S&W Model 41 vs. Hammerli 208

I guess this is a popular comparison between these 2 bullseye pistols. I shoot my 41 frequently - almost weekly but had never tried the 208 before. Heard from many posts that the 208 is the most accurate bullseye .22 pistol out there.
Parts are relatively easy to find for the 41 ( Numrich gun parts ) but I am concern that if you ever need to replace any parts of the Hammerli it will be an issue of availability. The 2nd concern is cost. The 208's magazine is around $150 if you could find one. For the S&W M41 magazines are quite easy to find and at around $45 is pretty reasonable.
Question: Is it worthwhile chasing down a nice Hammerli 208?  


Handcycle

I recently talked to an experienced shooter who said that after some 20k rds his 208 will place 10 shots in 3/4" at 50 yds. I seriously doubt that many 41's could equal that.

I shot a 41 for several yrs and thought it was a very good gun. It shot well enough when I tested new ammo @ 25 yds using a hand hold on sandbags. I do not recall ever getting it in a rest for  testing at 50 yds. I do not recall any 3/4" groups. I think the 41 will suffice for most of us. 

I used it for several yrs and replaced it w/ Marvels. I don't know that they are any better (though test groups supplied are better than the 41 will shoot, I think??) but I prefer the 1911 grip.

It gets down to ability, desire, and money in my estimation.

handcycle wrote:I guess this is a popular comparison between these 2 bullseye pistols. I shoot my 41 frequently - almost weekly but had never tried the 208 before. Heard from many posts that the 208 is the most accurate bullseye .22 pistol out there.
Parts are relatively easy to find for the 41 ( Numrich gun parts ) but I am concern that if you ever need to replace any parts of the Hammerli it will be an issue of availability. The 2nd concern is cost. The 208's magazine is around $150 if you could find one. For the S&W M41 magazines are quite easy to find and at around $45 is pretty reasonable.
Question: Is it worthwhile chasing down a nice Hammerli 208?  


Handcycle

IMNSHO, the accuracy claims are BS!  The 208(s) was never built to be accurate at that distance and mine never was from the original box.  It was built as a 25 meter gun.  It would still put ten rounds in the X-ring with Eley Tenex ammo at 50 yards, but it used most of the ring.  A relined barrel can make that group tighter, but from the factory, this was not true.  I won't dispute that some of the originals might have been able to do better than mine from the factory, but that was not a given.

What the 208(s) did bring to the table was a set of adjustments that made the trigger action quite pleasant.

Parts are a valid concern.  But, as for the magazines, you can actually use the M41 magazines with a little work.

The trigger of the 208(s) is the real issue.  But, other guns have good triggers.  Some have lots of adjustability.  This would come down to a personal preference.  A lot of MA/HM competitors used a 208(s) to get there, but a lot of other MA/HMs shot some pretty good scores with other guns.  I shot my Ruger Mark II up to 880, but I made it into the 890's with the 208s.  My coach/mentor used to tell me something like, "You can shoot good scores with your Ruger, but it's easier to shoot them with the Hammerli."

I am not a good enough shooter. But can spend a little time shooting my Buckmark, M41, X-Esse Long, and X-Esse SF IPSC. None are 3/4 in my hands. Even at 25 yards. But group in that order. The two X-Esse are more accurate than the M-41.At least in my hands.
Not sure the 208’s are inherently more accurate than the Trailside/X-Esse. Jim Henderson shot a documented 897 with a Trailside. A 600.00 gun did not limit him.
Wanted a 208 earlier this year. Never found a nice one for less than twice the price of a new SF-IPSC. The later X-Esse do not seem to have the failures the earlier production suffered from.
But I still want a 208. And a new High Standard Victor,

Background for my opinion, I typically shoot 1911 conversions (Typically a 5" barrel Nelson, but I also have 6" barrel Nelson and 5" Marvel). I also have a 208, but more limited experience with a 41. 

Accuracy with any target quality 22 with reasonable ammo is a non issue. 

I think the biggest difference between any 22 is the ergonomics. A 41 has a few different barrel options that change the balance and weight significantly. The ergonomics of 208/215 is different, but can be adjusted with barrel weights (not always easy to find the exact one you want, but out there). In my experience a 41 is generally heavier than a 208, which could be a benefit or a detriment.

Trigger is preference. The triggers the 41's I have shot to be good, I also have found that 208 triggers are also good. I will also add that the triggers in my 1911 conversions are easily equal to my 208.

In the last few week, I have been changing up which 22 I have been shooting and realistically my scores/performance is close enough that I personally do not see any large benefit from one to another. 

NMC's:
208- 288-12x
Marvel- 285-9x
5" Nelson-289-10x

Both the 41 and 208 are quality. Both also are an older design, if you are looking for a higher end target pistol it would be worth looking at a Pardini, AW93, or even a Xsse.

Hammerli 208/215 pistols are great. They are a joy to shoot and the different front weight options make them easy to adjust to your preferred weight. Yes the weights can be a bit difficult to source. I have both and wouldn't part with either. To me, they are more like a heirloom-quality pistol, kind of like the model 41. That being said, I have an Xesse IPSC and it has a far better barrel. It is without a doubt more accurate. I am not as huge a fan of the build quality when compared with the 208/215 pistols, but it is an accurate pistol. I had a few issues early on but my Xesse has gotten better as I shoot it. I have to keep it squeaky clean though. The 41 is a bit too heavy for me now that I have been struggling with elbow tendonitis, so I just don't use it.

I personally think your money would be better spent picking up a Pardini as a second pistol. If you have got to get a 208, watch Simpson LTD as they import them and sometimes have decent prices on them.

Thank you for all you guys with helpful suggestions & sharing your experience with these guns. I always feel that when a nice gun such as the Hammerli 208 is clamped in a Ransom rest and all shots in "the same hole" so to speak; when the same gun is held in the shooter's hand it's now his/her skill, experience & training that matter. Trigger control, etc. are so important plus an ability to focus without being distracted by the activities around him..

If you get a chance to handle or shoot a Matchguns MG-2 EVO, IMHO, you will not find a better trigger anywhere…..but all of the suggestions above including mine are subjective. Pick a gun that feels good in your hand and functions well and you can shoot your way to Master, even with the cheaper guns. Along the way, you will figure out what YOU personally like and dislike and make some personal choices.

I agree with Tony. I own a 215S, a Matchguns MG2, a couple conversions, and a Ruger Mark 3. The MG2 has had a few bugs to work out, for sure. But it is by far my favorite trigger, and the easiest gun to shoot. 

Dave

Hmmm.

As an outside observer of this matter I must say that there seem to be far more "problem" questions regarding 41's on this forum than any other model/brand.

I agree with TonyH that if at all possible it is best to actually shoot the gun you fancy first, but the problem with that approach for both MG and Pardini is that the grip needs to be the right size for the test to be of any value. Getting the right grip fit is a VERY important issue for such guns. Much less so for slab grip guns IMHO.

None of them are perfect. Never owned a 41 or a 208. Had an MG2, as Dave says "need to work the bugs out". Settled on Pardini's, tricky to get the trigger adjusted just right, the 22 is rock solid reliable and very easy to shoot. But, just to confound my opinion, I was recently able to shoot HM level scores with cheap ammo in a box stock Rugger 22/45 that cost $240 - so all of the guns can do the job - if you can do the job!

RoyDean wrote:Hmmm.

As an outside observer of this matter I must say that there seem to be far more "problem" questions regarding 41's on this forum than any other model/brand.

 But, just to confound my opinion, I was recently able to shoot HM level scores with cheap ammo in a box stock Rugger 22/45 that cost $240 - so all of the guns can do the job - if you can do the job!

Likely there are more 41's being used which might partially account for your observation. That being said when I started shooting BE the 1st S&W auto I saw was a 46 (cheaper version of the 41). The owner said it was very particular re; ammo.

Sometimes picking up a different gun will yield pleasing results. AND that Master class-ification might be be part of it!

Ron Habegger

All I can tell you is that my H-208s is very accurate and reliable with CCI Pistol Match. My machine rest tests show that it is well under the size of the X ring at 50 yards. It is close to 100% reliable with good ammo and I've shot many different brands and types over the years. The two-stage trigger took just a little while to get used to, but once I got used to it, my .22 scores skyrocketed (870's to the occasional 880's) . I went to the Hammerli after the military teams adopted it and they don't use junk. I asked Larry Carter (who used to shoot a H-215 with 2 stage trigger) about his thoughts were on a S&W model 41. He said that they were a good design and if he were going to shoot one, he'd get the barrel re-lined, a trigger job and reliability job. Buddy Chapman (Texas) used to take a 7" barrel on the M-41 and cut it down to 6". The folks who shot them with a dot, said that they were a great weight and balance.

handcycle wrote:

Question: Is it worthwhile chasing down a nice Hammerli 208?  


Handcycle

  I once had the opportunity to go to the Eley Customer Range in the UK to batch test TENEX in three Hammerli pistols.  The day I was there they had seventeen lots to test.  Each pistol performed best with a different lot, and each was capable of sub one inch groups at 50 meters.  Every lot easily held the ten ring.

  My conclusion was that lot to lot variability of ammunition, even in a product as consistent as TENEX, is more important than most folks realize.

  IF you're interested in a Hammerli 208 International, PM me 

Colt711 wrote:

RoyDean wrote:Hmmm.

As an outside observer of this matter I must say that there seem to be far more "problem" questions regarding 41's on this forum than any other model/brand.

 But, just to confound my opinion, I was recently able to shoot HM level scores with cheap ammo in a box stock Rugger 22/45 that cost $240 - so all of the guns can do the job - if you can do the job!

Likely there are more 41's being used which might partially account for your observation. That being said when I started shooting BE the 1st S&W auto I saw was a 46 (cheaper version of the 41). The owner said it was very particular re; ammo.

Sometimes picking up a different gun will yield pleasing results. AND that Master class-ification might be be part of it!

Ron Habegger

Plus it seems that most of the Model 41 problems are from newer production.

Everyone that knows me has heard this story,  probably 2 or three times... I started with a m41 in 1998. Consistently shot 810 +/-10 for two years. My wife indicated an interest in bullseye so I bought a second hand buckmark and put a dot on it. Went to the range and shot an 855 INCLUDING sighter shots. Put the 41 on sand bags, wouldn't hold the 8 ring at 50... traded it even up for a glock 35 and never looked back... then shot the "wifes" buckmark for the next 5 years or so.

I have a M41, a Hämmerli 215, a High Standard 107, a Ruger MKIII, and a Pardini SP. I shoot the Pardini. Accuracy wise off a sandbag at 50 yards the Pardini is under an inch for 10 shots as is the 41 with a barrel relined by 10 Ring Precision. The rest will easily hold the X ring. For me the Pardini gives me the best results. I like to use the Hämmerli and 41 for EIC.

I’ve shot the 41 for many years. I’ve tried the Hamnerli and Pardini products enough to know my own preference.  All 3 guns in the right hands, with the right Ammo are capable of top scores. 

It’s a personal preference thing. Grip angle and trigger feel are, in my opinion, the most significant points of variation. Hammerli have a feel to the trigger that becomes quite familiar and predictable. That builds profound confidence and may be the only relevant difference I recognize. 

I never liked the Pardini trigger ergonomics. The Hammerli had more travel than my 41. Preference…not better or worse. 

Buy the 208, source the weights, pay big bucks for half a dozen mags then put that stuff behind you and bring your bullseye game higher.  If the new pistol inspires you to put in the work on the firing line, the choice was a good one.

Ed Hall wrote:

handcycle wrote:Question: Is it worthwhile chasing down a nice Hammerli 208?  

Handcycle

Ed Hall
IMNSHO, the accuracy claims are BS!  The 208(s) was never built to be accurate at that distance.  It was built as a 25 meter gun.  It would still put ten rounds in the X-ring with Eley Tenex ammo at 50 yards, but it used most of the ring.  A relined barrel can make that group tighter, 

What the 208(s) did bring to the table was a set of adjustments that made the trigger action quite pleasant.

Parts are a valid concern.  But, as for the magazines, you can actually use the M41 magazines with a little work.

The trigger of the 208(s) is the real issue.  But, other guns have good triggers.  Some have lots of adjustability.  This would come down to a personal preference.  

Ed,
In view of your comments (which I have edited here) I would judge the answer to be the 41 IF modified as follows or close to it. Brl shortened to 6" and relined by a CAPABLE 'smith, trigger job & reliabilty work as required.  Grips or frame mods & weight added or subtracted to suit the shooter. Were the 208 still in production this might not be the answer. The result should suit most of us and parts etc wouldn't be a problem.

Ron Habegger

'Accurate', and 'Precision', are 2 different things ... to some people. That said ...

Whichever has the better match of ammo to barrel on any particular day. Aside from the 'lemon' possibility.

And a 3/4"@50yds 208 would look like a plinker to a rifle shooter. My 10-22 will do better than that, and it doesn't need Tenex or a machine rest to do it. Shooting offhand, I'm much better with it than any pistol. So is that 'accuracy', or 'precision'? Or ???????

FWIW, I shoot it better offhand than my heavy barrel Anschutz 1710. Same goes for a friends-friend's CZ Trainer with open sights I tried. Better balanced ... should have got the 'Silhouette' model with the tapered barrel. Off the bench would be a totally different story. But, I could probably, on a good day, beat them all with my 2013 with 'irons'.

I just got a Volquartsen extractor for my M-41. Looking forward to seeing if it helps with my malfunction problems. As much as I love my FWuB, the 41 feels better balanced. Or the Nelson might turn out to be my go-to. I'll eventually get set up to Ransom rest them all, but I really don't think whatever comes of that will make any difference in my scores. It's a just a for fun thing, and there's no way I'm gonna test a large variety of brand/grade of ammo in each.

Ed Hall wrote:

handcycle wrote:I guess this is a popular comparison between these 2 bullseye pistols. I shoot my 41 frequently - almost weekly but had never tried the 208 before. Heard from many posts that the 208 is the most accurate bullseye .22 pistol out there.
Parts are relatively easy to find for the 41 ( Numrich gun parts ) but I am concern that if you ever need to replace any parts of the Hammerli it will be an issue of availability. The 2nd concern is cost. The 208's magazine is around $150 if you could find one. For the S&W M41 magazines are quite easy to find and at around $45 is pretty reasonable.
Question: Is it worthwhile chasing down a nice Hammerli 208?  


Handcycle

IMNSHO, the accuracy claims are BS!  The 208(s) was never built to be accurate at that distance and mine never was from the original box.  It was built as a 25 meter gun.  It would still put ten rounds in the X-ring with Eley Tenex ammo at 50 yards, but it used most of the ring.  A relined barrel can make that group tighter, but from the factory, this was not true.  I won't dispute that some of the originals might have been able to do better than mine from the factory, but that was not a given.

What the 208(s) did bring to the table was a set of adjustments that made the trigger action quite pleasant.

Parts are a valid concern.  But, as for the magazines, you can actually use the M41 magazines with a little work.

The trigger of the 208(s) is the real issue.  But, other guns have good triggers.  Some have lots of adjustability.  This would come down to a personal preference.  A lot of MA/HM competitors used a 208(s) to get there, but a lot of other MA/HMs shot some pretty good scores with other guns.  I shot my Ruger Mark II up to 880, but I made it into the 890's with the 208s.  My coach/mentor used to tell me something like, "You can shoot good scores with your Ruger, but it's easier to shoot them with the Hammerli."

Not the pedigree of Ed, but the same was echoed at the AMU and by Dave Sams.  Give the group, I'd say its pretty good info.  I've also seen some test targets from 208s that were pretty ugly.  Regardless, a re-lined barrel is only postage away if you're happy with your pistol and the accuracy is lacking in your 22.

Let me just remove this before I piss the entire forum off.

Really?????  

I have a new production (circa 2021) S&W 41. It had issues right from the factory. The sights came crooked and S&W customer service told me they didn't see a problem. It's supposed to be a famous target pistol but it's not the greatest. I had to ream the chamber to get it to function without jamming. I shouldn't have had to do that to a brand new pistol that cost me $1200 + shipping + transfer fee. 

A lot of other people are having problems with the new S&W 41 pistols. Lots of problems with the chamber being made too tight and it won't cycle or is extremely picky about ammo. My 41 is still really picky with ammo, but since I reamed the chamber, at least it goes into battery and doesn't jam. It's finally a match-worthy pistol since I worked on it. The accuracy is good. Here are some groups I shot with a sandbag rest.







I have a Nelson conversion and it is equally as accurate as the S&W 41. I've won EIC points with both pistols. If I had to choose which one is better, I'd side with the Nelson conversion. Both hold the x-ring at 25 yards and the 10-ring at 50 yards, from a sandbag, with iron sights.

GME wrote:Really?????  

 Yes really, but , I will also add that the M41 is a POS compared to Hammerli.
This is echoed across the internet by people who know.
I've had two M41's and Both were garbage and not accurate.

I've had two Hammerli 208's............One international and my current 208S. Both were/are mind blowing accurate and super reliable.

Wat Ed Hall said but further more, there's a difference between precision and shoot ability. Performance with it in your hand matters.  Yes the newer 41s are questionable quality but the best targets l ever shot were with a 1960s vintage 41. As a MK class shooter, spend your time shooting. It's good to find a spare that you are confident with. Good luck