Talk:.41 Remington Magnum

Renamed

I moved this from .41 Magnum for a more complete name per the cartridge naming convetions. Arthurrh 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistics?

The ballistics given from accurate powder seem to be at the upper limit of the 41 magnum. Both Federal and Remington show signifigantly slower velocities. It would probaly be a good idea to have the ballistics be a little more representative of both factory ammunition and a more average sized barrel. 75.178.183.32 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Instead of using handload manual data which was created using a 9.5" test barrel, it would be far more informative and representative of the cartridge's ballistics to state in the data box the ballistics from a 4-inch barrel. --Ana Nim 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed - I replaced the 9.5" data with info. from Winchester, Remington, and Federal which used 4" and 6.5" barrels. Wikidenizen (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Trajectory Claim False; Give the measured drop at distances

I think the "flatter trajectory" for the .41 Mag over the .44 is an old wives tale. The Remington ballistic charts don't support it. The lighter .44 mag loads shoot flatter than the only .41 load Remington still offers. Other ballistic charts of mine (Gun Digest, Catridges of the World)also fail to support the claim. The citation given is a web site, hardly more authoritative than actual ballistics tables from ammo manufacturers.
I'm going to leave this comment up for a while, but if no one provides real evidence for the claim I am going to delete it on my next visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flatter trajectory domes from hand loading 170 grainers at 1800 fps with 800x is pretty flat. 210 grain factory is 1300ish hand loads below max pressure are attainable to 1450. 265 is about max for accurate weight and those top off at 1300. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.173.21 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to buy some punctuation marks please. Maybe that could make your gibberish somewhat understandable. --BjKa (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are "flat" and "flatter" proper terms for an encyclopedia article? No line of fire is flat. The proper statement would give the drop of the bullet at various distances (inches, millimeters). (PeacePeace (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Autoloaders

There were at least two autoloaders (Desert Eagle, Coonan Arms) chambered for the .41 Magnum. Should we have a short reference to them? Surv1v4l1st (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about a wiki category "guns chambered for .41 Magnum?" or "autopistols shooting revolver ammunition"? --BjKa (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

During several automated bot runs the following external links were found to be unavailable. Please check if the links are in fact down and fix or remove them in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC), --edited by BjKa (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a lot of work

This is a crummy description of a virtual identical gun to the 44 magnum. We are comparing a .410" bullet to a .429" bullet made by the same company. The 44 shows data for a long barrel and super hot Buffalo Bore and Double Tap specialty rounds. The 41 shows short barrel (most people will not buy a short barrel magnum, that is what semi autos are for) and just generic factory loads. I think if somebody knew what they were doing and did this for the same barrel lengths and DT and BB ammo, it would show they are about the same hand canon. Please see actual testing here. http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/41mag.html and look at the 44 at double tap and buffalo bore. Msjayhawk (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.41 Long Colt

The article Elmer Keith claims the .41 magnum was "inspired by the [...] .41 Long Colt cartridge". The Article .41 Long Colt claims that Keith thought it performed pretty decently as self defense ammunition. This should be mentioned in this article. --BjKa (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the picture which seems to falsely measure the .41 at 4 Inches Long?

The .41 is not 4 inches long! (PeacePeace (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]