So I was offered a trade recently for my Ruger mkIII hunter for a newish Smith and Wesson model 41. I like the Ruger and have done some light mods on it but I never really loved it. I have herd the 41 is a much better pistol overall but am not sure how much an improvement it would be.

Question:
So what do you think?

Choices:
Stick with Ruger mk III hunter
Trade for a S&W model 41

 

That trade would be a no=brainer for me. While both are classics the S&W is in a league far above (at least for me), so the M41 every day, all day long. Money-wise easily worth two of the Rugers for the one S&W. And the Ruger isn't a favorite of yours.

But I'd have to wonder, under the harsh light of reality...what's wrong with the Smith for someone to want to do such a swap?

I say get the 41. If there’s something wrong with it, get it fixed. They’re damn fine pistols. I have no experience with the Ruger, but I feel like it would be a massive upgrade for you.

I also say that while I’m in negotiations to sell mine to a friend.

Don’t think too hard on this one. Just trade.

Just to be “Odd man out” on this one, I just sold my M41 because of my MK-III Hunter, and MK-IV 22/45. My M41 was an excellent target pistol, but was very finicky about ammo. I finally gave up when, regardless of ammo, I was getting 20%-60% extracting failures per magazine, from both original magazines, and the two new magazines. And that was pre-pandemic using at least six different kinds of ammo.
On the other hand, my MK-III Hunter has over 23,000 rds, mostly when teaching CCW classes, with only ammo related failures to fire due to cheap, bulk 22 LR ammo. I put a Volquartsen match trigger set in it, and it shoots as good as the M-41. I would say it shoots better than the M-41, but the accuracy is limited by this shooter, not either gun.
I also put the Volquertsen trigger in the MK-IV 22/45, and it shoots as well as the M41 or the MK-III Hunter.
YMMV, but I find the Ruger, with the Volquertsen trigger components, as accurate as the M-41, with a slightly better trigger, with much better reliability. If you are shooting competition, where alibis are allowed for gun problems, the M-41 is spectacular, and it does fit my hand perfectly. But if you want a reliable rimfire you can shoot forever with minimal problems, and costs about half the price, I vote for the Ruger. Just my personal experience.

Did you try a new extractor? I would think that would be my first change rather than magazines. All the new magazines in the world won’t fix a worn/broken extractor.

Take the trade. Even if you find you don’t like the 41 you can get way more in trade or $$$ from a 41 than from a MkIII.

Your post makes it sound like a straight up trade, seriously don’t overthink this. (I own and love 2 MkIII loaded with Volquartsen, great shooting guns but if somebody offers to trade you a like condition Python for your Glock you trade)

Thank you for the responses so far!

To answer the questions, we are still discussing the nature of the trade but it will either be straight across or I'll throw in $200. I'm led to believe the 41 works quite well and I trust this person.

Basically my friend of a friend had a Ruger MKIII Hunter he loved, sold it, and now really misses it and they are very hard to find in CA.

The S&W 41 while expensive are not overly hard to find in CA.

Then go for it. Even with the $200 on top.

A lot of match .22 rimfire pistols have problems with extraction/ejection. Bullseye shooters have adopted the trick of putting a small bead of oil on the top round in the magazine. That combined with a little boresnake action usually takes care of the problem.

My M41 is reasonably flexible on ammo.
I still recommend test firing any second hand gun no matter how nice.

Ruger Mark I, II, III, & IV
Mark III is the least desirable.

S&W 41 is desirable.

Yep, wouldn’t take me long to make that decision.

My two ruger mkIIIs work with any ammo.

I have had a 41 before and sold it off because it was very finicky (but a lot of 22s are)

I have made changes to the Rugers though..
- remove the magazine safety
- replace the trigger with a volquartzen one
- replaced the barrel wi5 a paclite 4” upper

For the record, I love my Ruger MK II’s.
Have several different flavors of them.
Just not as fond of the Mk III’s in stock form.

I most likely will get a Mk IV at some point as they appear to be great guns as well, particularly for use with a suppressor.

Go with the M41.

I guess it depends what you want to do with the .22 pistol.
Will you shoot Bullseye competition with the 41?

I got a S & W 41 many years ago. I wanted a high quality plinker.
The 41 wouldn't run reliably with plinker .22 ammo.

I took the 41 to a well regarded 41/bullseye gunsmith and had the mainspring replaced with a new factory spring.
I seem to remember having the magazine safety removed also.

It still wouldn't run reliably with plinker .22 ammo.
Many fail-to-fire, rotate the cartridge in the chamber for a second firing pin hit and it would fire.
Using Eley match ammo that 41 would run great.

In the end, I traded that 41 away. It isn't a plinker, it's made as a competition pistol, using only the best ammo. (best = expensive and hard to find in today's ammo world)
My Ruger Mark II Government Competition reliably fires any .22 ammo I stuff into it. It just doesn't care what the ammo is.
I believe the Ruger Mark I, II, III, IV just have a heavier "whack" from the firing pin.

So like I originally said, it depends what you are going to use the 41 for.
I would say don't do the trade unless you will shoot Bullseye competition.

I may acquire another .22 pistol. It won't be a S & W 41. It will likely be a Ruger Mark IV.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
For the record, I love my Ruger MK II’s.
Have several different flavors of them.
Just not as fond of the Mk III’s in stock form.

I most likely will get a Mk IV at some point as they appear to be great guns as well, particularly for use with a suppressor.

+1. Over the years, I've owned both MK I & MK II pistols in most every barrel length and configuration. The MK III however never appealed to me. It seemed like a poor solution to a nonexistent problem. Recently, I purchased a MK IV 22/45 Tactical as a suppressor host. With a few upgrades from Volquartsen & Tandemkross, it's become on of my favorite .22 plinkers.

Swordknives - With that said, I voted trade for a S&W 41. Good luck!

Lot's of good commentary on here regarding both pistols, but apparently I'm also in the minority.

I voted to keep the Ruger. Why? Because I've had a 41, and currently still have a Ruger, and I simply like the Ruger better, and accuracy seemed about the same for both. As others have mentioned about theirs, my Smith was rather finicky on ammo, and the Ruger just works!

My opinion, YMMV...

No experience with the Smith & Wesson and so I must defer to experts... not sure about the Ruger Hunter but I have a stainless Ruger MKIII that is a tac driver for sure..... and on top of that it is not picky about ammo... loves just about anything you run through it. I ended up having to buy more magazines for it, now 10 total, because it was too much fun to shoot to have to stop and load a magazine.

S&W Model 41.

I applaud your desire to help your friend be happy.

Yet, what do YOU want to do with the pistol?


If you want best possible accuracy and trigger, and are willing to lot test different loads of .22lr SV ammo [NOT HIGH VELOCITY], then the S&W 41 has more potential.

If you want a pistol that will run SV and HV ammo, and be fun to shoot, and don't need group sizes smaller than a quarter at 10 yards, then the Ruger gives more flexibility on ammo, down the road.


I did it a bit differently.

I have the Ruger MK II Government Target, with a stock hammer, but the rest of the 'guts' are changed. This works for me and has a nice, crisp, light-ish trigger, with accuracy that makes me happy.

However, for 'better' accuracy, I went with a 1966 High Standard 106 Military Trophy pistol, which is best with .22lr SV ammo.

I can feel a difference, and see one in group sizes- but, I am talking quarter vs nickel size groups [Ruger vs HS].

The S&W 41 is capable of more precision than the Ruger [but about the same as the older High Standards], but is not as forgiving of ammo selection as the Ruger [HS is also picky].

I wouldn't own the 41 as my 'only' .22lr semi-auto pistol.



In your dynamic of these two options only, and not knowing your goals, I'd have trouble saying the 41 is the best choice for you.

IF you keep a 'plinker' 22lr pistol, then the 41 is a great addition.


Heck,- just go buy anything you can find and have dozens of .22lr handguns- then you have OPTIONS!