10mm the equivalent of the 41 - sheer BUFFOONERY

[Zaydok Allen]

The comparison is perfectly valid because the .41 has no raison d'etre except the very same as 10mm. If you just want to race ballistic specs, then sure, the 41 is "more powerful," but so what?

You can compare any two cartridges you like. What folks take issue with is when 10mm auto is erroneously misconstrued to be the ballistic equivalent of the 41 magnum. It isn't. That's apparent to people who can...………. well the ability to read is really all that's needed to understand it.

There's no one puffing their chests or boasting about the power of the 41 magnum. It is what it is, and it can do what it can do. And the reality is it can do more than the 10mm auto. That FACT takes away nothing from the 10mm auto. People are tired of hearing the same inaccurate drivel repeated over and over. That's all.

I don't really see what the original 41 mag loading has to do with the discussion. While I believe you are correct about the original loads being much tamer and meant for police use, that doesn't change the fact that they have the potential and are regularly used for applications that require higher velocity than the original loading. I mean the 45 Colt was never intended to be a monster killer, and yet people figured out that Ruger only loads can be much more powerful than ever originally conceived due to propellant changes and metallurgy advancements. So what? If someone erroneously said 45 Super is just as good as 45 Ruger only loads, what bearing would original 45 Colt loadings have on the fact that they said something inaccurate? Times have changed, and so have the possible loadings.

For the record, I own two 10mm auto pistols and a carbine. It's my very favorite semiauto cartridge. I do not own any 41 magnum guns of any kind. However, my affection for 10mm auto doesn't mean I think it's something it isn't, and I refuse to listen to people foolishly trying to justify their own choices by trying to portray 10mm as something more than what it is.

 

[mope540]

True but my Glock 20 holds 15 rounds and my SW 41 cal holds 6.

......

Those of us who don't live anywhere near 'bear country' are ok with 10mm. My EDC is a 29 with a G20 mag ...and I love the G40 for woods carry....and both can shoot inexpensive .40 w. conversion barrels.
If i want to TRY to get anywhere close to the .41 Mag in performance i can load some hot stuff for the S&W 610. Still won't get close.

So back to the old stale question often asked on the net..."Why use 10mm when there is .41 Mag?"...reply..."Why use .41 Mag when there is .44 Mag?"

 

[mcb]

Those of us who don't live anywhere near 'bear country' are ok with 10mm. My EDC is a 29 with a G20 mag ...and I love the G40 for woods carry....and both can shoot inexpensive .40 w. conversion barrels.
If i want to TRY to get anywhere close to the .41 Mag in performance i can load some hot stuff for the S&W 610. Still won't get close.

So back to the old stale question often asked on the net..."Why use 10mm when there is .41 Mag?"...reply..."Why use .41 Mag when there is .44 Mag?"

Ream you 610 to 10mm Magnum and you can get really close while still having the ability to shot 10mm Auto and 40S&W all from the same revolver with MOONCLIPS!



If I am going to have an N-frame in 41 Mag it better be a seven shooter, the 610 should have been a 7-shooter too.

 

[Lucky Derby]

Exactly. A 6 shot 10mm Revolver should be a L frame.

 

[mcb]

Exactly. A 6 shot 10mm Revolver should be a L frame.

Amen! and sing it from the mountain tops!

 

[mope540]

Ream you 610 to 10mm Magnum and you can get really close ....

. 610 should have been a 7-shooter too.

I put out a want ad for a spare cylinder just for that.. My 610 is a 4" pre lock -2. It has the scarce unfluted cylinder. So I want to leave it as is..... And I wholeheartedly agree that it should be a 7-round revolver...but maybe the engineers believed that hype that it was as powerful as a.41,, and that 7 rounds would make the cylinder walls too thin. A six round l frame 10 mm would be something that I wouldn't hesitate to buy

 

[mcb]

I put out a want ad for a spare cylinder just for that.. My 610 is a 4" pre lock -2. It has the scarce unfluted cylinder. So I want to leave it as is..... And I wholeheartedly agree that it should be a 7-round revolver...but maybe the engineers believed that hype that it was as powerful as a.41,, and that 7 rounds would make the cylinder walls too thin. A six round l frame 10 mm would be something that I wouldn't hesitate to buy

My 610 pictured up thread is a no-dash first model year. It has had 20,000 plus rounds through it in my ownership and I am not the original owner so I have been tempted to ream it but I fell into a good deal on the M29 (same picture) and other than not being cut for moonclips (yet) the M29 brings all the horsepower I need from a handgun.

Falling down into the weeds as I enjoy, if S&W used the same frame as the 627/929 with the barrel axis (moved up ~1/32 inch) I think there would be plenty of meat in the cylinder to make a 7-shot cylinder on the slightly changed N-frame.

The top is a traditional 610 cylinder drawn to scale


This is seven 10mm chamber cylinder on a "bolt circle" the same diameter as the chambers for a 627/327 or 929. Plenty of meat around those chamber to make 10mm work. Given the 41 Mag chamber is only ~.011 inch larger in diameter there is probably enough meat to make 41 Mag work too if S&W though they could sell enough to do it.

If the S&W 646 had only had a stainless cylinder instead of the titanium cylinder we could easily have a 6-shot 10mm Auto L-frame.

 

[mope540]

mcb, the 8 round 627s have a wider cylinder than the six round versions. The spacing between the barrel and center of cylinder is noticeable. So I think they could easily accommodate a 7-round 10 mm N frame

 

[mcb]

mcb, the 8 round 627s have a wider cylinder than the six round versions. The spacing between the barrel and center of cylinder is noticeable. So I think they could easily accommodate a 7-round 10 mm N frame

I have a 610, 625, 627 and an M29 and all N-frame cylinder OD's are roughly the same outside diameter of ~1.71 inch. The difference is in the distance of the chambers from the center of they cylinder. The circle you would draw through the center of all the chambers for a 6-shot N-frame is ~1.09 with the same circle drawn through the center of the 8-shot chambers is larger at ~1.16. Since the 357 Mag and 9mm chambers are skinnier you can moving them out from the center of the cylinder allowing the extra room you need between chambers to squeeze in the eight chambers. (IIRC there were some 7-shot model 27/28's in 357 Mag built on the regular 6-shot N-frames)

But using that same N-frame for the 8-shot 627/929 you could likely make the 7-shot 10mm work (as illustrated in the previous post) and maybe 41 Mag work though a quick calculation shows the cylinder walls getting pretty thin between the OD of cylinder and chamber wall, roughly the same as the wall between chambers on the 357 Mag 8-shot version or the 625. (~.060 inch)

For reference the 44 Mag version has roughly .080 wall thickness between chambers and the chamber and OD of the cylinder. The 9mm version gets really thin between chambers near the mouth of the chamber down to nearly .050 between chambers near the rear of the cylinder.

 

[JohnKSa]

Elmer Keith conceived 41 Magnum to be just exactly like 10mm and not more powerful.

I think I know what you're saying, but the 10mm didn't come into existence until the mid 1980s, the .41Mag was conceived in the mid 1960s.

It is true that Keith's idea of what the .41Mag was supposed to be was more like what the 10mm eventually did become than what the .41Mag ended up being. Remington took Keith's idea for the cartridge but went a good deal hotter in their loadings. So instead of Keith's desire for a cartridge that would be something like a .357Mag with a bit larger bullet and that could be loaded hotter for those who wanted extra power, Remington ended up with a cartridge that was something like a .44Mag but with a bit smaller bullet and not quite as much power.

 

[fireside44]

So back to the old stale question often asked on the net..."Why use 10mm when there is .41 Mag?"...reply..."Why use .41 Mag when there is .44 Mag?"

Why not Ruger loaded .45s while we are at it?

Because .41 magnum is a handloaders cartridge that uses less powder and lead than a.44 while giving a very similar level of performance. Because someone shooting a .41 comes across as having discriminating tastes while the .44 magnum guy just comes across as watching too many dirty Harry movies. Because when you cast .44s no one cares about the extras you are selling but when you cast .41 mags the extras fly from your hands and you wind up meeting cool old guys with way more guns ammo, casting equipment and knowledge than I have.

You see the thread title? "Buffoonery"? You think a .44 magnum user is familiar with or uses that term frequently? Naw, the .41 magnum is for the cultured, experienced, handloading owner. For men with silver hair you don't wanna mess with. If you want to play the "I'm discriminating I have a .44" game it better be a special, not a magnum.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Cartridges are status symbols?

 

[RealGun]

The comparison is perfectly valid because the .41 has no raison d'etre except the very same as 10mm. If you just want to race ballistic specs, then sure, the 41 is "more powerful," but so what? It's completely redundant with .429 ("44") Magnum and has no purpose to exist. Elmer Keith conceived 41 Magnum to be just exactly like 10mm and not more powerful. Why would he have wanted it more powerful to be redundant with 44? It's pointless. But a cartridge with a larger caliber and heavier bullet than 357 Magnum and one without excessive velocity that interferes with most people's ability to shoot it well out of a 4" duty-size gun had plenty of purpose, especially in the days when people mostly shot lead semi-wadcutters. The 41 caliber bullet had a clear advantage over 357.

A lot of people regard the "Magnum" loadings of 41 as the thing that killed it. But Elmer Keith had actually conceived of 10mm/.40 S&W way ahead of its time. To simply puff our chest out and boast of the 41's big-bore magnum awesomeness is to completely miss the whole purpose of it.

How we use a cartridge is not confined by historical law enforcement applications. Today's 41 Magnum simply provides some relief from the punishment one receives from firing more than a few rounds of 44 Magnum. I have 6 inch Rugers in both 41 Special and 44 Magnum and certainly feel the difference in firing higher end loads in each, similar enough to be a reasonable comparison. While there was a police load, the 41 fell by the wayside when the 40 S&W precluded development of the 41 Special. Reloaders have the opportunity to load across a broad range and can even obtain 41 Special brass. The guns can be anything you want them to be, perhaps short of use on the largest North American game.

 

[RealGun]

Exactly. A 6 shot 10mm Revolver should be a L frame.

If going to all that trouble, it's too bad there isn't a cartridge maker commitment to the 41 Special instead.

 

[mcb]

If going to all that trouble, it's too bad there isn't a cartridge maker commitment to the 41 Special instead.

JMHO but I would take 10mm Auto over 41 Special in an L-frame any day of the week. An S&W L-frame with fixed sights (681 frame) and a round butt, 4-inch full under-lug barrel chambered in 10mm Auto would be the finest combat revolver ever conceived. The right size, weight, and power level and fed with MOONCLIPS! Use 10mm Auto for the "serious" work and have fun and play games with cheap 40S&W. But I am a strange bird so YMMV.

 

[Lucky Derby]

Only change I would make is a square butt frame.

JMHO but I would take 10mm Auto over 41 Special in an L-frame any day of the week. An S&W L-frame with fixed sights (681 frame) and a round butt, 4-inch full under-lug barrel chambered in 10mm Auto would be the finest combat revolver ever conceived. The right size, weight, and power level and fed with MOONCLIPS! Use 10mm Auto for the "serious" work and have fun and play games with cheap 40S&W. But I am a strange bird so YMMV.

 

[jski]

Why not Ruger loaded .45s while we are at it?

Because .41 magnum is a handloaders cartridge that uses less powder and lead than a.44 while giving a very similar level of performance. Because someone shooting a .41 comes across as having discriminating tastes while the .44 magnum guy just comes across as watching too many dirty Harry movies. Because when you cast .44s no one cares about the extras you are selling but when you cast .41 mags the extras fly from your hands and you wind up meeting cool old guys with way more guns ammo, casting equipment and knowledge than I have.

You see the thread title? "Buffoonery"? You think a .44 magnum user is familiar with or uses that term frequently? Naw, the .41 magnum is for the cultured, experienced, handloading owner. For men with silver hair you don't wanna mess with. If you want to play the "I'm discriminating I have a .44" game it better be a special, not a magnum.

fireside44, you’re, of course, right! The guy who chooses the 41 is a man of more distinguishing taste. A man comfortable with his own judgement, or perhaps better put:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

The 44 guy is more comfortable lining up in the longer queue. More concerned with the opinions of others. Less willing to take the road less traveled.

 

[adcoch1]

The 44 guy is more comfortable lining up in the longer queue. More concerned with opinions of others. Less willing to take the road less traveled.

Carefull there, I may take umbrage with the insinuation that the 44mag is the "common path". In a world of plastic pistols, and tactical accessorizing, us big bore revolver guys need to stick together! The 41 mag Blackhawk I got to shoot was a pleasure, but by then I was firmly invested in all things 44...

 

[jski]

Carefull there, I may take umbrage with the insinuation that the 44mag is the "common path". In a world of plastic pistols, and tactical accessorizing, us big bore revolver guys need to stick together! The 41 mag Blackhawk I got to shoot was a pleasure, but by then I was firmly invested in all things 44...

I wrote that tongue in cheek ... well, somewhat tongue in cheek.

 

[Dibbs]

There seems to be a lot of comparison of different sized calibers, in general, lately. But if you really shoot 9mm and .357, you know 9mm is no .357, in bullet weights and circumstances which count. You know, if you shoot 10mm and 44 Mag, (or .41 Special) that 10mm is no .44. And if you need a more powerful caliber, you're better off just switching to something more powerful, rather than buying or loading +P, and battering your slide, springs, frame, and internals. I know I wouldn't dream of battering my 10MMs with high powered loads, I'd just go to a .44(or .41 Special).

There has also been a lot of numerical comparisons of the ballistics of the calibers in question. But how many times has somebody actually switched caliber to something lighter, or something stronger, out of actual need for it, in the field? By extension, IMO, this renders the argument somewhat moot.

41 Special absolutely is more powerful than 10mm, and comparisons of the two seem somewhat trolling, and irrelevant. As a few others pointed out, not many animals are going to know the difference.

 

[mcb]

Only change I would make is a square butt frame.

That is forgivable sin, the only unforgivable sin is an un-flutted cylinder, that is an abomination that corrupts a soul to its very core.

 

[CraigC]

JMHO but I would take 10mm Auto over 41 Special in an L-frame any day of the week.

Only reason I have a 10mm GP is because they don’t make one in .41Spl. The 10mm may be a better combat cartridge but I’ll take the .41 any day for sporting purposes. Better bullets, a rim and a roll crimp.

 

[silvermane_1]

fireside44, you’re, of course, right! The guy who chooses the 41 is a man of more distinguishing taste. A man comfortable with his own judgement, or perhaps better put:

The 44 guy is more comfortable lining up in the longer queue. More concerned with the opinions of others. Less willing to take the road less traveled.

The same could be said about a man whom chooses a 480 Ruger over a 460/500 S&W too.

 

[RealGun]

JMHO but I would take 10mm Auto over 41 Special in an L-frame any day of the week. An S&W L-frame with fixed sights (681 frame) and a round butt, 4-inch full under-lug barrel chambered in 10mm Auto would be the finest combat revolver ever conceived. The right size, weight, and power level and fed with MOONCLIPS! Use 10mm Auto for the "serious" work and have fun and play games with cheap 40S&W. But I am a strange bird so YMMV.

I am not one to allow that moonclips redefine the revolver. The 41 Mag/Spl is a real revolver round.

 

[Charlie98]

That is forgivable sin, the only unforgivable sin is an un-flutted cylinder, that is an abomination that corrupts a soul to its very core.

I had a S&W 657 Classic Hunter for a while, it had an unfluted cylinder. I have to admit, it took some of the character away, that's for sure, and made it just that much more bulky to carry in a shoulder holster.