Debating between these two pistols for use at my indoor range (to 25 yds max).  Ruger MK IV Target (stainless) seems like a no brainer, but the S&W 41 gets such rave reviews....

Priorities are accuracy, fun to shoot, reliability.  Cost is always a factor, of course, but the S&W seems to hold value, so I think I can justify it that way.  

Depends what you want to do; how accurate you want to be.

You will be able to wring more accuracy out of the model 41. But the difference is right at the top end. There is little practical difference.
In my experience the model 41 will shoot a single large hole at 25Metres. Out of 5 rounds Ruger most will make a large hole but one or two will be almost touching the large hole.

[Iron sights, single handed]

No comparison in fit and finish , the 41 wins hands down.  I also shoot groups with my 41 that are 1/2 the size that I shoot with my rugers.

Like butter.

You are doing research, that’s great.

The S&W 41 is a fine pistol and is the Ruger 4.  They are in the same tier.   Yes I said it.  Same tier.

In semi auto pistols that you can take to the range and NOT the Olympics there are other 22s better than the 41 for a bit more, but puts you in the tier above.

Specifically I’m talking about a nice 1911 with a custom upper.   You may already have the 1911.

The 41 is a dead end.  The Ruger 4 has longevity and after market gear.

The 1911, well it has all of it and then more.

Edit.  The guy in AZ.  I forgot his name, I’ve shot his uppers and scary accurate.  I was gonna get one, then he had back surgery.  I then got busy in moving and new job.

CCI ammo and a Ruger for me.

Thanks guys.  I think spending the $1200 or so on the 41 can wait.

Stopped in the LGS and brought home the MK IV Target.  Going to shoot it tomorrow!

Someday.... the 41.  Someday.....

Found it.   Nelson conversion is what I’d do with a $1200 budget allocated for a 41.

For me at least ( long time bullseye shooter with a distinguished badge ) I shot the 41 better than any 1911 conversion, of anything else for that matter ( never had the chance to try the high end pardoni hammerli or walther gsp types)
For high end bullseye competition the 41 has the edge, but for pretty much anything else the Ruger will do just fine.

The Ruger was a good choice, especially if you're going to be shooting inexpensive and  readily available ammunition.

And if you are shooting expensive ammo as well.

I've been saying the same thing for years now. Someday..... the 41. Maybe this year....  Probably not.

My 41 holds a special place in my heart.  As a kid my dad shot bullseye.  His stable was a k22, a 41, K38 masterpiece, Smith 52 wadcutter, and Gold Cup.   The 41 always fascinated me though and when I got it I really got to understand the allure of 41.  The trigger and accuracy are excellent.  Granted this s a 60's model but what I see from the newer ones, they are on par.  But it is a 1k rimfire.

For accurate target shooting at the range a Ruger is a much cheaper and probably better choice, for casual bullseye a modified Ruger is still cheaper and most likely just as good unless you are an excellent shot. For competitive bullseye/olympic shooting, there's better options than the 41 and Ruger. I bought my Walther GSP for less than any used S&W 41 around. I have shot three different 41s and all of them have been picky about ammo and even with the right ammo were not 100% reliable. There's a little aftermarket support for the 41 but it's all expensive.

I see you got the Ruger and think you made the right choice.

I'd love to have a S&W mod 41. I had a S&W 622. it was a jam-o-matic.

I have a MKIV Stainless 5.5 threaded target that hopefully my boys will want when i die. Because im keeping it till then.

Maybe you've seen it before around here on this site?

" />

Buy them all!

You can always go the gently used route. Good buys to be had that way.

I've had both. Still have the Ruger Mk IV target.

The Smith 41 *might* outshoot the Ruger. People spend lots of time balancing springs, ammo, and tweaking magazine feed lips to get one to work.

But the Ruger is more likely to actually function. And the biggest maintenance is occasionally replacing springs.

Unless you are also cross-shopping Benelli or Pardini target 22s, either one is more than likely to outshoot you.

That might be THE funniest thing I've read in a long, long, long time.

The 41 is an amazing piece.  Install a Volquartsen extractor in any 41 that you get your hands on. The 41 fit and heft inspires a confidence that no other pistol I have does.  The Sig/Hammerli would be the very close second.

As you can see, I have a 2206 and a 422 that run like gang busters.  My brother has a 422 that probably has more rounds through it than every gun in this picture, combined:



ETA:  interwebz lore will also tell you the Hammerli is unreliable.  Mine came with six mags and it runs through them in no time.  When shooting with a group, we have one person loading mags, one shooting.  The gun just runs.  They also say the 422/622/2206 and similar models,  break firing pins.  I suspect that is from dry firing.  I have a spare pin, but haven't needed it.

But accurate.

No it's not. It's not even in the same universe.

Yes it is. (See how that works? Statements without support are meaningless.)

The Smith should be more accurate according to the internet, but 1) depending on the ammo you use, this can change and 2) individual quality over time varies so wildly on the Smith, I hesitate to say "is". (The mean of Smith accuracy may be higher than the mean of the Ruger accuracy, but the variance of the Smith is ridiculously high and has a long tail on the "not accurate" side.) Having the 41 jam every second or third round doesn't help practical accuracy any either.

The most important evaluation was cut out of the quotation:

41 > Ruger MK whatever....

For a " Out of the Box " Bullseye-Precision competition pistol the 41 is way better but you pay for it. Around here used older 41 can be found $800-1200. Another plus is you can get another bbl and easily swap back and forth between a bbl with a DOT and a iron sight bbl for Standard Pistol and 22 EIC matches. New prod 41's are too expensive and for that money you might be better looking for a used low mileage Euro 22 Target pistol or go Marvel.

The Ruger series are good guns but need work OOTB to even get close to a stock 41.

Having shot them all in comp ......I prefer the High Standard Victor.

This man knows.

No comparison at all, Model 41 all the way.

Hell I'd much rather have a upper-end High Standard than a Ruger MK-Anything. You could throw a whole bale of money at the Ruger trigger and it would still fall short...By a mile.

For that matter a S&W 422 has a lot better OEM trigger than a OEM Ruger ever thought about having. Get the 6" with adjustable sights and you have a better pistol to boot.

I always will maintain that the Ruger MK series was the biggest joke ever played on gun-owners trigger-wise since their 10-22.

Life's too short to deal with crap triggers despite how cool a Ruger looks.  

Sweet jesus, that's some really out-there thinking.  

First of all, you're not going to find stock Ruger .22's at top tier bullseye matches. Never have, never will. Yet you'll find many of them heavily populated with Model 41s. That's my support.

As far as quality varying much over time, not terribly much. Nor did you even bother to mention which era your supposedly quality took a nose dive. Talk about making crap up.

Jamming is indeed part of the package, at least until a few boxes of ammo have been run through it. They have intentionally tight chambers, quite often an owner will run non-match ammo in them which indeed increases the likelihood of jams. I am guilty of this myself.

Nor is the variance of the 41 "ridiculously high" as you claim.

Did you just hope to fling enough crap against the wall, hoping some of it would stick?

From my experience as a pretty serious UIT competitior in the 1980s and 90s, I rate the S&W M41 over the Ruger Mk, as I rate the Hammerli 208 and Walther GSP over the M41. I am still always happy to borrow a S&W M41 and strangely did not experience malfunctions with the ones I shot.

Can I ask why you rate the GSP over the 41? I own both but have not yet done a head-to-head competition with them yet. I also have a Hammerli International I haven't even shot yet.

I do likes me some rimfires............  

My preference is simply based on performance that I experienced in training and competition at higher levels in Europe. Among the classic target competition guns, I would rate the FN 150, Colt Woodsman or High Standard Victor the equal of the S&W 41 performancewise and have seen no top competitors use any of these.

I'm bolding this, since the last few posters seem to have missed it.
The OP did not ask about top tier bullseye matches. He asked about plinking at his local range. As I've said, twice before, unless you're cross-shopping stuff like Andyd posted, there isn't much practical difference. (I'd look at a Pardini in 32ACP or a Benelli MP95 with the grooved receiver for that myself. I like how they fit my hand. And both seem to stand up better in 32 ACP/32 SW than many other currently supported target guns.)

There are high variances -- older models (80s or earlier generally) have a reputation of being more reliable and more accurate. On multiple forums (especially Smith-specific and rimfire-specific where there are more samples), the mantra is always "buy an older gun". I know you claim otherwise--but lots of people have other experiences with newer guns. Making fun of me saying this won't make it not true.

"Jamming is indeed part of the package" stayed part of the package after well more than "a few boxes of ammo". My Sig P210 never had to be broken in. My custom CZ-75 worked right out of the box. So did my Benelli MP95 and several different Volquartsen (both rifle and pistol). For that matter, so did my first release version of the Kahr 9 that had tight/match chambers. (Boy, that certainly taught us something about how close to spec different 9mm ammo was. Any defensive ammo worked great though.)

A $1000+ gun that won't function with CCI Standard or Green is worthless. (Heck, for that matter, I think it should work with Stingers too.) In a gun that won't function reliably, any supposed accuracy is meaningless.

I wish it weren't true. I spent a lot of time and money putting rounds through that thing, trying to break it in and make it work and way to much time reading about tuning magazines. I really like the way the 41 feels--and if mine had worked, I'd have spent way too much money getting three dot sights installed. I'm just past the age where I'm willing to fiddle with a gun that expensive to make it work, when a Mk IV out of the box works great with pretty much anything, with no practical difference in accuracy. If I need something more, I'd move up to a Volquartsen Mk IV or the previously mentioned Pardini or Benelli.

Did you ever get to try any of the 32ACP 50 meter guns? I keep trying to convince myself to get one. (I don't know why, but I like 32ACP.) From my reading, the 32ACP is supposed to be more accurate at 50 meters than the 32 wadcutter. (That's why the European manufacturers are trying them out. I just like the cartridge.)

The only handgun that I had repeatedly shot at 50m was a Walther Free pistol. I actually like more dynamic disciplines and am recovering from a serious falling plate addiction and shot bowling pins, it is fun when you get the instant gratification of a hit!

***After thinking for a moment, I want to add that I classify the stock S&W M41 as a target pistol, the Ruger MkII and IIIs and so on as plinkers. I do not want to down the Ruger Mks, they have a great mechanical accuracy potential and with Volquartsen parts the gun can be substantially upgraded. I borrowed one for a reduced size steel target shoot that I ran at a range and it was a fast gun! They are solid, too, and accurate enough for competition but then, so is a S&W 22A that I have - even after 110,000 rounds.

So, what I am trying to say is, both the S&W M41 and also a Ruger MkiV will suffice for plinking and even competition. It is a personal choice and long road to find which gun will give you the tiny little advantage that all shooters are searching like the holy grail.

LOL. Thanks--I guess a 50m 32ACP would work for really, really light pins. I found a 300 grain 45 Win Mag or similar 41 mag worked well for me. Most of my shooting is practice for handgun hunting now.

A Volquartsen extractor fixed the jam problem on my 41.

There's no doubt the 41 is a better gun, but the ones I've owned really didn't shoot much better than the Ruger.  It was far easier to get the accuracy out of them though with the much superior trigger.  I'm not shooting serious competition so I sold my 41's and currently use a Mark IV with a Volguartsen trigger as my fun gun.  I  don't worry about what ammo I shoot thorough the Ruger like I did with the 41's.  With the 41's I was a little more worried about damage from high velocity rounds.  The 41 is the only S&W 22LR I'd own though.  The 22A/22S and  422/622 guns I've owned were all only mediocre accuracy wise.

Any idea how these differ from the Marvel conversions? I have a Marvel Unit 1 I bought years ago. It has a permanent home on a 'NM' serial numbered SA Mil-Spec. I love that combo with one tiny nit;  the slide does not lock back on an empty magazine. Like I said - a tiny nit.

m

Bob Marvel left Marvel Custom and now works for Nelson Custom. The Nelson unit is the updated and improved version of the Marvel conversion. The Marvel unit retains Bob's name legally, even though he does not work there. I think the original Marvel units are very accurate and there isn't that big of a difference although the Nelson Custom does have last round lock open.

LGS has two used 41s for $899 each.

Turns out my LGS has one of these for sale: High Standard Victor. I may just have to drop some cash on it...

There yea go!  You won’t regret the Victor.

Just make sure you replace the recoil spring and feed it only standard velocity ammo.

I just went through this same scenario.

Out of the box, the 41 is extremely accurate and has a perfect trigger.  You can hit dimes all day long like you are Annie Oakley.  It can be picky on ammo. Only downside.

To get my MK IV Competition to shoot as well took a $150 Volquarsten accurizing kit, with trigger, hammer, etc.  took an hour to install with just a couple punches and hex keys.  It is now on par with the 41. The only downside is an occasional light rim strike.

With that in mind, the Ruger and Kit is less expensive, and has a lot of aftermarket support. Tye MK IV is also easy to clean.

MK IV with Volquartsen guts, and Tandemkross trigger!
41's are in another league cost wise.  But, I doubt with an
optical sight I doubt a person could tell the difference?

disregard

I disagree with the bit in bold.

I'm getting back into bullseye competition after a 20 year vacation.

Shooting my Mk I 678 Target against my High Standard Victor shows a clear advantage for the High Standard.

I average around 240 with the Ruger, and around 255 with the High Standard Victor.  That's 15 more points on average shooting them back to back in either order.

How does this relate to a S&W 41?  Back in the day the step up from a Ruger was either the S&W Model 41 for around $225, or a High Standard Victor for around $250 (compared to around $125 for a Ruger Mk I Target) and both were considered to be more or less equal.

The trigger is better on the S&W 41 or Victor than the Ruger, even after you aftermarket the beejeezus out of the Ruger, and for most shooters the grip angle is better on the S&W 41 or Victor than it is on the Ruger Standards, Targets and Hunters.

older S&W 41s are over priced due to collector interest.

However, you can find a High Standard Victor, that is generally considered to be in anything slightly more accurate than the S&W 41, for around $500-$600 in excellent condition if you're patient and are willing to look for a month or so.  That's half the price of a 41, and only about $100 more than a new Ruger, and basically a wash by the time you upgrade the trigger, hammer and sear.

I have two.  Awesome pistols.

Original magazines are hard to find, but new magazines are available from Interarmstx and they are reliable in the older High Standard Victors.   It's also worth the money to pick up a magazine lip adjustment tool, as you may need to tweak the feed lips slightly if they've been dropped on the lips or have otherwise gone out of tune.

If cost is a factor there is only one choice between thest two. They are no where near the same price range.

I'll get dogpiled by the ignorant for this, but have you considered looking for an LMT Lightning?  They were popular with 22 lr silhouette competitors and for good reason.  I have a 10" lightning that I sincerely believe is capable of outshooting most 22 lr rifles.

When I was shooting bullseye/2700 matches on active duty we were issued 41s, great guns but I never really liked how they felt in my hand but trained enough to shoot it well. If I was going to shoot at that level again I would get a 41, if I was plinking at the local range and matches I would shoot a Ruger.