The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29, 2013, 05:03 PM   #26
newfrontier45
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.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 05:37 PM   #27
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 267
Sorry Brian, Will do.

Last edited by saleen322; May 29, 2013 at 06:24 PM.
saleen322 is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 05:46 PM   #28
newfrontier45
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:
I trust the readers of the posts have figured out which of us know what we are talking about.
If I don't know what I'm talking about, then exactly what have I posted that is incorrect or untrue? My basic point is that unless you're shooting deer at 150-200yds, the .460 is unnecessary. Unnecessary weight, recoil, muzzle blast and expense. The X-frames cost quite a bit more than your average standard chambering and are more expensive to feed. If I don't know what I'm talking about, does that mean that it is necessary? Please explain.

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.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 06:11 PM   #29
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,298
Let's stay out of the urination contests, gentlemen. If you need to have that conversation, please take it to Private Messages.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old May 29, 2013, 08:00 PM   #30
Gdawgs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Posts: 555
Quote:
IMHO, 99% of the so-called advantages espoused by .460 owners are inventions designed to justify their purchase. "Because I want one" is a perfectly legitimate reason for owning one and I don't condemn anyone for doing so. I just don't want any would-be first time handgun hunters to think they "need" such a monstrosity to kill deer.
Hello, my name is Gdawgs. I am addicted to big guns. I bought a 460 just because I wanted one.

Gdawgs is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 09:20 PM   #31
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
454 casull vs 460 sw
Hmmm. 16 inch gun .vs. 18 inch gun. Which would be better?

For deer? Either one will kill any deer made so instead look at the platforms offered and see which handgun fits you better.

Deaf
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is online now  
Old May 29, 2013, 09:42 PM   #32
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Hello, my name is Gdawgs. I am addicted to big guns. I bought a 460 just because I wanted one.
Damned good reason. Did you try two rings and then go to three rings? How does that hawg shoot?

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!
22-rimfire is offline  
Old May 30, 2013, 06:59 AM   #33
BubbaBlades
Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2013
Posts: 53


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
BubbaBlades is offline  
Old May 30, 2013, 08:08 AM   #34
Gdawgs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Posts: 555
Quote:
Did you try two rings and then go to three rings? How does that hawg shoot?
I went to three rings right away. After doing some research on scopes, several people recommended three rings, so that's what I did. It shoots well if you do your part. Shooting heavy recoiling monsters is not easy, at least not for me. It's real easy to develop a flinch and not realize you are doing it. I have been able to shoot a .5" group (four shots, fifth shot was a flyer) at 50 yds with it. Haven't gotten it to the 100 yd range yet.

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!
Gdawgs is offline  
Old May 30, 2013, 08:32 AM   #35
newfrontier45
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
Quote:
I am addicted to big guns. I bought a 460 just because I wanted one.
Like I said, ain't nothin' wrong with that! I'm about to have a Bisley flat-top .500JRH built and will use it for deer hunting mostly. Not because I think I need one to slay Bambi but just because I want one. A 440gr at 1000fps ought to do the job.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old May 30, 2013, 01:44 PM   #36
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 267
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.
saleen322 is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 12:53 AM   #37
Lost Sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 2,963
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
Lost Sheep is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 01:18 AM   #38
codefour
Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2012
Posts: 76
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.......
codefour is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 08:32 AM   #39
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Lost Sheep said...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.
I pretty much agree with your post except for the last statement "I think not.". I decided that the big heavy revolvers are the way to go with the 44+ power levels. I tried carrying a rifle too, but after a few days, decided that IF I want to hunt with a handgun, then I should limit my tools to the handgun. So, the size and weight factors become less important since I am essentially comparing the handgun to a rifle/long gun at that point in terms of portability and the handgun wins, even the X-frames.

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:
Codefour said... 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.
Having never shot a 454 Casull, I really don't know. But I have and do shoot the 480 Ruger from a SRH and you have to get used to shooting them. That revolver is not the most friendly recoiling platform. I feel the same way about the Redhawk. I have little desire to learn to shoot the 454 in any platform. But some of the other >45 caliber offerings that you can shoot from a short cylinder (vs long such as the BFR) have a lot of appeal. But the power level is pretty much just a personal choice. The same reasoning applies to the larger caliber rifles, for example 45-70, and using them to hunt deer with.
22-rimfire is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 09:14 AM   #40
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
I tried carrying a rifle too, but after a few days, decided that IF I want to hunt with a handgun, then I should limit my tools to the handgun. So, the size and weight factors become less important since I am essentially comparing the handgun to a rifle/long gun at that point in terms of portability and the handgun wins, even the X-frames.
This IMHO is one of the biggest factors when comparing the 460 to .454 and other cartridges of 454 length. The 460 pretty much pushes your hand into handgun or rifle range. It's one of the things that swayed my decision to go 480 I have a choice I can use my Scoped SRH and have the ability to make most any shot I could with a 460. Or I can carry my 5 1/4" custom BFR holstered and carry a rifle.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is online now  
Old June 1, 2013, 11:10 AM   #41
newfrontier45
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.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 05:42 PM   #42
bigbore96
Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2013
Posts: 22
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
bigbore96 is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 09:15 PM   #43
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,909
Just a SWAG I'd say 2200-2300 fps.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is online now  
Old June 4, 2013, 07:06 PM   #44
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 1,928
Quote:
Originally posted by saleen322:

I really bought the .460 because I heard from folks I trust that it was accurate.

...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:
Originally posted by Lost Sheep:


The 460 is harder to control, practice with and more expensive to feed if you don't handload.
Those three gents had less of an issue with control of the X-Frame than they did with my 637. All three preferred to shoot the X-Frame with legitimate hunting loads than the J-Frame with .38s. Again, none of them had ever shot a .460 before and only occasionally shot any handgun. Still they were more accurate with the X-Frame at almost twice the distance as the milder .357s and .44s. Their accuracy with the lighter magnums was borderline for hunting deer, even at the distance of only 40 yards. With the X-Frame, all three showed enough proficiency @ 75yards to legitimately and humanely hunt deer. Again....the first time they shot the damn thing!

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:
Originally posted by newfrontier45:

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.
Exactly. This is why the argument against them using weight and size is ridiculous. Other than the snub nosed .460ES, they are not designed or intended to be carried on your hip. They are made to be supported while shot, which is how any handgun in a deer/large game hunting scenario should be shot. Funny........one of the most famous and most sought after revolver ever made, the Colt "Walker" is the same size and weight as most long piped X-Frames. It was designed in 1846. So much for the statement that revolvers were originally intended to be lightweight and "packable".

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.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old June 4, 2013, 08:38 PM   #45
TMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 466
[IMG][/IMG]

Here's my S&W PC460. My pet load is a 300gr XTP with 44 grains of Lil'Gun. It clocks just shy of 2100fps and will put all 5 shots within 1.5" @ 100yrds.
People ask me why?
I tell them "Cause I can".
TMD is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 10:12 AM   #46
newfrontier45
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
Quote:
Funny........one of the most famous and most sought after revolver ever made, the Colt "Walker" is the same size and weight as most long piped X-Frames. It was designed in 1846. So much for the statement that revolvers were originally intended to be lightweight and "packable".
Uh, yeah. I reckon you forgot the svelte Paterson guns that preceded them. Which included pocket models. As well as the 1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army that succeeded them. Accounting for production in the hundreds of thousands. In reality, the Walker was a horse pistol with VERY limited production and with very limited application. They were never intended to be carried in a belt holster but were carried by the Texas Rangers that ordered them in pommel holsters. Not very practical sixguns. They are sought after by collectors for their rarity.

And the X-frames of comparable barrel length are actually still heavier than the Walker.

Try again, we almost believed you.


Quote:
Here's my S&W PC460.
That 6lb monster would be more practical if it had a buttstock. Of course you "can" but the question is, should you? For me, that's a definite no.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 07:27 PM   #47
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 1,928
Quote:
Uh, yeah. I reckon you forgot the svelte Paterson guns that preceded them. Which included pocket models. As well as the 1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army that succeeded them. Accounting for production in the hundreds of thousands.
None of which would be considered a legitimate, primary big game hunting revolver capable of making DRT shots out to 200 yards, with no hold over. Not at all comparable to the .454 or .460. Which is what this thread was about. Iffin I remember correctly, the most popular Paterson had a 9'' barrel and it also was made in a 12'' "Buntline" Model. Not exactly pocket guns, but guns designed for accuracy and to make better use of the black-powder used. They were also heavy when compared to the relatively anemic round it fired. But unlike today, there wasn't much else out there. Today we have a myriad of calibers and platforms to chose from and guns designed for specific purposes and needs. .454s, .460s and other really big bores fall into that category. While they are not for everybody, they do have their place. If they didn't, they would be like the Paterson's and Walker's.....history.

Quote:
That 6lb monster would be more practical if it had a buttstock. Of course you "can" but the question is, should you?
Seems you tend to Troll threads that deal with calibers and firearms you do not own. Almost as if you're trying to validate your choices by trashin' others. Thank goodness not everyone here is like that, nor do others here lower themselves to your level. Not everyone here has the same priorities nor the same desires that you have. Must be what makes us all individuals. Seems contradictory at a time like this, that one should be critical of fellow gun owners simply because of their caliber/platform choice.....but as I said before, we all have our priorities.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 07:43 PM   #48
TMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 466
Quote:
That 6lb monster would be more practical if it had a buttstock. Of course you "can" but the question is, should you? For me, that's a definite no.
Actually with the scope, 3 rings, and bi-pod its a tad over 7 lbs.
TMD is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 09:32 PM   #49
newfrontier45
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
Quote:
None of which would be considered a legitimate, primary big game hunting revolver capable of making DRT shots out to 200 yards, with no hold over. Not at all comparable to the .454 or .460. Which is what this thread was about.
Uh, okay, you did bring up the Walker, remember. It is also, far as I can tell, still supposed to be a "hand" gun.


Quote:
Iffin I remember correctly, the most popular Paterson had a 9'' barrel and it also was made in a 12'' "Buntline" Model.
I don't think you could call any of them "popular" as the Paterson venture was an utter failure.

Dude, if you're gonna use history to make your point, at least educate yourself on it.


Quote:
Almost as if you're trying to validate your choices by trashin' others.
No sir, just trying to present a contrasting point of view. Otherwise, folks might think you need .460's to slay Bambi at 50yds. Sorry if I can't jump on your hypewagon. Sorry if I challenge you to present "why" someone needs a .460 to shoot deer. They don't, which is my point. Which was always my point. Being that if you don't need to shoot 200yds, you don't "need" a .460. If you just want one, well that's a different matter entirely. Grow up.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 10:25 PM   #50
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 386
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.
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14358 seconds with 7 queries