S&W 41

[pacecars]

Any of you have experience with these? Old or new differences?

[bushog]

I’ve always wanted one/curious but have heard they can be problematic. I want to hear what those with experience say too….

[kevshell]

I have two. One is the 5.5" barrel and the other is the 7". Mine does not have the compensator on the front. Mine I believe date to the mid-80s. And I really can't compare them against anything that would be in the same class. I've fed mine standard velocity run-of-the-mill ammo and it shoots small little groups. It gobbles up most all that type of ammo. One thing I do like about them is they are built more like old school handguns and rifles as opposed to all the cost cutting, weight reduction, polymer, etc. 22 autos that you see nowadays. The 5.5" balance is in my hand almost perfectly. Although it's heavy it has a dead hold. The 7-in is almost as good but definitely not as good. And I definitely prefer the rear sight on the 5.5" over the 7".

[squawberryman]

Mine mimic Kevshells but my longer one (which is older) has the factory comp. Someone MAY holster carry one in the woods but it's a target gun. Even if it's just cans, the gun will perform. If you do decide to get one, find a forum to learn bout the variations. I'm from the thought process of older is better.

[pacecars]

If all the variations are close to the High Standard pistols, Lord help me.

[Ken O'Neill]

After hearing all the claims of superb accuracy, I bought a 7" version in 1979 or '80. Shot it in Bullseye matches and both NRA and IHMSA .22 Silhouette. My Ruger semi-auto's were more accurate, tested on paper, so it went down the road. Just my experience with one gun, not an indictment of all 41's.

[blazenet]

Mine shoots great. Feeds standard velocity without a hiccup, haven't tried any high velocity. Early 7" gun with cocking indicator.

[seminolewind]

I’m not a competitive shooter at all, just a casual target shooter. I had a 7” model 41 and a 5 1/2” High Standard Victor at the same time. The HS shot tighter groups than the S&W with several brands of LR ammo. I sold the 41 and kept the Victor.

[AxeHandle]

Been issued a few. Owned a few. Older barrels shoot best. Put the brake back in the box.

[James]

A very interesting .22...I enjoyed locating all the extra`s until I have what`s pictured .....I have since sold off the barrel weight....

[parallaxbill]

I have a 1969 5.5" and although I love it and it is accurate my only complaints are with the magazines. The original mag is not easy to load but is far better than the new mag that I purchased as a spare.

But, accuracy wise it cannot compete with my heavy steel ribbed 1973 High Standard Victor or my 1974 Supermatic Trophy. But both of those have far superior triggers.

[pacecars]

Nice. I had a 7.5” Supermatic Citation that shot some scary groups. Another dumb move to sell it

[squawberryman]

All my 22's shoot half minute of pile so acquire I do.

[bradshaw]

Dec 17, 2023 10:17:54 GMT -5 pacecars said:

Any of you have experience with these? Old or new differences?

*****

Bought, round about 1975, a used, 1960’s Model 41 with 7-3/8” barrel, muzzle brake, 5-1/2” slab side bullet barrel, two magazines and no box. Excellent build. Beautiful stock, allegedly to copy grip angle of 1911 but bulky. Silhouette had come around and certainly not the .22 game. Sold it to a deer hunter, trap shooter, trapper for $125, as he needed a .22 pistol on his trap line. I last saw the gun about 30 years ago, as bare of bluing as an 1870’s sixgun. He loved it.

High Power Rifle master Hartley Perry “High Power” Smith, who, among other things designed the web sling for the M1 Garand and worked on the M1 Carbine, besides his riflery medals had a wall full chest jewelry for pistol shooting, sold me his pre-War High Standard match pistol for $35, since he had bought a Model 41 to upgrade his bullseye battery. At my tender age a Model 41 was way out of my league. Within weeks of selling me his sharp shooting High Standard, he proposed to buy it back. I heard no accuracy complaint, but the rascal jammed. You see, the bridge over the slide----put there as a frame mount for the rear sight----lacked clearance above the slide to handle fouling, for which the .22 Long Rifle is famous.

I should have been more respectful and returned his fabled High Standard. It all resolved amicably, as I recall, as H.P. paid a visit to Smith & Wesson, whereupon service cut diagonal serrations to improve slide clearance for reliability. Still, High Standard held keys to the podium. As Ken O’Neill alludes, Bill Ruger’s masterpiece displayed its competition chops at a much lower price.

Somewhere around 1980 S&W introduced the Model 46, for less loot than an M-41. I was told at the factory the M-46 was not made to the accuracy standard of the M-41. And still later, that the M-41 would not be held to the standard of the early Model 41. I have made no comparison.
David Bradshaw

[stubshaft]

I bought my 5.5" barrel 42 back in 1978 and used it to shoot Silhouette and Bullseye. It has shot everything I've fed it from high velocity to standard to match ammo. Along the way I also bought a 10" Ruger MK II for Silhouette and have to admit that it does outshoot the 41 just barely.