Ruger 500 magnum

[jackmoser65]

Also, IDK if the Ruger cast frames can handle the .500 Magnum. Not without them having to make an even larger frame and go from the Super Redhawk boat anchor to a small asteroid.

(The Redhawk and Super Redhawk don't have large enough diameter cylinders.)

Now that right there is funny! The Ruger is a proven platform with caliber conversions, up to and including 500 linebaugh and JRH. All they had to do to accommodate SIX ROUNDS of 65kpsi 454 is to change the alloy used in the cylinder. Smith and Wesson had to design an even larger frame in addition to the added length. The only thing the Ruger lacks for the S&W cartridge is length. Ruger could real easy lengthen the Super to make room for the 500 S&W and it'd be a pound lighter than Smith's cartoon character. The bottom line is that there's nothing the S&W can do that the JRH can't do in a shorter and lighter package.

Those are great velocities but not as much more as I would have thought. I guess once the barrel gets to a certain length, it's time for rifle powders.......

That's not how it works.

[FrankenMauser]

Now that right there is funny! The Ruger is a proven platform with caliber conversions, up to and including 500 linebaugh and JRH. All they had to do to accommodate SIX ROUNDS of 65kpsi 454 is to change the alloy used in the cylinder.

.454 Casull is not .500 S&W.
Aftermarket conversions are not done by Ruger.
You're mixing and matching dissimilar concepts.

Just because someone like Bowen will turn a new cylinder and chamber a new cartridge doesn't mean that Ruger will do it.

Ruger has already established, during the .480 Ruger thin cylinder wall "scandal" (and their waffling between 6-shot and 5-shot models), that that is the largest diameter cylinder they are willing to fit to a Redhawk or Super Redhawk. ...And it isn't big enough for .500 S&W. No matter how many times you squint, tilt your head, change the lighting, or make wishful statements on the internet, what Ruger says is the largest cylinder they will fit to a RH or SRH cannot contain .500 S&W. There isn't enough meat for a suitable cylinder wall.

[BBarn]

There are two issues that would need to be overcome to do a Ruger in 500 S&W. First is cartridge length, the current Ruger Super Blackhawk and Super Redhawk frames being too short for the round. Second is cylinder diameter.

The 500 S&W Magnum requires a cylinder length beyond the current Ruger SBH and SRH frame opening, so a new longer frame would be required. Cylinder diameter would also need to be increased, about .080” in the case of the SRH to match that of S&W's X frame. So the frame height would also likely need to increase as well as the frame length.

Using the current Ruger cylinder diameters also presents some issues related to pressure. While some larger caliber conversions have been done (mostly with the SBH), those were done with pressure and cylinder dimensions in mind.

Here are the operating pressures of some of the rounds for comparison:

454 Casull - 65,000 PSI
460 S&W - 65,000 PSI
480 Ruger - 48,000 PSI
475 Linebaugh - 50,000 PSI
500 Linebaugh - 30,000 PSI
500 S&W - 60,000 PSI

So while larger caliber conversions have been done using the Rugers, they have been done with consideration to cylinder/frame length and pressure capabilities.

I'm sure Ruger could increase the frame size of one of their “Supers” to accommodate larger calibers. Perhaps they might if convinced it's worth the investment.

[jackmoser65]

.454 Casull is not .500 S&W.
Aftermarket conversions are not done by Ruger.
You're mixing and matching dissimilar concepts.

Just because someone like Bowen will turn a new cylinder and chamber a new cartridge doesn't mean that Ruger will do it.

Ruger has already established, during the .480 Ruger thin cylinder wall "scandal" (and their waffling between 6-shot and 5-shot models), that that is the largest diameter cylinder they are willing to fit to a Redhawk or Super Redhawk. ...And it isn't big enough for .500 S&W. No matter how many times you squint, tilt your head, change the lighting, or make wishful statements on the internet, what Ruger says is the largest cylinder they will fit to a RH or SRH cannot contain .500 S&W. There isn't enough meat for a suitable cylinder wall.

No but you're clearly speaking out of ignorance. You know, not everybody is sitting here guessing or constructing theories. I don't know what this business is of changing cylinder diameters. All Ruger Super Redhawks have the same diameter cylinder. Only the alloy was changed in the 454 & 480 models. I have two 500 JRH's and three Super Redhawks here in front of me. The BFR is already made in 500 Smith and it's only a stretched Ruger single action frame. It's beefier on the outside but the lockwork and cylinder geometry is the same. Its cylinder is 1.785", while the Super Redhawk is 1.795". The Ruger would only need to be a five shot to work. I'm just glad we have so many wannabe engineers to tell us what Ruger can and can't do.

The 500 Smith is a silly cartridge and Ruger would do better to legitimize the JRH instead.

[BBarn]

Originally Posted by jackmoser65

The Ruger would only need to be a five shot to work.

Originally Posted by jackmoser65

I'm just glad we have so many wannabe engineers to tell us what Ruger can and can't do.

[jackmoser65]

Yes but I provided irrefutable proof in response to the uninformed theories. I don't have to be a "wannabe". I can talk to those who actually are. How many conversations have you had with the people who actually build these guns???

[BBarn]

With your warm charm and connections, I'm surprised you haven't convinced Ruger to build a .50 cal revolver.

[FrankenMauser]

All bow in the presence of the only "wannabe engineer" on the internet that matters.

All hail moser!

[jackmoser65]

FACT: You said Ruger's cylinder wasn't large enough in diameter.

FACT: It's bigger than the BFR's cylinder which is already made in 500 Smith.

FACT: You were wrong.

FACT: All the deflection, snide comments and armchair quarterbacking in the world won't change the above three facts.

[ruggyh]

My 500 JRH conversion (on Ruger frame) done by Jack Hunting himself has a 5 shoot cylinder as do my(2) 500 JRH BFRs, (3) 460 S&W BFR, and (1) 500 S&W BFR.

Per my conversations with Jack Huntington and John Linebaugh they all turn custom cylinders as opposed to boring Casuall cylinders due to strength issues.

Personally I have not seen any 6 shoot 500 caliber conversion or production
handgun.

All the 500 caliber revolvers pictured and mention in Gun Digest Book of Hunting Revolvers are 5 shoot.

and opinions are not fact.

You are correct in that the original 480 was a 6 shoot but you should know that was discontinued due to cylinder failures and operates at much lower pressure than any 500 caliber cartridge. The new Ruger Blackhawks 480s are all 5 shoot.

Even the alloy used in the 454 cylinders will not tolerate the decrease in wall thickness and increase in pressure.

be safe
Ruggy

[ruggyh]

be safe

[jackmoser65]

I didn't state opinion as fact. I stated fact as fact.

Nobody said a 500 should be a six shot. It would have to be five. That is not even in question.

The original 480's were discontinued for sticky extraction. Not cylinder failures. A handful of five shot 480's were shipped. They are catalogued right now as a six shot.

The Bisley Super Blackhawk 454 and 480 is not even part of this discussion. They are five shot because their cylinders are significantly smaller than the Redhawk and Super Redhawk.

[ruggyh]

The Bisley Super Blackhawk 454 and 480 is not even part of this discussion.

Respectifully - you are the one who referenced these-your post #26

The Ruger is a proven platform with caliber conversions, up to and including 500 linebaugh and JRH. All they had to do to accommodate SIX ROUNDS of 65kpsi 454 is to change the alloy used in the cylinder. Smith and Wesson had to design an even larger frame in addition to the added length. The only thing the Ruger lacks for the S&W cartridge is length. Ruger could real easy lengthen the Super to make room for the 500 S&W and it'd be a pound lighter than Smith's cartoon character. The bottom line is that there's nothing the S&W can do that the JRH can't do in a shorter and lighter package.

From my prospective any manufacture including Ruger could produce a gun capable of chambering the 500 S&W

S&W chose to build the X-frame for a number of reasons important to them.

Your opinion such as "cartonish" is just that your opinion and has not stopped the success of the production or adoption of the cartridge.

Being lighter doesn't make a gun better.

Nothing wrong with the 500 JRH (or any other big bore cartridges mentioned in this thread) but it is not a 500 S&W ballisticly- not even close (no disrespect to the 500JRH).

Bottom line-Revolvers and their cartridges will continue to evolve whether we like the results or not.

be safe
Ruggy

[ruggyh]

The original 480's were discontinued for sticky extraction. Not cylinder failures. A handful of five shot 480's were shipped. They are catalogued right now as a six shot.

A typo on their part

[FrankenMauser]

You are correct in that the original 480 was a 6 shoot but you should know that was discontinued due to cylinder failures and operates at much lower pressure than any 500 caliber cartridge. The new Ruger Blackhawks 480s are all 5 shoot.

The Blackhawks may be, but Super Redhawks are not.

A typo on their part

No. It is not.
He is correct. (We may disagree on other things, but he is correct that the SRH is not a 5-shot.)
The Super Redhawks started as 6-shots, then went to 5-shot for a short time, and returned to 6-shot again.* When later returned to production after several years of discontinuation, they were brought back as 6-shot, yet again.
The current SRH .480s are 6-shot, just as advertised. It is not a typo.

*There are some claims that a second 5-shot run was made, but Ruger disagrees.

[jackmoser65]

Respectifully - you are the one who referenced these-your post #26

No I did not.

A typo on their part

How do you figure that?

S&W chose to build the X-frame for a number of reasons important to them.

Your opinion such as "cartonish" is just that your opinion and has not stopped the success of the production or adoption of the cartridge.

Being lighter doesn't make a gun better.

Nothing wrong with the 500 JRH (or any other big bore cartridges mentioned in this thread) but it is not a 500 S&W ballisticly- not even close (no disrespect to the 500JRH).

Bottom line-Revolvers and their cartridges will continue to evolve whether we like the results or not.

Popularity often stands in stark contrast to all logic and reason. They're obviously marketed to those easily impressed by numbers. Why Smith chose to build it is irrelevant. The point is that there is no point to their 500. All that pressure and velocity serves no useful purpose, unless your only purpose is to make noise and impress your less knowledgeable friends. It doesn't make the cartridge more effective. I hope that Ruger never even considers building a gun around it.

[laytonj1]

jackmoser65: They're obviously marketed to those easily impressed by numbers.

Of course they are. They all are. That is why folks like you pay big money for things like 500JRH conversions.

After all, is a well placed 500 JRH or S&W going to kill an animal any deader than a well placed 475 L , 480 R, 454 C or even a 44 M for that matter?
Are you actually hunting cape buffalo in Africa with that 500JRH or just punching paper and dreaming?

All that pressure and velocity serves no useful purpose, unless your only purpose is to make noise and impress your less knowledgeable friends.

That's the great thing about reloading (and I'm assuming most folks with .50 cal handguns do) you can load it down to 50 special or all the way up to full power. But, I would think you would already know that, right?
If you don't like the gun (S&W's X frame) that's fine, but don't attack the cartridge because of it.

Jim

[jackmoser65]

Are you actually hunting cape buffalo in Africa with that 500JRH...

Yep.

That's the great thing about reloading.....

Which would be fine if the gun wasn't five pounds and as handy as a 10 pound sledgehammer.

If you don't like the gun (S&W's X frame) that's fine, but don't attack the cartridge because of it.

What is the purpose of this thread? Postulating about whether or not Ruger would or should adopt the cartridge and......wait for it.......why? If one thinks the cartridge is a whole lot of unnecessary weight, bulk, pressure and noise, isn't that a good enough reason? Are people looking for a discussion or a strokefest? It's funny that people talk all the time about how gun rags are nothing but fluff pieces for manufacturers and they never print a negative review but in person to person exchanges, they really can't handle negative commentary.