are the same size as the widely available 44 Mag, so what is the purpose???],
If I was looking for a small handy single action I would take a look at the small frame Freedom Arms in 45 Colt. I handled one a while back and it was pretty neat.

Still my favorite all round field carry gun is a S&W 4" 44 Mag.

Serious hunting, the FA 475 Linebaugh.

I don't like any hunting revolver under the .41. The .41 will do all that the .44 does as long as you use the proper boolit. That WFN would be my choice if I had a .41. Stay clear of some of the jacketed stuff unless you know it's performance on game.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
As much as I like the 44 Mag [I have no use for the 41, sorry my good friend RJM, nothing against its ballistics, but guns for it are the same size as the widely available 44 Mag, so what is the purpose???],
If I was looking for a small handy single action I would take a look at the small frame Freedom Arms in 45 Colt. I handled one a while back and it was pretty neat.

Still my favorite all round field carry gun is a S&W 4" 44 Mag.

Serious hunting, the FA 475 Linebaugh.

..what was it you told me about the .475...sometimes "too much of a good thing"...

NE and I go back almost 30 years so I don't have to listen to him any more...".44 Magnum...blaaa, blaaa, blaaa..."
..heard it for so long I hear it in my sleep...


I have a friend who shoots the 255 CP bullet in his stainless Tracker. I now have the TiTracker so I will need to see how deep the bullet needs to be seated but I think my friend said it was just over the forward band...

I would have to agree with NE however about getting a .45 Colt vs. a .44 Special if you are going to use loads under 1200 fps...would rather have the bullet diameter working for me at those velocities...although as Elmer Keith observerd..anything over .40 will work for serious social purposes...

Bob

Actually I would rather have the FA Mod97 in 44 Mag, I just do not want to start loading for another calibre.

I do think 475L in full power loads is too much gun for protection, but with 400 gr bullets around 1000fps it can be shot with one hand.

I still prefer the 4" S&W for anytype of protetion as the DA revolvers are much faster to reload.

When I was black bear hunting with the FA 475 I also carried my 1911 45 ACP.... Just in case i heard any banjo picking.

6.5...the meplat on the CP 255 is .33"...it is the largest one I have ever seen. The 265 LBT is .32" and the 230 Leadhead Keith is .31"...

NE...never heard no Bear pickin' a banjo before...U been hangin' out in the wrong woods...

Bob

Bob
You are liable to find banjo pickers in any woods, or illicit crop growers, or various others that need to be "sorted" out.

I "seen" Deliverence five times. Southern Comfort "at least" twice.

FWIW, the NEI 411-275 fits in my FA 654 silhouette. I don't know how much difference there is between its cylinder length and the one in the Model 97. But I will say this: I have seen 1800 fps out of my 654 with that bullet, and I doubt there is much that would walk away after being hit with one...

And I have loaded it in my 6" Model 57 Smith, crimped in the crimp groove. I used 18.0 grains of H110 for an honest 1250 fps. The cases didn't fall out of the cylinder, but they weren't sticky either. And you guys need to know that the bullets weighed 294 cast out of my alloy.

Lastly, the load data for the 41 290-grain SSK in Accurate Arms' second loading manual is data that I requested. They didn't have the bullets or the brass to test, so I sent them the bullets and brass. Somewhere around here I have a copy of the lab test results, whch echo what is listed in the manual.

6.5, one more note... 21 grains of IMR 4227 gave me a clocked 1400+ (don't remember exactly) out of my 6" Model 57, behind the RCBS 41-210 cast...

Doubtless...thanks for getting that information on the SSK bullet to the right people. I have used some of the Penn Bullets SSKs that weigh 305 grains and with 19 grains of H110 they shoot very very well.

NE..U been hanging around OL and CSs too long... Quit worring and just listen to the music...

Bob

RJM, I rather did it out of selfishness... It was during the time FA was developing the Model 654, and due to a mutual friend, the then marketing director at FA, Randy Smith, asked me to send him some of the NEI cast out of linotype.

It is a long story, but I ended up in Idaho that November on an elk hunt and got to go to Freedom WY and shake Randy's hand. He showed me the 654 prototype and then told me that I had not seen it.

As an "Oh, by the way", the 100 cast bullets I sent to Freedom Arms the summer of 1997 were the first ones sent downrange out of the prototype. The cylinder length for the 654 is cut to accommodate a custom spitzer-shaped bullet I have the mould for.

Well Doubtless...all of us in the Cult of the .41 thank you... Anyones effort to further the .41 over the .44 is appreciated...

Bob

Can't do that! The .41 is a great gun as are all the larger ones. The .44 is great, the .45, the .475 and any other large bores are great. It all depends on what YOU like. They all work just fine. I will never say one is better then the other.

You know, there are many great guns and ctgs for 40+ caliber, but my hand and ears started telling me long ago to not take a beating, so my future interest remains with 41 mag and interesting in trying 44 special and 10mm but question the need for more gun for what I do in the south-deer, hogs, coyotes are tops on the food chain around here.

The FA's in say 454 4 3/4 looks sweet if you need some power and the other FA's or customs in 'the big ctg's' would be tempting if I ever NEED more gun but I would need to really get some range time to handle them for the potential they offer. Hate loud ported guns, and guns that weigh as much as a light rifle.

But you are right, there are many good ctgs to use with appropriate bullets, with someone that knows how to steer them.

I would think that the .40 would also be a good caliber. I just can't comment on it because I never had one.
I don't like the .357 for big game although it has taken many animals. It has reached the diameter point where expansion is needed and that limits penetration. The .357 max evens this out by giving expansion with more penetration.
Years ago there was a survey done with handgun hunters and it showed those using the .357 lost 50% of animals hit where those with .44's recovered 100%. Bullets have improved and it might not be relevant any more. Perfect hits under 50 yd's would let the .357 do it's job but what worries me is that animals can and do move before a bullet gets to them so I err on the larger size guns. Just my preference.

I like the xtra steel around the chambers in the .41 vs. the .44

Now if Smith could wrap a L frame 5 shot 4-5" barrel, perhaps unfluted cylinder AROUND a 41 mag bore, THEN I could be really excited.

657 cut down may have to do, but they are heavier.

Same thing, if Ruger could do a GP-100 in 41 mag, 5 shot fine with me, then I would be happy as well.

Either would be a lot of gun in a compact package.

Yes, thicker walls nice, also read an article how a 41 can be loaded 'HOT' all else equal as smaller diameter brass 'cylinder' can take more PSI, I assume it's a law of physics involved.

By the way, click the link below, and scroll down to this nice 'packin gun', may be a little heavy, but looks sweet.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233789