454 casull vs 460 sw

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by newfrontier45:

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.

If you go back and reread my post again, you may note that nowhere did I say anything about the Paterson being a popular revolver. My statement was that from the Paterson line, the model with the 9'' barrel was one of the more popular models. My education is fine. The problem seems to be with your reading and comprehension skills.

Originally posted by newfrontier45:

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.

You keep saying folks claim they need a .460 to kill deer @ 50 yards, but I have not seen anyone state that anywhere in this thread. Folks don't need a ought-six to kill a deer @ 50 yards, but many still do. Maybe you need to chastise them also. Most folks tend to take the firearm they feel they need to accomplish the job at the longest range they may encounter in that outing. If there is a chance they may need to make a shot @ 150-200 yards, they take the appropriate firearm. Has nuttin' to do with hype, just the desire to make a clean and humane kill. While they may wish for a closer shot, and odds are they may have a closer opportunity, they are only preparing themselves for a longer one. Why is that a point to criticize? Some of us practice and are accurate to that range with the appropriate handgun, so there really is no reason to limit ourselves to much less. For those that don't and aren't, yes, they should limit their range to accommodate their skill level. When I hunt deer with my recurve, I limit myself to 20 yard shots. When I hunt with my compound, I limit myself to 40 yards, but that don't mean I'm foolish to take a 10 yard shot with either....or does it?

As for growing up, I'm not the one calling other folks "dude" on a social forum. I''m not the one criticizing others for their choices, nor am I continuing to belittle and make condescending statements to others after the mods have asked me to quit.

[mavracer]

My statement was that from the Paterson line, the model with the 9'' barrel was one of the more popular models. My education is fine.

Maybe not the Colt Patterson only had a 7 1/2" barrel. For the record the Walker did have a 9" barrel and weighed a bout the same as a 8 3/8" X frame but was designed to carry on the pommel of a horse.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Maybe not the Colt Patterson only had a 7 1/2" barrel. For the record the Walker did have a 9" barrel and weighed a bout the same as a 8 3/8" X frame but was designed to carry on the pommel of a horse.

Since you seem to be a stickler for factual accuracy, you make want to note that horses do not have pommels. Saddles have pommels.

[mavracer]

Since you seem to be a stickler for factual accuracy, you make want to note that horses do not have pommels. Saddles have pommels.

You're right I shouldn't assume posters here know that the saddle isn't really part of the horse. I guess I'd also need to point out that they would have actually been carried in holsters hung from said pommel and not held to the pommel with velcro.
Thanks for the catch.

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by mavracer:

Maybe not, the Colt Patterson only had a 7 1/2" barrel.

Since I'll be the first to admit I have been know to be mistaken once or twice over the years, you had me wonderin' if this might be the third.......So I Googled "Paterson Revolver barrel lengths" and this is what I found.....

I apologize to the OP for going off topic. Only reason I brought up the Walker and the 9'' barreled Paterson was to show folks that the idea of using a long pipe for accuracy and a heavy frame to tame recoil is not new.

Years ago when I was young and foolish, I used to have a problem with folks that shot rifle caliber TCs and those bolt action rifles with their stock cut off like the XP-100s and wanting to call them "hunting handguns". As I aged, I realized they were just like me, wanting to enjoy a sport, with a tool they enjoyed and felt confident with. While they aren't a tradional type handgun, they too are more of a challenge for deer than a regular long gun and take a tad more skill and self control. I realized too that folks with a difference of opinion didn't make either me or them wrong.....just different. Nowadays, as long as folks hunt legally and ethically, I could give a crap about what firearm they use.

Back in High School in the mid sixties, like many young wannabe hunters, I got conned into joining the "Outdoor Life Book Club". While it was a major mistake on my part, it did give me the opportunity to read a book by Robert Ruark titled, "Use enough Gun". It was a enjoyable read and probably had more influence on my choices in hunting weapons than I ever realized.

[mavracer]

Only reason I brought up the Walker and the 9'' barreled Paterson was to show folks that the idea of using a long pipe for accuracy and a heavy frame to tame recoil is not new.

I appologize also as I figured out a while back that the OP is talking about a carbine any way.
Only reason I made the counter point about the Walker was to show that they really wern't that practical given their weight and extreme size.

I used to have a problem with folks that shot rifle caliber TCs and those bolt action rifles with their stock cut off like the XP-100s and wanting to call them "hunting handguns".

I've never had a problem with them, only problem I have is if they are convienently left out of the story to make the hunter seem more impressive.

While they aren't a tradional type handgun, they too are more of a challenge for deer than a regular long gun and take a tad more skill and self control.

IMHO That depends on the rest of the story too.
To me a 200 yard shot from a blind using a rest with TMD's gun would take less skill and self control than a 150 yard shot standing offhand with a iron sighted rifle.


As to your mistakes since Ed Judson Sr didn't adopt the pen nam Ned Buntline, for which the Colt "peacemaker" Buntline special was named, until 1844. you might want another source.

[newfrontier45]

Probably ought not trust your source because Ned Buntline would've been around 13 or 14yrs old when Colt opened the Paterson factory.

The first model Paterson revolver was a little .28cal pocket pistol. The No. 2 belt model was a whopping .31cal, as was No. 3. The No. 4 was another .28 pocket model. The No. 5 was produced in higher numbers and a .36cal. Most were NOT 9" long. What any of this has to do with the current discussion is beyond me.

[Brian Pfleuger]

What it has to do with he current discussion is that folks keep feeling the need to get in the last word.

The topic is 454 vs 460. Lets get back on it.

There won't be any more friendly reminders. Two in one thread is more than enough.

[JTMcC]

Good grief this is stupid.

If someone wants a large revolver, or a small rifle, or a mid size carbine : ) , what is it to you?????

They aren't invading your home, stealing your gold dubloons to buy it. They aren't forcing you to carry, shoot, reload the caliber they enjoy.

Stuff black powder down the front, load .500 mag thru the back, pull .22's outta the box as fast as you can, black rifle, walnut rifle, .357 or .460, gasp 12 ga. WHO CARES. It's your life, live it the way you want. AShoot whatever you want.

Shooters have a lot bigger problems than caliber choice or weight of the gun to deal with today.

Just plumb flat stupid. Shoot whatever makes you happy. And let others do the same. You're an idiot to do otherwise.

J

I'll add that I don't own a .460, .480, .500, Walker, but if I decide it would be fun, and I have the funds, then it's nobody's bizness but mine, even if I only bust balloons out back. Come to think of it, I need a large bore balloon defense weapon.

[newfrontier45]

what is it to you?????

Ummmm, this is a discussion board and he did ask for opinions.

[Winchester_73]

A few years ago, when I was new to this forum, I asked questions regarding long range shooting with my 460 XVR, and I was chastised for it then, even though I admittedly knew that I lacked the skill to do it. I wanted to know in so many words if it was a practical goal, something worth attempting to attain. Because of this experience, I never did hunt with my XVR even though I bought a really nice scope for it.

What mounts do you guys have on yours? I remember reading Warne was the one to get due to the recoil. I ended up getting a 2.5-8x leupold pistol scope for mine. I haven't shot it for a few years. The last time I shot it, ammo was LESS than $2 per round

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Winchester_73:

A few years ago, when I was new to this forum, I asked questions regarding long range shooting with my 460 XVR, and I was chastised for it then.

Funny how folks can be chastised in a thread for using a caliber as large as the .460 for deer and then a few days later chastised by the same troll for using the "barely adequate" .357. What one uses for hunting deer is determined more by the hunting scenario and/or the skill level of the hunter themselves, than what some stranger thinks is "appropriate". Being trashed by someone else that has no grasp of either means little other than some folks just think belittling others on internet forums, somehow makes them superior. I still prefer to use the irons on my .460 and practice regularly out to 150 yards. Still easy enough to keep all my shots within a deers kill zone. Use what trips your trigger and ignore the hecklers.

[mavracer]

Funny how folks can be chastised in a thread for using a caliber as large as the .460 for deer and then a few days later chastised by the same troll for using the "barely adequate" .357.

Yep I saw that too apparently the only acceptable cartridges are 44mag and heavy 45 Colts.

I still prefer to use the irons on my .460 and practice regularly out to 150 yards.

I love to hear that, I've seen too many that don't shoot paper out that far and just assume they can shoot animals because the cartridge is capable of "such and such".
While the 460 is pretty flat shooting if you think "I'm dead on at 25 so I'm good to 200" and in reality you're 1/2" low, now you're prolly 5 or 6" lower at 200 than you think you are.
This goes for all rounds too.

[newfrontier45]

Funny how folks can be chastised in a thread for using a caliber as large as the .460 for deer and then a few days later chastised by the same troll for using the "barely adequate" .357.

I never chastised anyone for anything. You're just upset because I don't drink your brand of Kool Aid.

All I said was that unless you are capable or have a need to shoot deer at 200yds, there are lesser cartridges that will do the job in a lighter, handier revolver with less muzzle blast and fanfare. If you just "want" a .460 for hunting deer at 50yds, that's just fine. It really doesn't matter to me either way. That's my whole point in a nutshell. It's no different than saying on the rifle forum that the .338WM is probably too much cartridge for shooting deer in the eastern woods where shots are limited to 150yds. As with this stupid discussion, there are better, less punishing, less offensive, lighter weight guns and cartridges that will do the job. How you take offense to that to the point of calling someone a troll is beyond me. Tell me exactly where I said anything that wasn't true??? I thought this was supposed to be a discussion board. Not a place for everyone to always agree with everything.

The .357 is no more than "adequate". There are no less cartridges that anyone with any credibility will recommend for the job. It is the minimum recommended cartridge and that is a fact. I didn't say it wouldn't do the job. If you think a 125gr at 2200fps is a dandy deer load, have at it. Just report back on how many deer you lose because penetration is almost nothing.

Folks around here sure are sensitive when their choices/opinions/preferences get challenged.

[newfrontier45]

Yep I saw that too apparently the only acceptable cartridges are 44mag and heavy 45 Colts.

So let me get this straight. The .357 is not minimum and the .460 is not too much. If not the .357, then please tell me what cartridge is considered by you fine folk, who are apparently all smarter than the most infamous of experts, to be the minimum for deer. The .22Short? By the same token, also please enlighten me as to which cartridge would be considered too much for deer at ranges up to 100yds. Are there any?

I must've gone to school for gunology on a different planet.

[saleen322]

The .454 is a fine round for deer. If you get a .460, you have a .460 with very good range AND a .454 if you want a little less as well as a .45 Colt for plinking with either. Folks have argued over what is enough or too much gun for deer for years. It is interesting that a person with a .45 Colt and off the shelf Federal .45 Colt ammo (not Buffalo Bore big buck stuff costing about a $1.75 a round) that has less than 375 ft/lbs of energy will tell a guy carrying a .327 magnum with Federal factory loads that has over 500 ft/lbs of energy that the .327 is too little gun!

If you handload, you have more options with any handgun. Buy and shoot what you want as confidence in what you have usually means knowing the gun limitations and better shot placement which means more than the caliber.

[newfrontier45]

It is interesting that a person with a .45 Colt and off the shelf Federal .45 Colt ammo (not Buffalo Bore big buck stuff costing about a $1.75 a round) that has less than 375 ft/lbs of energy will tell a guy carrying a .327 magnum with Federal factory loads that has over 500 ft/lbs of energy that the .327 is too little gun!

It is interesting that some people actually still believe energy has anything to do with a handgun cartridge's effectiveness. A 250gr .45 at 900fps will fully penetrate any deer that walks and kill it deader than fried chicken, all the while producing a paltry 450ft-lbs. Meanwhile, that .327 load will work fine for personal defense but no one would suggest it for hunting anything larger than coyotes. Although with this crowd, anything is possible.

[saleen322]

It is interesting that some people actually still believe energy has anything to do with a handgun cartridge's effectiveness.

Not everyone, just those with actual hands-on experience.

[newfrontier45]

No, just those who make their choices according to ballistics tables, which takes the intellect of a gnat. Those who REALLY have A LOT of hands-on experience disregard energy figures for the reasons stated. It's simply not an accurate way to assess a cartridge/load's effectiveness on live critters and is FAR too dependent on velocity. Which is the most rapidly diminishing factor. Energy places far too much importance on velocity, little on weight and none on diameter. Unless of course you think you're smarter than John Linebaugh, John Taffin, Brian Pearce, Ross Seyfried or virtually any other authority on the subject.

"Most knowledgeable shooters know the foot-pounds of energy formula the industry uses to measure or compare bullet energy leaves a lot to be desired. First, it just is not an accurate way to measure comparable bullet effect on critters, and second, critters can't read."

http://www.customsixguns.com/writing...ht_bullets.htm

[Winchester_73]

No, just those who make their choices according to ballistics tables, which takes the intellect of a gnat. Those who REALLY have A LOT of hands-on experience disregard energy figures for the reasons stated. It's simply not an accurate way to assess a cartridge/load's effectiveness on live critters and is FAR too dependent on velocity. Which is the most rapidly diminishing factor. Energy places far too much importance on velocity, little on weight and none on diameter.

Is there a more reliable / accurate way of assessing a bullets weight and velocity which also considers caliber? Is there another way to assess ft:lbs of energy? I'm just wondering.

[newfrontier45]

Read the article I linked above about TKO. No, it ain't perfect but it's a better way to compare the big bores to each other than kinetic energy. I bold that part because some critics will chime in and use it to compare big bore revolvers to high velocity small bore rifle cartridges but it was never intended to be used that way. It's just as silly as using energy to compare two completely different killing machines.

For example:
250gr .45 at 900fps = 450ft-lbs or a TKO factor of 14.5
55gr .224 at 3200fps = 1250ft-lbs or a TKO factor of 5.6

Given what we know about the size of critters each load would be able to take cleanly, which do you think is the better gauge, energy or TKO?

By contrast and closer to topic:
225gr .460 at 2200fps = 2418ft-lbs or a TKO factor of 31.9
430gr .475 at 1350fps = 1740ft-lbs or a TKO factor of 39.5

If you worshiped energy, you would think the .460 would be more potent and capable of killing bigger critters but we KNOW from extensive penetration testing that the 430gr .475 cannot be beat and is suitable for anything that walks planet earth. Certainly infinitely better for big critters than the 225gr .460 load. It could also easily be argued that the same diameter projectile, only 360gr and running 1200fps would also be a FAR better choice for large game than the .460 load, despite the numbers.

360gr .45 at 1200fps = 1151ft-lbs or a TKO factor of 27.8

Because, like I've said throughout this thread, all the .454 and .460 offer over the .45Colt/.44Mag is range. They won't kill anything any deader within 100-125yds.

So there is no magical formula that precludes us from using some common sense.

[saleen322]

I read this decades ago so some of the details are fuzzy but here is the crux of the TKO system. John Taylor was an African big game hunter. The large English double rifles were the premier guns at the time with the .600 Nitro Express at the top of heap-most powerful rifle you could have. In the late 1950s Roy Weatherby comes out with the .460 Weatherby Magnum and claims it as the most powerful commercial rifle in the world with like 8100 ft/lbs of energy—which was more than the .600 Nitro. As I recall, the story goes that a guide (could have been Taylor himself?) was with or guiding some guy with the first .460 WM seen firsthand while hunting cape buffalo. The story expounds how he witnessed the guy shoot a buffalo and the buffalo was not impressed with the paper ballistics. The Taylor system “proves” the .600 Nitro is really more powerful by weighting a system that benefits bore diameter. This was the TKO system. I have to admit it is also clever marketing to use the TKO system to hype the benefits of large bore handguns for a company selling them.

While neither system is perfect and neither account for bullet design (expansion, fragmentation, etc), the kinetic energy system is based in physics where Taylor developed his system to have some numbers support what he believed based on his experience shooting large animals and the guns he used. To get on point of the OP, use the .454 Casull with a 260 grain bullet @ 1800 fps has a TKO of about 30 and 1870 ft/lbs of energy. Compare that to a .300 Winchester Magnum with a 180 grain bullet @ 3150 that develops over 3950 ft/lbs of energy BUT the TKO system rates it around 25. So if you believe Taylor, a .454 is 20% more powerful than a .300 Win mag rifle while kinetic energy would have you believe the rifle has over twice the power. The readers can decide which they believe but it is worth noting that all commercial ammunition manufacturers use the kinetic energy system. Enough writing, I think it is time to go outside and shoot…

[newfrontier45]

Compare that to a .300 Winchester Magnum with a 180 grain bullet @ 3150 that develops over 3950 ft/lbs of energy BUT the TKO system rates it around 25.

And just as I predicted, someone was along to use the TKO factor in a way that was never intended as some sort of argument against it.

The fact that the .475 load I quoted is capable of taking ANY game on the planet and the .300Win Mag is at its limit with elk and moose SHOULD tell us that maybe energy is not the proper gauge. But unfortunately, that would require us to think for ourselves and apply a little logic. Rather than relying on the age old foolishness of printed ballistics tables.

...the kinetic energy system is based in physics...

...it is worth noting that all commercial ammunition manufacturers use the kinetic energy system.

I guess that settles it. So much for using our brains and a little common sense.

[mavracer]

The fact that the .475 load I quoted is capable of taking ANY game on the planet and the .300Win Mag is at its limit with elk and moose SHOULD tell us that maybe energy is not the proper gauge.

Another opinion stated as fact lol.
The lowly 30-06 which is less powerful than the 300 win mag is not only capable of taking any game on the planet it has done it many times over.
TKO only works for solids and has mighty little to do with a broadside chest shot on light skinned deer.

[Ruger45LC]

Count me in among those who think that energy isn't the best means of determining a cartridges effectiveness. For example in the handgun world it's amazing to me how many people think an extra 100-150 fps (with the exact same caliber and weight bullet) makes all the difference and that it can make performance go from ho-hum to dazzling, kind of like 10mm vs .40.

In terms of this discussion of the 460 S&W vs. 454 Casull, my choice is neither. I had a SRH 454 that was very nice, and really wasn't that bad to shoot, but it's not going to kill anything any deader than my Ruger Bisley .45 Colt loaded warm. The extra range the 454 gives isn't a bad thing in itself, but it's not really useful either considering it's a handgun and isn't likely to be used for long range shots anyways.