It has been a while but some members wanted to know about the Corbon .41 250 grain. I compaired them to Rem 250 hardcast and Grizzly 265 grain. To my surprize the Corbon's out performed the others. I got hard to believe groups at 50 yrds. I had one group of 5 within 1 1/2 inches. I was shooting a blackhawk with a leapold fixed 20 scope. I wanted the Grizzly to be the best for the extra ft pounds. But you can't beat groups like the Corbons, I'll give up a bit of punch for placement. I'm sorry it took so long to test, but I did it right and through my gun the Corbons are great. I am not a reloader but I have been saving the brass and may start. The cost for shells is a shock. They must have doubled in the last couple years. The .41 seems to be about the worst for cost. But if you do it right it's a one shot gun. It's deer season here in Wisconsin and I have complete confidence that my pistol will put down the biggest deer within 50 to 65 yrds. I would have found out today during our early doe herd control season, but it's pouring rain and can wait. Thanks

Mike

I have a Redhawk with a 7.5" barrel in 41 magnum and it is a great gun. I have a 2-7 power scope on it and it will shoot better than I can. Earlier this year, I shot a 6 shot groups at 100 yds that measured 2.01". That was with the 210 grain XTP and a large dose of 2400 powder. For a load doing 1500FPS it sure shoots well. I killed a fat 4 point buck with that gun and load a few years ago, and the deer didn't go 50 yds before he flipped over and did a cartwheel into a tree.

You might want to think about setting up a reloading press to save some money if you start shooting alot. You can load the ammo for at lest 50% less than buying it and that is alot of money.

__________________
"I don't drink or smoke, I spend my money on gunpowder and gasoline."

I have a Blackhawk in 41 mag that I bought NIB in 1976. I load the Cast Performance 265 grain in mine and have put it completely through a Muxk Ox at 60 yards.

__________________
Allen Glore
Lodge Grass, Montana


How would you rather die? 10,000 foot pounds of energy in the BUTT or a sharp knife in the HEART

It is good to read that there are a few 41 magnum shooters out there. Has been along time since mine "ate" a factory load. The Federal castcore would be my choice for testing if I were to go that way.

I have much confidence in my own handloads out to 75 yards (or so) with my rig(Redhawk,open sights). Might shoot abit further with youger eyes?

Good shooting Mike,

Cheezywan

I just got my 41Mag Blackhawk in June and am not done tweaking it yet.

I have loaded it with everything from cat sneezes to wrist breakers and it has not failed to perform. I'm hoping that opening up the throats gains me some better accuracy but for now I trust it inside 50 yards.

__________________

I'd be real careful about messing around with the throat of your gun. If you have issues with it, send it to Ruger and ask them to check it out. They are really quick with their turnarounds and they do good work. I sent back a Vaquero convertable [45 colt,45acp] because the cylinders wouldn't shoot to the same POI. They fixed the problem and re-blued the gun for no charge in only 3 weeks.

__________________
"I don't drink or smoke, I spend my money on gunpowder and gasoline."

I cut my teeth reloading my uncles Smith M57 8.375" back in 84'. Since then I owned a half dozen Smith N frames (still have one M58) with a 14" TC Contender (Simmons 2x20) and a Marlin 1894S in .41 Mag. Mine are gather dust again this season. Did manage one hunt with the Marling last year and didn't get a clear shot at a deer. It did take one grey squirrel at 25m that got careless. I got two molds that I cast for them also a 195gr SWC Lee and a 210 SWC.

CD

__________________
De Oppresso Liber

Hi guys,
I agree that it is a good thing people still have faith in their .41 I really have never heard anything bad about the load as far as power. I mean heck, people are always talking up their .357s. I started out years ago with a Blackhawk in a .357 and I began to look at a Federal cartridge manual someone had left at my house. After about a year I had every shell they made in my mind for good. I picked up that thing and studied it just for fun. Now I know a bit about factory loads for all firearms. At some ranges the .41 looks like the best round. I find my second shot dead on because I can hold the scope close to the shot when need be. I admit I went to the .41 for more power, but I think for what I'm doing-whitetails-it is plenty of gun. The scope makes a big difference. The thing is you have to get a good scope and I spent about $200 on the least costly good one. The rings and mount are just as important. Overall that rig cost more than a good rifle. I do not know what it is but I am just a fan of the .41 I was glad to trade in the .357 because I could see where it would be a close call if it could do the job. I'm sure handloaders have a good load, but us store bought ammo guys are just better off with the .41 It shoots just fine with factory loads. With a decent scope and mounts you can sight it in with a handfull of rounds. But it is not a plinker, I am not a rich man. We all have a 9 or something for fun. Thanks everyone,

Mike

Foot Pounds is a poor indicator of lethality. Momentum is conservered in an inelastic collision, there is no conservation of energy in an inelastic collision. Energy is conservered in a lastic collision as well as momentum, but a bullet strike is an inelastic collision, therefore energy is not conservered

"Foot Pounds is a poor indicator of lethality."...or pounds x (feet per second)squared.

Agree 100%

But, energy is always conserved except for what's lost by the overall increase in entropy.

It's just that the energy may or may not be transfered to the object struck. If the bullet goes thru the object, there's some kinetic energy that goes out with the bullet.

And even if the bullet stops "on the far side of the hide", there's not really very much energy anyway. Getting slugged by John Wayne likely imparts a lot more energy to a body than a small bullet does.

Definition/Summary

A collision is said to be inelastic if the total kinetic energy of all the bodies involved in the collision changes. So conservation of kinetic energy does not apply. But conservation of momentum, and of angular momentum, does apply to all unrestrained collisions. For restrained collisions, conservation of momentum applies in any direction along which there is no impulsive restraining force, and conservation of angular momentum applies about any axis about which there is no impulsive restraining torque. Most collisions are inelastic.

Extended explanation

In an inelastic collision, some of the kinetic energy of the colliding bodies is converted into other forms of energy, such as heat sound and vibration. Of the two principles which suffice to describe an elastic collision (conservation of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum), only conservation of momentum is available for an inelastic collision.

http://www.physicsforums.com/library...item&itemid=79

I understand elastic/inelastic collisions. Not everything is a superball. But...

Energy is always conserved. This is the second law of thermodynamics. You just need to expand the system boundaries beyond the bullet, the object it hits and their respective kinetic energies to include all forms of energy...heat, sound, etc.

This is all mediated by the 3rd law dealing w/ entropy.

And like you say...it doesn't mean squat for dropping game.

Perfectly inelastic collisions
A common example of a perfectly inelastic collision is when two snowballs collide and then stick together afterwards. This equation describes the conservation of momentum:

It can be shown that a perfectly inelastic collision is one in which the maximum amount of kinetic energy is converted into other forms. For instance, if both objects stick together after the collision and move with a final common velocity, one can always find a reference frame in which the objects are brought to rest by the collision and 100% of the kinetic energy is converted. This is true even in the relativistic case and utilized in particle accelerators to efficiently convert kinetic energy into new forms of mass-energy (i.e. to create massive particles).

I think I know what that means as I converted a 30-30 into a 356 Win to be able to shoot more massive particles.

I also had a large aunt who had an elastic collision in her girdle. This resulted in massive hydrostatic shock.



Hope you don't mind me making cheap jokes about this as we both seem to agree that energy is no measure a hunting bullets effectiveness.

Lmao.................