Bought S/W 41

[doddg]

1. Drove back in town with enough time to run to the range.
2. Range was going to close early due to some electronics issues so I only had time to run and rounds of CCI standard velocity, lead nose, with 1070 FPS.
3. This was highly recommended to use and these are the results at 40 feet:

A couple of other 40' targets using other guns to compare if the Smith 41 is superior to all of them: not so far!

 

[700 LTR 223]

When precision isn't the game, they are only as good as the rest.

The 41 was created for the Precision Game, it is the only out of the box 22 auto I have owned that I could shoot decent scores with at 50 yards. And that is one handed , try shooting a stock Mark series Ruger or Browning 22 at 50 yards one handed.

 

[Doublehelix]

I used to shoot a lot of bowling pins and steel in the 1990s. Routinely would beat out shooters using 41s with my entry level buckmark. When precision isn't the game, they are only as good as the rest. The ammo pickiness can be an issue too.

^^^This^^^

I would love to own an SW41, but find it hard to justify for the type of shooting that I do on a regular basis. I am not one for standing still and shooting at a static bullseye, but if I were, I would certainly consider one.

I shot my S&W Victory with a red dot at a steel match for the first time yesterday, and loved it, although I had a heck of a time finding the red dot. I may go back to the fiber optic... The gun outshot me, so having a SW41 would have made zero difference in my score, but would have left a major hole in my wallet!

 

[doddg]

^^^This^^^
I would love to own an SW41, but find it hard to justify for the type of shooting that I do on a regular basis. I am not one for standing still and shooting at a static bullseye, but if I were, I would certainly consider one.
I shot my S&W Victory with a red dot at a steel match for the first time yesterday, and loved it, although I had a heck of a time finding the red dot. I may go back to the fiber optic... The gun outshot me, so having a SW41 would have made zero difference in my score, but would have left a major hole in my wallet!

1. I totally get your logic.
2. Even if the 41 is MUCH more accurate (10/10 in the red dot instead of 6/10), is it worth the $1200 - $1600 that one can cost if I can be happy with 6/10 in the red dot?
3. My SW Victory is a sweet shooter like yours, as well.
4. When this 41 became available, I thought I'd take a chance and find out if it really is that much better than the others: so far I don't see evidence of that, but I'll give it a long fair shot (pun intended) before I sell it b/c it doesn't out-shoot what I already have.
5. Just like the CZ Shadow 2 I bought, if it didn't out-shoot all other 9mms that I have: it would be gone like those before it, but bless its heart, it is still in the safe, having proved itself against all comers. I almost bought a Beretta 92 last week, just b/c I like them (had one already, but wasn't happy with its condition cosmetically) but having the Shadow 2: I didn't buy. After retirement, and if I have to sell off any of my "expensive" guns (anything over $400 ) I might buy a Beretta 92 again since they can be picked up inexpensively, unless I go back to a CZ SP-01 or 75 where I started with the CZs. I have a Rami to comfort me during any transition time.
6. The Shadow 2 will be a hard one to cut if I need to when I retire and the money pressures start to mount, but at least I gave it a go.
7. Better to have owned and lost than not to have owned at all.

 

[doddg]

Even though I have a case, I ordered another of the CCI, 40 grain, lead nose, 1070 FPS, standard-velocity so I can put the 41 through its paces and see if my other 22LRs will run with the SV.
I have a ton of High Velocity (from 1200 to 1400 FPS), so it will be interesting if my other semi-autos will run on the SV copper coated (which I was told ran cleaner than lead nose so I avoided the lead).

 

[natdscott]

Even though I have a case, I ordered another of the CCI, 40 grain, lead nose, 1070 FPS, standard-velocity...

Never a bad decision.

 

[nipprdog]

I shot my S&W Victory with a red dot at a steel match for the first time yesterday, and loved it, although I had a heck of a time finding the red dot.

Did you use a small red dot, say.....20mm?

I have a 20mm TRS25 on one of my rugers, and a 30mm truglo on the other. I can get on target MUCH faster with the 30 versus the 20.

 

[doddg]

I just ordered and received a Bushnell optic that Ggreen recommended that he uses for $90.
I had ordered something for $40, but everyone said it was crap, so I cancelled that order.

I have been busy going out of town and my wife has been to the ER twice today (we are here now), so no time to even read the directions.
Evidently, I have to use it on one of my guns that has a rail and/or buy a rail for my Ruger Mark 4 or S/W 22A-1; I don't think the SW Victory has one either (but I can't remember them all).
I probably won't go to the trouble of buying a rail for a gun that is drilled and tapped for it, since I just bought it to play with and some of my guns have a rail and that would be good enough unless it spoils me and I have to buy one for every gun. Just kidding if you are not used to my hyperbolizations.
If my S/W 41 ends up being a keeper, I would set it up with one since that would really be fun to actually see the sights and target with the aid of an optic since I really can't see the target well at 50' and 40' is problematic, but I can see it at 30'.

 

[G192127]

Heavy sigh...
It's the Indian, not the bow.

Realize what you got there- a "60yr old design" pistol made for bullseye shooting. A sweet piece of American firearm history.

Still capable of winning, but the pistol wasn't designed for a scope and redots weren't invented when that pistol emerged.

Enjoy the pistol for what it IS.

 

[WebSnyper]

Heavy sigh...
It's the Indian, not the bow.

Realize what you got there- a "60yr old design" pistol made for bullseye shooting. A sweet piece of American firearm history.

Still capable of winning, but the pistol wasn't designed for a scope and redots weren't invented when that pistol emerged.

Enjoy the pistol for what it IS.

How exactly would a pistol be designed for an optic, except for having a rail, or being drilled and tapped for one, etc. I'm not sure I get your point. I'm pretty sure there are guys running 1911 race guns with optics, among other designs.

 

[Twangbanger]

In other news: I bought a Ferrari, filled it up with 85/15 Ethanol, and took it to the store for groceries.

So far, I'm not seeing what the big deal is.

(...but before I sell it, I want to try it with snow tires and chains...just to make sure I'm not the weak link...)

 

[natdscott]

How exactly would a pistol be designed for an optic, except for having a rail, or being drilled and tapped for one, etc. I'm not sure I get your point. I'm pretty sure there are guys running 1911 race guns with optics, among other designs.

He may be saying something about how the 10 Ring that pistol was built for is a shade under 3.5" at 50 yards, and most 41s will happily clean it.

There are bad ones out there, but there are a helluva lot more good ones.

 

[Twangbanger]

The Smith Model 52 is a Bullseye Target auto-loader in 38 special wadcutter.

​

I believe it was already the subject of a previous test-thread. Jam-factory. Bullets wouldn't feed, tried +P and everything. Traded it for a Taurus, if I recall.

 

[natdscott]

I dunno, Twangbanger. I just draw from personal experience, and that of a Bullseye feller that's owned three...and has the used Ransom Rest inserts to prove it.

Mine has just continued to make shots that no pistol should have ever been expected to hit. I miss a lot, but the hits are worth the misses, and it's a true $5 bill kinda gun...

 

[doddg]

Heavy sigh...
It's the Indian, not the bow.

1. And I'm an old Indian with the eyesight to match!

Realize what you got there- a "60yr old design" pistol made for bullseye shooting. A sweet piece of American firearm history.

2. And, the fact that the brand new ones are touted to be just as finicky if not more than the more "classic" ones.

Still capable of winning, but the pistol wasn't designed for a scope and redots weren't invented when that pistol emerged.
Enjoy the pistol for what it IS.

3. Good point! But, the previous owner had a long rail and long optic on it: it is in the box, so someone thinks that they needed the optics for this gun.

 

[natdscott]

Yeah...41s have been wearing optics for a long, long time now. They work fine, and can be used to shoot at the pistol's potential.

 

[WebSnyper]

He may be saying something about how the 10 Ring that pistol was built for is a shade under 3.5" at 50 yards, and most 41s will happily clean it.

There are bad ones out there, but there are a helluva lot more good ones.

Understood, was just surprised a bit by his specific statement about the optic. Of course, it was built in a different time, with different production capabilities, etc and I understand that.

Yeah...41s have been wearing optics for a long, long time now. They work fine, and can be used to shoot at the pistol's potential.

This is what I was getting at, and thanks for that follow up.

 

[Doublehelix]

Did you use a small red dot, say.....20mm?

I have a 20mm TRS25 on one of my rugers, and a 30mm truglo on the other. I can get on target MUCH faster with the 30 versus the 20.

Mine is the 3 MOA dot version. In hindsight, I wish I had got the 6 MOA version, but what is done is done.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I dunno, Twangbanger. I just draw from personal experience, and that of a Bullseye feller that's owned three...and has the used Ransom Rest inserts to prove it.

Mine has just continued to make shots that no pistol should have ever been expected to hit. I miss a lot, but the hits are worth the misses, and it's a true $5 bill kinda gun...

Never know what I might have, still waiting on you posting that information that Smith put out on chambers cut for CCI 0335 years before the ammo was produced and that HV was not recommended .

 

[natdscott]

Never know what I might have, still waiting on you posting that information that Smith put out on chambers cut for CCI 0335 years before the ammo was produced and that HV was not recommended .

I have no publication of that information directly from Smith & Wesson; I suppose it may not exist. Are you satisfied by that?

Though, uh, a lack of publication is not a definitive indicator of falsehood of my statement. That information was from a couple Bullseye guys that have been shooting 41's for decades. Forgive me, but I trust them more than I trust you.

To my understanding, CCI Standard Velocity has been available since the mid 60's. The 41 was started in what? 57? In addition to my word-of-mouth introduction to the information, it seems pretty reasonable that S&W would have cut a chamber to place the SV bullet slightly into the lands of those 1960's pistols. Since the SV bullet has a quite long bearing surface compared to a lot of other "modern" target ammunition, it would seem that maybe they'd want to continue that trend toward what would have to be a slightly longer throat, or SV might not eject if unfired. At least... That's what my calipers and my Annie say.

My 41 is a 1958, complete with lazy-S original mag, and rare-ish uncheckered grips, which, out of respect, I have left alone. I have a different set I have modified to remove the thumbrest and rebate the magwell to allow flush reloads, I recut the checkering as well, as they'd been used a bit and it was no longer sharp. The chamber was in excellent condition, having (from appearances) seen less than a couple bricks of ammunition (though no, I don't have a number on the original throat length). It was the backup 41 of an older gentleman that bought it when he was a younger gentleman. 41's don't require much backup, though I replaced the recoil spring at about 4,000 rounds [of mine].

Are you an aficionado of the weapon?

-Nate

ETA: read your original post. Copy: the 1957 S&W; and 1965 intro of SV.