May 29, 2013, 05:03 PM | #26 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
Throttle back on the condescension son. Some of us have been shooting and handloading for big bore revolvers for a long time. Long enough to not be impressed by the guys making noise at the range with the biggest cannon they can afford. No, I do not own one or want one, or a .454 for that matter. I've also been around the block enough to know that I do not have to own one to have a valid opinion of them. I believe in diameter and mass and do not worship velocity and energy. A sixgun is supposed to be portable and packable, which means it is just fine riding in a belt holster. Whether it's a .22LR or a .500. The X-frames are neither portable nor packable. They are impressive on paper to teenagers but paper doesn't get the job done. Like I've already said, they're great if you don't mind hauling around a 5-6lb gun that shoots flat to 200yds but very few need that and fewer still can actually utilize it. So the wiser among us use no more than we need and let the chest thumpers haul around the biggest, most user-unfriendly monstrosities available.
|
May 29, 2013, 05:37 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 778
|
Sorry Brian, Will do.
Last edited by saleen322; May 29, 2013 at 06:24 PM. |
May 29, 2013, 05:46 PM | #28 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
Impressive, yet irrelevant array of trophies. Which one of those trophies proves that .460 X-frames are good for deer at 100yds? I could show you 20 Olympic gold medals and it wouldn't make my opinion, on this subject, any more valid.
So, are we gonna talk about guns or turn this into a measuring contest??? Quote:
You think my NOT owning one makes my opinion invalid. Well that's interesting but doesn't really address the issue, does it? I think your owning one makes you heavily biased, perhaps even blinded. People will go a long way to justify their decisions, particularly when money is involved. Last edited by newfrontier45; May 29, 2013 at 05:59 PM. |
|
May 29, 2013, 06:11 PM | #29 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Let's stay out of the urination contests, gentlemen. If you need to have that conversation, please take it to Private Messages.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
May 29, 2013, 08:00 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
|
|
May 29, 2013, 09:20 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
For deer? Either one will kill any deer made so instead look at the platforms offered and see which handgun fits you better. Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
May 29, 2013, 09:42 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,323
|
Quote:
Might be a little big to carry on your belt. The long cylinder turns me off. But the more I read these 460 S&W thread, the more I may make an exception. Maybe in a year or so on the 460 for me. I am still getting used to the 475/480 BFR. These 460 thread are as much fun as bear threads! |
|
May 30, 2013, 06:59 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 121
|
This is a picture of my target of a bear charging me from 25 yards away. The gun is a S&W 460 Magnum and the three rounds fired were 300 grain 454s. I shot this snubbie off hand to compare the .454 to the 460 magnum rounds that I had used to sight in the gun. As the picture shows, the 454s shot slightly to the right of my point of aim. The below Youtube video shows me shooting the first round (under tape 1" above other two rounds) at the target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ10KIdDRwo Mark |
May 30, 2013, 08:08 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
BubbaBlades - I don't think I'd want to shoot 460's out of your Smith. That's gotta hurt. Those 454s look plenty painful. I love your charging bear! |
|
May 30, 2013, 08:32 AM | #35 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
Quote:
|
|
May 30, 2013, 01:44 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 778
|
I really bought the .460 because I heard from folks I trust that it was accurate. If Smith did not come out with the .460, I would have most likely bought a .454 at some time. I shot a lot of silhouette in the 80s into the early 90s and learned a lot about revolvers during that time. We started out with most folks in revolver class shooting mostly Rugers and Smiths in 44 mag. When Dan Wesson came out with the .357 Super Mag, the game changed and it became the revolver to beat. When the FA .454 Casull first showed up, it was competitive right out of the box. No one had a doubt it would knock the 50-60 lb rams down but the old heads watched what how well it hit the turkeys at 150 meters. Those were the toughest targets to hit due to their shape and they were far enough away to make it hard. The .454 impressed me with its accuracy as it was at least as accurate as the Super Mag that had been developed for years if not more so. When I got the .460, it was more accurate than my Dan Wesson after just a little load development. A very impressive round.
As far as deer hunting with a .460 (or a .454 for that matter), I think both are good choices. They are powerful for a revolver round but around when I live anyway, only about 5% of the hunters in gun season use a handgun and even fewer use a shotgun. So 90%+ are using rifles. A common rifle, a 30-06, can easily have 500-1000 ft/lbs more energy than a .460 and folks don't consider that over gunned. So it is all in how you look at the big picture. Hope this helps. |
June 1, 2013, 12:53 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 3,341
|
There is, in my opinion, not a single deer anywhere in the 48 contiguous stages that cannot be cleanly and humanely taken with a 45 Colt (loaded to the more powerful levels, not the old Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting levels).
The 454 is harder to control, practice with and more expensive to feed if you don't handload. The 460 is harder to control, practice with and more expensive to feed if you don't handload. The more powerful rounds do reach out to farther distances, but not significatly so (in my opinion) as the sight radius is usually the limiting factor in the clean, humane kill criteria. The 460 does shoot significantly flatter, though, making distance adjustments simpler (as mentioned before in another post). The more powerful rounds require heavier, less packable guns. The more powerful rounds require more tolerance for recoil and often induce shooters to flinch (so require more practice) A scoped 460 Smith vs a similarly scoped 454 Casull vs a similarly scoped 45 Colt will do better, sure. Is it worth the extra trouble? I think not. Lost Sheep |
June 1, 2013, 01:18 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2012
Posts: 114
|
This is just my oppinion on the matter: I have a 8 3/8 460 Mag XVR, 454 Casull SRH, and two Ruger .44 mags.
When it comes to hunting, I use a Ruger SBH Hunter Bisley in .44 mag. The .44 Mag has dropped elephants. How much gun do you need especially when you consider humane handgun distances? I bought the 460 to hunt elk with someday but I doubt I seriously will. I later really learned to appreciate its accuracy. I also bought it because I just wanted it and I had the cash at the time. It is fun hitting sillhouettes at 300+ yards though. I would never take a hunting shot at that distance..! My SRH 454 actually has more recoil than the .460. The 454 is a great round. I like it very much. I actually got the gun NIB for the trade of a rifle that I had that I no longer shot or wanted. Weight is a factor. The .44 Mag and .454 weigh in the 50+ ounce range not counting optics. The X-frames weigh 70+ ounces empty. The 460 has its place though. It gives 45-70 level performance in a handgun. Some folks like that factor. I later realized it was too much power for practical use. I may use it for that purpose some day but not for a while. I want to master handgun hunting before I try it on an expensive hunt. I will keep them all. I love big bore revolvers. I am a recoil junkie and I have a problem....... |
June 1, 2013, 08:32 AM | #39 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,323
|
Quote:
You are obviously a 45 Colt fan. That's fine. I like the 41 magnum. It will also take any game animal in the lower 48. But I have chosen the 480 Ruger in the SRH platform. Quote:
|
||
June 1, 2013, 09:14 AM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
June 1, 2013, 11:10 AM | #41 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
The big X-frames and long frame BFR's really move away from traditional, packable revolvers and are more in the category of dedicated hunting guns like T/C Contenders, Encores, XP-100's and the like.
|
June 1, 2013, 05:42 PM | #42 |
Member
Join Date: February 4, 2013
Posts: 24
|
I've got another question what would some of the 240 grain Hornady 454's get to in velocity from a longer carbine barrel
like 23 inches or so they advertise 1900 fps from a handgun, not sure what barrel length that is |
June 1, 2013, 09:15 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Just a SWAG I'd say 2200-2300 fps.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
|
June 4, 2013, 07:06 PM | #44 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
|
Quote:
...and they are. Took three friends to my range last weekend. All shoot handguns occasionally. We shot my .357s and .44s at hangin' bowling pins from 40 yards and they hit them shooting the 686s and the 629s with about half their rounds, using a bench and a rest. Moved back to 75 yards to shoot the handgun caliber carbines and I brought out the X-Frame. All three hit the bowlin' pin with every round in the cylinder, and this was the first time any of them had ever shot a .460. This was with irons, not scoped. Coincidence? Not to us that shoot X-Frames. Quote:
If one does handload, the cost of loading .460 cases is virtually the same as loading any other .45 caliber. If one doesn't handload, legitimate hunting ammo for .45LC can be quite expensive also. The PC X-Frames themselves are no more expensive to buy than their PC counterparts in .44 and .357. Quote:
I have been hunting deer with gun and bow since the early sixties. I find it funny other folks think they know what's better for me, than I do, for hunting my style, in the areas I hunt. I have hunted and killed deer with .357s, .44s and the .460. All do a fine job in their own right. All have their limitations and all have their advantages. I feel no need whatsoever to justify my choices to anyone else but myself. Unlike some folks here, I also feel no need to criticize others on their choices. Dance with the girl you brung and enjoy, and let the guy next to you do the same. |
|||
June 4, 2013, 08:38 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 1,293
|
|
June 5, 2013, 10:12 AM | #46 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
Quote:
And the X-frames of comparable barrel length are actually still heavier than the Walker. Try again, we almost believed you. Quote:
|
||
June 5, 2013, 07:27 PM | #47 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 5, 2013, 07:43 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 1,293
|
Quote:
|
|
June 5, 2013, 09:32 PM | #49 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, if you're gonna use history to make your point, at least educate yourself on it. Quote:
|
|||
June 5, 2013, 10:25 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 857
|
I really like my .460 X-frame. I have the 5-inch barrel model, and it's not that difficult to carry in a Diamond D cross chest holster. The cross chest holster is far more practical than a belt holster for any type of revolver if you're carrying when it's cold as you can wear it on the outside of your outer garment.
While the X-frame is a big, heavy gun when compared to N-frame Smiths or even the Super Red Hawk - you can easily carry it in the cross chest holster all day. I have the holster setup with a pouch on the cross chest belt with two speed loaders, so I have 15 rounds available. I often shoot 360 grain, 1900 fps rounds and the perceived recoil is not as bad as the heavy .44 magnums from the Ruger Super Redhawk. My only criticism of the gun is the trigger, at least on my gun, was terrible from the factory and needed attention from a smith to get it to a point where the gun was usable in double action. I have always liked big magnum pistols and the .460 is one of the best I have ever owned. When I was first sighting it in, I kept moving the target back and finally got it to 30 yards and put three consecutive rounds into the center of the bullseye. It is accurate, the recoil is manageable, and if you have the holster setup correctly it is practical to carry in the field. I would buy one again with no hesitation - I just wish I had gotten it sooner. It is a great revolver. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|