Which Smith X-Frame?


PDA






HKGuns
February 11, 2013, 09:04 PM
I've been thinking about an X-frame Smith for a while. I've read a lot about both the 460 and the 500.

Which one would you buy and why would you choose one over the other?

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Smith X-Frame?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
February 11, 2013, 09:15 PM
Neither.
But if forced into it somehow?

I would buy the .500.

Bigger bullet is always better in a hunting handgun.

As opposed to higher velocity / flat shooting capability I couldn't possible shoot to it's full potential anyway.

On the other hand, you can shoot cheaper .45 Colt ammo in the .460.

Myself?
A handgun that big needs trail wheels and a trailer hitch to haul it around with.
It is too big & heavy for any logical handgun holster use I could put it too in Kansas.
Or anywhere else.

If I want or need a 4 1/2+ pound gun that busts my chops every shot?
It will be a high-power rifle or slug gun.

rc

JohnM
February 11, 2013, 09:39 PM
RC has spoken. :D
I was actually wondering where the wheels attached on this thing. :)

22-rimfire
February 11, 2013, 10:08 PM
I also would go 500 S&W. I prefer big and slow over smaller and faster in a handgun caliber. I am not much for shooting anything in a revolver other than the caliber it was designed to shoot.

I personally have kind of locked into the 480 Ruger as my "big" bore or 44+. That is where I am staying 480/475.

Hit_Factor
February 11, 2013, 10:42 PM
460 because it is perfect for deer in the southern half of the lower peninsula where rifles are prohibited for deer hunting.

Also shoots 45 Colt and 454 Casull.

Recoil is manageable compared to the 500. Ammo is cheaper as well.

If hunting bear the 500 might be a better choice. If you feel 2300 ft lbs at the muzzle isn't enough.

skt239
February 11, 2013, 10:43 PM
The 460 simply for its versatility.

CGT80
February 12, 2013, 03:16 AM
This one:

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k484/CGT80/460270SAA.jpg

460 8 3/8"

I already had 45lc components and dies that weren't being used. I shot my grandfathers 44 mag with full power loads and my own cast powder puff loads, and liked it. I already load for 45 acp, so I had some molds an bullets for 45. I searched for bullets and found many more available for the 460 than the 500. I wanted an impressive, obnoxious, manly, gun that could also easily be tamed.

I have hand loads from 560 fps to 1917 fps. Last weekend, I loaded up some 230 grain LRN 45 acp bullets that I had lying around. 6 grains of red dot, inside a 45lc case, gave me around 650 fps. I was shooting at a 3/8" mild steel target from 20 yards. There was no problem with beating up the target, the loads had very mild recoil, and they were dirt cheap to load. My 270 SAA HP's, in the photo above, hit that steel pretty hard though. For light 460 loads, I use trail boss powder-cheap, fast pistol powders are not bulky enough. Trail boss would also be used in the 500 for light loads, but trail boss isn't cheap. 45 lc works great with the cheap powders. If you only shoot full power loads, then it doesn't much matter.

I shoot some medium and full power loads as well. I wanted a double action revolver of my own. I like high end products and the X Frame has an exceptional trigger and finish. My dad's 38 spl Smith is just kind of blah. The 45 colt loads are much more fun than 38 spl. I guess I am like the old guys that drive their fancy Corvettes down the freeway at 65 mph and only occasionally open it up.

Another guy made fun of me for not getting the 500. He has a 500 x-frame. I don't know what load he had, but it was punishing to my hands. The 460 in easy on the hands with a 240 grain hornady bullet flying at 19xx fps and being propelled by 45 grains of Win 296 powder. He was partly joking, but he also has to try and one-up people. I don't have to have the biggest..............................just the fastest :)

PS. My x-frame is purely a range gun, for fun. I don't hunt. A 45 colt 270 grain bullet would also work for home defense, if that was what I had at hand. If the size didn't make the perp crap himself and run, the round would ruin his day. It would double as a billy club, too. In reality, my XD 40 would be my first pic for home defense. I have 30k+ rounds through it and can handle it without looking at it, and can hit targets even without looking at the sights.

Mr.Revolverguy
February 12, 2013, 07:27 AM
Here is a detailed review of both

http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=2599

Hope it helps.

SharpsDressedMan
February 12, 2013, 07:56 AM
Get the little one. It's easier to carry around. ................................................... http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05273.jpg

460Kodiak
February 12, 2013, 09:28 AM
The 460 is far more versatile than the 500 with the capability to shoot 45 Colt and .454. The 460V gets ignored a lot. The 5 inch bbl balances very well, in a proper holster it carries fine, though I recomend suspenders if carrying it on the hip, and it has more than enough bbl length to get the job done as far as accuracy and power. I bought mine for range use, and for angry bear country.

If you do get the 500, take a good look at the 6.5" bbl version. The tappered bbl makes it lighter than you would think, and it balances quite well.

Here's my 460V. Hand polished.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=167410&d=1341250852

627PCFan
February 12, 2013, 09:51 AM
Please note the Hogue Rubber grips, no fancy recoil absorbing wood for 460Kodiak:D

CraigC
February 12, 2013, 11:29 AM
The .460 is a lot of velocity that most can't utilize. Impressive numbers, for those impressed by ballistics tables. All that velocity does is extend your range. So if you have no need to shoot beyond 100-125yds, what do you need all that for? The question is, do you want a bigger hammer or just a rifle masquerading as a handgun?

The .480 is both a bigger hammer and a more efficient cartridge in a manageable package. A lofty pressure range yields more velocity and range than the .44Mag and it can slings a much more massive bullet.

codefour
February 12, 2013, 11:41 AM
I was in the same boat last year. I wanted an X-frame but was undecided when it came to 460 vs 500.

I went with the 460 Mag XVR with the 8 3/8 inch barrel. Here is why I picked the 460. I opened my loading manuals and compared various loads. The 460 was much more versatile for hand loading when using the actual 460 cases. Not counting the added versatility of shooting the 454 Casull and 45 LC in it.

If you look, the 460 shoots similar weight bullets just as fast as th 500. Bullet selection is much more versatile than the 500. The 500 was designed as a novelty. The 460 was actually designed as a hunting cartridge.

Also, the 460 can be a legitimate 300 yard shooter. I have not scoped mine yet but I will eventually. It can regularly hit steel silhouettes at 300.

JohnM
February 12, 2013, 11:44 AM
Since the question was about the S&W X frame, I like the 460.
A versatile chambering.
A lot more variety in bullets around too.
All of us who like big bore handguns would like a room full, but most of us are lucky to just have a few.

CraigC
February 12, 2013, 12:20 PM
The 500 was designed as a novelty.
I have to disagree with your assessment. While the .460 is the better deer/hog/elk cartridge, the .500 will be all over it for anything bigger. In the hunting world, the .500 will do anything the .460 can and much, much more.

I still struggle to understand what folks think all that extra velocity yields them.

Hammerdown77
February 12, 2013, 01:09 PM
Not having to adjust your sights at 200 yards, as far as I can tell from the S&W marketing...

460Kodiak
February 12, 2013, 03:56 PM
Please note the Hogue Rubber grips, no fancy recoil absorbing wood for 460Kodiak


Ha ha..... That is a good one. Nills grips coming in the future.

SharpsDressedMan
February 12, 2013, 04:21 PM
.460 go bang. .500 go BOOM!

HKGuns
February 12, 2013, 07:38 PM
Wow, lots of great information and thanks for the review link......It is a tough decision.

Hit_Factor
February 12, 2013, 08:53 PM
I still struggle to understand what folks think all that extra velocity yields them.
It certainly helps when dressing a deer. I took one at 10 yards once and alot of the stuff inside the deer went out the exit wound.

HKGuns
February 12, 2013, 09:09 PM
Right now I'm leaning toward the 460 because of its ability to shoot the venerable .45 LC.

After reading "Big Bore Revolvers" by Max Prasac I'm figuring out I pretty much need that at least, to go with my .44 Mag's.

ArchAngelCD
February 13, 2013, 12:48 AM
If I had to choose I would also consider the 460 Magnum. Everyone keeps mentioning the fact you can shoot 45 Colt rounds in it but I also like the fact you can fire 454 Casull ammo too. Since I reload I can make anything I feel I need including heavier bullets at slower velocities similar to the 500. (I know, but not quite as heavy as the 500)

buck460XVR
February 13, 2013, 08:46 AM
The .460 is a hoot to shoot, has impressive accuracy for a handgun caliber and is an efficient means of taking most any game animal in this world. It really shines on deer and similar game. It also really shines when handloaded for. I don't recommend it to anyone that doesn't handload. Factory ammo is just too hard to get and way to expensive for most folks to shoot it regularly enough to really get proficient with. When one handloads, they can also download standard .460 cases and forget about .45 Colt or .454 ammo. If you're buying it to shoot either of the latter, don't bother, just buy a decent .45 or .454.

Hammerdown77
February 13, 2013, 10:25 AM
My biggest complaint about the 460 and the 500S&W is that they require X-frame size guns to shoot. Or long frame BFRs. Those are fun at the range and all, but for field use they just seem a bit much. Especially when you can chamber a 500 JRH or Linebaugh, or a 475 Linebaugh or 480 Ruger, in a standard Ruger Blackhawk or SRH sized gun and have all the power needed to take game on any continent.

The 460 seems like it would be a good silhouette cartridge, properly loaded so as not to wear you out during a day's string of fire.

CraigC
February 13, 2013, 10:46 AM
Seems rather odd to me to buy a 4.5-5lb revolver capable of over 2000fps and then proceed to shoot standard pressure 900fps .45Colt loads in it. That to me screams impractical far more than versatile. Practicing with .44Spl's in a .44Mag is one thing but shooting a cartridge designed for a 36oz Colt SAA in a 5lb X-frame seems more than a little strange. A point it seems designed strictly to justify the purchase of something that offers way too much of everything.

JohnM
February 13, 2013, 11:11 AM
It's just an option you got. I doubt anyone would buy a 460 with the plan of just shooting 45 Colts or Shofields in it, you could probably shoot the old 45 auto rim in in too if you wanted. :neener:

CraigC
February 13, 2013, 11:32 AM
From the OP hisself.
Right now I'm leaning toward the 460 because of its ability to shoot the venerable .45 LC.


No, you can't shoot .45AutoRim in a sixgun chambered for any other rimmed cartridge.

Hammerdown77
February 13, 2013, 11:40 AM
OOoo, Oooo, you could have the cylinder cut for moonclips, then you could shoot 45 ACP and 45 Auto Rim BOTH.

So that's what, SIX cartridges out of the same gun! (45 Colt, 454, 460, 45 ACP, 45 Auto Rim, 45 Schofield).

JohnM
February 13, 2013, 11:42 AM
Somebody has to ask S&W if they'll include moon clips for the 45ACP in the box. :rolleyes:

CraigC
February 13, 2013, 11:50 AM
Can you get giant sized five-shot .45ACP moonclips???


No, you can't shoot .45AutoRim in a sixgun chambered for any other rimmed cartridge.
I can't be any plainer than that. Cutting it for moonclips doesn't magically allow you to shoot AR in it. :rolleyes:

JohnM
February 13, 2013, 11:53 AM
Your advice is duly noted.

Hammerdown77
February 13, 2013, 11:56 AM
I can't be any plainer than that. Cutting it for moonclips doesn't magically allow you to shoot AR in it. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right. I typed "Auto Rim" when really I was thinking about the 45 Cowboy Special cases.

45 Auto Rim case head rim is too thick for a cylinder designed first for a rimmed cartridge

CraigC
February 13, 2013, 12:40 PM
I should probably bite my tongue as one of my favorite new sixguns is a 3rd Model Dragoon with a Kirst gated .45Colt conversion. Weighing a whopping 66oz. ;)

GJgo
February 13, 2013, 10:40 PM
I've had both. I would take the 500 any day if I had it to do over. The 460 was prettier (pic), but the 500 hit MUCH harder.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8325/8105522160_48d5e0846e_z.jpg

codefour
February 13, 2013, 10:55 PM
I love the .460 S&W Mag. It is more handgun than I will ever need. Yet on the other hand, a lot of posts have stated "I had a 460 which was great but I found the 500 better".

Maybe it is time to buy a 6.5 inch X-frame in 500 S&W and see if I like it. You can never have enough firepower I guess.

Will it be worth it to invest in another handcannon platform? Not counting the actual gun cost, you have to consider the cost of new dies, shell plate, brass and bullets etc..

I live in the most gun hating state (California). Maybe I should get one before they ban all .500 caliber guns.? I can't wait till I'm retired, my kids are old enough, and I can leave the state of cummunist California.

lobo9er
February 13, 2013, 10:58 PM
Since the 44 mag will drop any animal that walks in N. America I am pretty sure the 500 is enough gun and so is the 460. If it were me I'd go 460 route.

22-rimfire
February 13, 2013, 11:28 PM
Seems rather odd to me to buy a 4.5-5lb revolver capable of over 2000fps and then proceed to shoot standard pressure 900fps .45Colt loads in it. That to me screams impractical far more than versatile.

Same here. IF I owned a 460, I would shoot 460s' out of it. If I want powder puff loads, I will shoot a different gun that doesn't weigh so much.

I also have Max Prasac's book. He posts over at one of the big bore forums. PM me if you want to know where.

lobo9er
February 14, 2013, 07:53 AM
Same here. IF I owned a 460, I would shoot 460s' out of it.

I would too but why not take advantage of the 45 lc for practice or when you don't need over 2000fps. When loaded up hot theres not much a 45 LC isn't going to do either at reasonable range. It would be no different from 357/38 or 44mag/special. If needs be you could load up some 45 lc for home/camp defense. Theres lots of versatility you could utilize. But if thats your take on it then I would go 500 route.

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 08:11 AM
We need to try and hide the fact that a 357 shoots a 38spl real nice and a 44 mag shoots 44 spl.
Before you know it people might be buying those fire breathing 357s and using them to shoot 38s; I mean what kind of madness is that!

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 08:45 AM
Anyone know if all the X frames come out of the Performance Shop at S&W?

CraigC
February 14, 2013, 08:59 AM
Yes but a .38 is not half the size of a .357. Oftentimes, they are identically sized, even built on the same frame or at least comparable.

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 09:04 AM
I would too but why not take advantage of the 45 lc for practice or when you don't need over 2000fps.

My only thought is... what kind of practice is that? You buy a 460 S&W for a reason and it is not to shoot powder puff loads. Just posing the question....

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 09:05 AM
All this worrying about using an X frame to shoot sub full bore magnums is verging on the ridiculous.

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 09:07 AM
Yeah, it is a little ridiculous. I really don't care. Just enjoy yourself.

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 09:12 AM
This could be an interesting and helpful thread for those thinking about getting their feet wet in the world of big bore handguns, but all this wandering around off the main topic is going to cause some moderator heartburn and it'll get a padlock slammed on it.

460Kodiak
February 14, 2013, 09:30 AM
Seems rather odd to me to buy a 4.5-5lb revolver capable of over 2000fps and then proceed to shoot standard pressure 900fps .45Colt loads in it. That to me screams impractical far more than versatile. Practicing with .44Spl's in a .44Mag is one thing but shooting a cartridge designed for a 36oz Colt SAA in a 5lb X-frame seems more than a little strange. A point it seems designed strictly to justify the purchase of something that offers way too much of everything.


The following comment is meant to address remarks like the following that always show up on X-Frame threads "I don't know why you would want to shoot 45 LC ouf of a 5 lb. gun when you could just get a .45 LC that is lighter, and smaller, and cheaper.

I see that these comments are a stated as a matter of opinion, so by way of that, I can't tell any of you that you're wrong. But I don't see how having the ability to practice with 45 LC or .454 in a 460 is any different than practicing with 32 H&R mag out of a 327 fed mag, or 38 specials out of a .357, or 44 spc out of a 44 mag, or 500 spc out of a 500 mag.

I think what a lot of people are missing here is that they are looking at this in the opposite way they that X-frame owners are. It's not that you have the option to shoot 45 LC and 454 out of the 460, it's that you want a 45 cal revolver, and if you get the 460, you have the option to shoot really powerful cartridges. When you view it that way, and look at it as "Some people want to have the option to shoot a flat shooting, longer range, really powerful 45 caliber cartridge, and are willing and able to handle a large, heavy gun and are willing to sacrifice one shot to do so." It makes more sense. If you have no interest in shooting the 460 cartridge, and just want a 454 or a 45 lc, then buying a 460 is silly given the weight, cost, and size. If all I wanted, or all I could handle is the 45 LC or 454 at the max, I'd look at the Ruger SRH.

It's kind of like buying a Corvette. There are very few places where I can open her up and utilize all the horsepower of that car where it is legal, or even a good idea. But I want the option. I want a sports car that can go 140 mph as an option, but I'm still going to drive it 45 mph for fun on a regular basis. Is it worth the extra money over buying a Camaro when you are sacrificing lots more money and maybe fuel efficiency? To some, yes. To others, all they need and want is the Camarow. So buy the Camaro. Like I said, these are opinions, and I'm not telling anyone they are wrong. I'm just sharing the perspective of X-frame owners, so perhaps we make more sense.

It's a matter of having the opposite perspective of viewing the 460 as the option here in a 45 cal revolver, rather than 45 LC as the option in a 460 mag. When looking at it from that angle, it changes things a bit.

I know several people will read what I just wrote and say, "Dude, that's the same thing said in reverse." But it really isn't if you give it some thought.

Cheers to all. The absolute bottom linne: REVOLVERS ARE THE BEST!!!!

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 09:45 AM
I think you make a good point(s) Kodiak. The key is that when you make a choice with the 460 S&W, you are buying a 45 cal revolver and when you buy the 500 S&W you're getting a 50 cal handgun. So the discussion is circular and goes back to the original question in this thread. Which should I choose and why?

Anyone who has an interest in both the 460 or 500 has to address a very basic question. What am I going to use it for? 45 cal or 50 cal? Is the size of the revolver practical for your use? As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I lean toward big and slow versus light and fast in a handgun. That is not necessarily the case with a rifle selection for me.

CraigC
February 14, 2013, 10:04 AM
I don't see this as off topic in the least. We're at the heart of why someone would buy the sixgun in question.

Practicing with 900fps .38Spl loads in a .357 that may potentially reach 1400fps has merit. A separate .38Spl revolver will not be much, if any, smaller and handier. Practicing with 800-900fps loads in a sixgun capable of well over 2000fps that weighs TWICE what a good .45Colt sixgun weighs is just silly. It accomplishes very little. Sorry but I don't see the ability to fire .45S&W and .45Colt in a 5lb sixgun as versatility. I see it as manufactured justification.

I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain what they think they're gaining with the .460 over more practical cartridges. If the answer is, I just want one, that is fine. But if you really believe you're getting something over standard length cartridges, I'd love to hear the reasoning. Because from my perspective, they offer little utility. Problem is that you guys that are already invested in these beasts seem to lack the ability to look at them objectively.

Hit_Factor
February 14, 2013, 11:13 AM
I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain what they think they're gaining with the .460 over more practical cartridges.

I posted earlier it's a fine alternative to using a shotgun with slugs in the lower half of Michigans lower peninsula. DNR regulations prohibit rifles in this area.

Which cartridge is more practical for a 150-200 yard shot on deer?

BTW it's a five gun, not a six gun ;)

CraigC
February 14, 2013, 11:28 AM
And how many handgun hunters are capable of making 200yd shots on game???

They're all sixguns, whether they hold five, eight or twelve cartridges. :p

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 11:33 AM
I also think the movement in the discussion goes to the heart of why choose, buy or shoot a 460 S&W or 500 S&W revolver. If the answer is simply you want one. That's all you need.

The reasons for choosing tend to be hunting, longer range target shooting, big bear defense, you want to gain experience and form your own impressions about the really powerful handgun calibers, or you have shot just about everything else and you simply want to migrate to that power level... just because. Hunting in restricted areas of the UP is a great reason also. I wish that state fish & game departments would start allowing handgun hunting during black powder season for deer.

But you generally don't buy an X-frame Smith just to shoot 45 Colts (LC). But I suppose the fact that you can adds to the versatility of the choice.

The active BFR thread goes to this discussion as well. Why choose a 500 S&W chambered in a BFR? The logical reason is that you hope that the 500 S&W will be a better <edited> handgun caliber for hunting. <edited>. Otherwise, I think the 500 JRH or 480 Ruger/475 Linebaugh is a better choice because you are dealing with a "smaller handier" sized revolver (short frame vs long frame) and the SA vs DA preference really is not very significant to me because few "plink" with such guns. Even the 480 Ruger, or the heavy 45LC or 44 mags are nothing to snicker at in terms of power. These calibers beat you up. But in a way, they are fun because of it.

Hit_Factor
February 14, 2013, 11:47 AM
Play fair, you answered a question with a question.

I have no idea how many people can make a 200 yard shot with a handgun. The .460 allows hunters the opprotunity to find out. Each shooter will need to determine what shot they can make and remain ethical at the same time.

I have taken deer at 90 yards with a .460. Using the 8 3/8" model. With the 14" PC model I'm going to try out 150 yard shots at the range. If I can maintain better than 8" group at 150 then I may consider going for a longer than 90 yards shot when hunting.

So, what cartridge is more practical for the 90 yard shot I made? Which one is more practical for a 200 yard shot?

CraigC
February 14, 2013, 11:50 AM
The .460 is fine if YOU are capable of 200yds. Most are not. Many are not realistic about their capabilities. S&W dumped their silly 200yd club because too many overestimated their abilities.

A .41Mag, .44Mag or .45Colt will do anything the handgun hunter needs inside 125yds at half the weight and bulk. Within their range, the .460 gains nothing but bulk, weight, muzzle blast and bloodshot meat.

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 11:55 AM
The .460 allows hunters the opprotunity to find out.

There you go HK, this is all the reason you need if this interests you. The 460 probably affords that possibility where as the 500 is more of a "up to 100 yd" gun that is simply "bigger".

Hit_Factor
February 14, 2013, 12:24 PM
.41Mag, .44Mag or .45Colt will do anything the handgun hunter needs inside 125yds

My hunting ethics put 1000 foot pounds of energy minimum on the target at the max range I will take a shot. This provides a humane harvest. Because the .460 replaces a rifle I have chosen to apply the same standard to it.

Using a 200-225 grain bullet in a Hornady manufactured cartridge only the 44 mag meets my requirement at point blank range with 1123 foot pounds at the muzzle. The 41 and 45 don't meet my personal requirements at the muzzle. I'm not saying these cartridges won't harvest deer. With this said, I'm certain that ammo in these calibers is available exceeding these energy numbers. I'm not trying to skew the facts, just keep it at an apples to apples level of comparisons.

The .460 starts with 2149 foot pounds at the muzzle and delivers the energy I feel is necessary for a humane shot at all distances I might attempt to take deer.

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 12:32 PM
I moved to the 480 Ruger in a Ruger SRH because of hunting ethic reasons, versatility if I want to hunt something bigger than a deer or more resilient (elk, moose, bear), and the ease of mounting optics more than 10 years ago. The X-frames were not available then. I am still comfortable with my choices.

buck460XVR
February 14, 2013, 12:48 PM
I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain what they think they're gaining with the .460 over more practical cartridges. If the answer is, I just want one, that is fine. But if you really believe you're getting something over standard length cartridges, I'd love to hear the reasoning. Because from my perspective, they offer little utility.

Similar to those that want to push anemic, archaic cowboy cartridges past their SAAMI specs, just because they can. Similar to those that continue to rant about a quickly failed cartridge/caliber that is dead in the water with no new modern guns being manufactured for it. Kinda like saying folks don't need a .460 because a .44 is all one needs is like saying folks don't need a 30-06 'cause a 30-30 is all one needs. It too has taken every animal in North America. What are people thinkin'?

Folks here don't need to justify their reasons to you Craig to own and shoot a firearm.....they only need to justify them to themselves. Your contribution to every ".460 S&W" thread in the past several years here on THR has always been the same old negative rant about foolish .460 owners incapable of using the advantages the .460 gives over lesser calibers. Thing is, you don't know any of those folks you are insulting or their capabilities. Apparently you are assuming their capabilities are similar to yours.


Problem is that you guys that are already invested in these beasts seem to lack the ability to look at them objectively.

I did a lot of research before acquiring my X-Frame. I also owned other revolvers in various calibers for over 40 years. I looked long and hard, and very objectively before making my investment, just as I do before any firearm purchase. You are talking outta the wrong hole by constantly insinuating I and others that own X-Frames lack the abilities to shoot them and have made any error in judgement by owning them.

I get a kick outta those that make fun of the X-frame's weight and make comments such as putting wheels on it. Many claim if they wanted to carry a gun that big they'd just carry a rifle. I wonder, do they put wheels on that rifle too because it weighs more than 4.5 pounds? Can they take pride in knowing they took a deer out past 150 yards with their rifle as compared to taking it with a revolver? The X-Frame is still a handgun. It does not have a shoulder stock or a forearm. It still takes much more skill and practice to hunt deer successfully than any rifle. But it does give terminal performance on deer similar to a rifle. This is why some of us chose to use it. The weight and bulk make shooting it pleasurable, unlike shooting cartridges coming close to it's ballistics in lesser guns that can be brutal.(like .454 in a smaller framed, lighter Ruger). The weight is one reason shooting lesser cartridges like .45 Colt and .454 outta it is unnecessary. But.....OMG, one needs a rest or support for such a massive beast! Funny, I rest all my handguns when making long shots at deer, even the 5'' L-Frame. I figure I own it to them.

Hit_Factor
February 14, 2013, 12:51 PM
Not too many 200 grain loads for the .480 to add to my previous post. But a quick glance at a ballistics table shows the round would is a good choice for hunting with 1500 foot pounds at the muzzle.

Hammerdown77
February 14, 2013, 01:15 PM
Foot pounds of energy doesn't matter a whole lot in handguns, because a handgun is basically a short range hole puncher. If the pullet punches through the vital organs and lets blood out on both sides, that's all it can do. That is easily accomplished on most game using a properly constructed cast lead slug, of an appropriate caliber, doing 1000 fps.

Rifles are a different story.

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 01:42 PM
a handgun is basically a short range hole puncher

? The newer high velocity big bore handguns are all about long range shooting.

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 02:03 PM
If you hunt with solids, they are mostly hole punchers. The bigger bores are certainly more apt at breaking or penetrating bones as well. I believe that HP's and SP's do more damage in soft skinned animals. Of course, you hope to penetrate through the animal so that a good blood trail is more likely. This reasoning would suggest that all the HP's sold for 357's, 9mm and so forth are no better than FMJ bullets.

Hammerdown77
February 14, 2013, 02:31 PM
? The newer high velocity big bore handguns are all about long range shooting.
I would consider anything under 150 yards, for a highly skilled handgun hunter, to be "short range".

I don't know too many people who should be taking shots at animals 200+ yards away with a handgun, even if the gun is capable.

But that's my opinion and others' may differ.

lobo9er
February 14, 2013, 03:21 PM
All this worrying about using an X frame to shoot sub full bore magnums is verging on the ridiculous

Its not if you are looking at buying a weapon and is weighing versatility. If you want versatility 460, if you only want full power than 500 is your gun. For example I am hunting where my shots are inside 50 yards. I would load up a 45lc or maybe 454 if I owned a 460. Now the following weekend I'm going up to the Adirondak's where black bear is a possibilty I take my same gun and load up with 460.

Going for a 460 to shoot 45lc is different from buying one because it is able also to shoot 45's. To each his own just my 2 cents.

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 03:27 PM
I would consider anything under 150 yards, for a highly skilled handgun hunter, to be "short range".

I don't know too many people who should be taking shots at animals 200+ yards away with a handgun, even if the gun is capable.

But that's my opinion and others' may differ.


The MOA Long Range Handgun Match in Sundance is where the pistoleros do their thing.
Shooting starts off at 500 yards.
I'd like to go out there, but it's a long haul for me clear across the state.

HKGuns
February 14, 2013, 07:26 PM
Oh to heck with it all.....I just got this one instead.

Click (http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_39_72/products_id/411535197)







:)

JohnM
February 14, 2013, 07:35 PM
ROFLMAO------------ I about spit coffee all over my computer!!!

22-rimfire
February 14, 2013, 08:02 PM
Good choice! :D

codefour
February 15, 2013, 02:03 AM
First of all, the OP was asking which X-frame. The original OP did not ask if an X-frame is relevant or worth its merits.

CraigC, In the past, I have agreed with a lot of your posts. I love the .44 mag as do you. But I have to disagree with your dismissal of the X-Frame revolvers.

Most shooters will agree the large caliber rifles have their place? For example, the 45-70, 450 Marlin, 444 Marlin etc. A large, heavy bullet travelling at a modest rifle pace has proven itself time and time again. How many buffalo has a 45-70 dropped? Nobody knows.

What is wrong with a large revolver that can produce similar or close to that performance? Some folks want, need or like that power, especially in a handgun.

Do any of you X-frame nay-sayers have a large bore lever gun? So why not the same performance in revolver?

Yes, X-frames are big but still smaller and lighter than a big bore lever gun. And most large frame .44 magnum / 45 LC weigh north of 50 ounces. Most X-frames are 60-72 ounces

I carry my 460 XVR in a chest rig. It is not that uncomfortable. Better than lugging a larger/heavier rifle or carbine around on a sling or in your hand. Itis nice to hunt and not have to worry about carrying something. Rather it is mechanically attached to your torso.

Yes, there are some that buy the behemoth revolvers to shoot 45 LC, 454 Casull or 500 S&W Special. Does it not add to the versatility of the weapon? But I think most X-frame owners bought the gun for the extra power and not powder puff plinking loads.

460 Mag is not my primary hunting handgun. Yet, that does not mean it does not have its own virtues. the X-frames fill a niche in the handgun market that was void for a long time.

Hammerdown77
February 15, 2013, 08:30 AM
Excellent post, codefour. That's good enough for me.

Personally, I think I'd be more interested in the 460 than the 500. I know all the reasons to choose the 500 over the XVR, many of which have been stated here, but I already have two .50 bores (500 JRH and Linebaugh) and a 500 S&W just seems like too much of a good thing.

The 460 intrigues me as a long range cartridge, quite honestly. I have a 454 and when wound out to original specifications, is quite good at range. The 460 seems like it would be more of that, in a bigger gun with a comp, for less recoil. I'm especially interested in the sub 250 grain bullets doing 2200+ fps. That, with some modest glass, would make for a very interesting tool for 200+ yard precision shooting.

Dangit, now you guys have me thinking about buying one :D

lobo9er
February 15, 2013, 02:32 PM
No kidding I just watched hickok45 shoot the 500, makes me want to give my credit card a work out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-FG9ZKerGM

22-rimfire
February 15, 2013, 03:35 PM
This discussion has also sort of made me lean toward the 460 S&W in an X-frame. This is true mostly because I have the slow and heavy reasonably covered. Might be a bit of a challenge to try to hit stuff at 200 yds with a scoped revolver. I like challenges.

Hunt480
February 15, 2013, 07:05 PM
I happen to have the 6.5" S7W 500, I load them there 400gr Crushers from Missouri Bullet Co. I can tell you that the 6.5" X-Frame gun is a practical size hunting size revolver as far as hndgun hunting revolvers go. You can load from easy to nuclear with this cartridge. With 17 grains of Unique over the 400gr Crusher aint bad shooting and a great deer load. Its blows the biggest clean hole of all and dont mess up the meat...I almost forgot to mention its the most accurate revolver I ever shot...The only down side is the amount of powder you can use reloading the round.You just need to be a reloader or you will never be able to afford to shoot it.

CraigC
February 16, 2013, 09:22 AM
The MOA Long Range Handgun Match in Sundance is where the pistoleros do their thing.
Shooting at inanimate objects on a wide open range is entirely, 100% different from shooting critters in the woods. Nobody cares if some loon with a brand new .460, who has never shot anything bigger than a .357, gutshoots a steel ram at 200yds.


Folks here don't need to justify their reasons to you Craig to own and shoot a firearm.....they only need to justify them to themselves. Your contribution to every ".460 S&W" thread in the past several years here on THR has always been the same old negative rant about foolish .460 owners incapable of using the advantages the .460 gives over lesser calibers. Thing is, you don't know any of those folks you are insulting or their capabilities. Apparently you are assuming their capabilities are similar to yours.
No sir, you have it all wrong. Not negative, realistic. No one has to justify anything to me. I'm asking questions and offering opinions so that whoever is trying to make this decision makes the right one for them. What I hate to see is some budding sixgunner get sold a big bad .460 because the local gun pusher told him he needs it to kill 150lb deer under 100yds. Or even worse, because he thinks he can just walk out and blast one at 200yds. We've seen it several times here, folks that have never shot anything bigger than a .357, who don't handload, go out and buy a .460 and they think that makes them a handgun hunter. What I'm trying to do is to cut through all the marketing and BS. Because if you are capable of shooting game at 200yds, you won't be here asking me. Like I said in every thread, if you just want one, that's fine. But you should go into it understanding that you don't NEED a 5lb .460 to kill deer out to 125yds. What I fail to understand is why anyone would want a huge 5lb revolver for a 3lb revolver's job. I make that point so that some may understand that a .460 doesn't really fit their needs and that THEY would be HAPPIER with a standard cartridge. One that is lighter, easier to shoot and cheaper to feed.

Sorry but it is not an insult to state that it is undeniable fact that 'most' hunters have no business shooting game at 200yds with a handgun. Has nothing to do with my ability. I shoot all the time on my own property and lob bullets at 250yd targets all the time. 100yds is a self imposed limitation due to ethics and I wouldn't be shooting deer any further if I had a .460. 'Most' budding handgun hunters will find that it's not as easy as they thought shooting game at 100yds with a handgun. If you don't handload, you probably can't afford to shoot enough to be proficient enough to shoot game past 50yds. Let alone 200. If you are unable to practice regularly at 200yds, you have no business shooting game at that distance. Handgun hunting is not something to be entered into lightly. It takes a lot of work, dedication and skill to be able to cleanly harvest big game at the ranges discussed. You should know this better than anyone.


Most shooters will agree the large caliber rifles have their place? For example, the 45-70, 450 Marlin, 444 Marlin etc. A large, heavy bullet travelling at a modest rifle pace has proven itself time and time again. How many buffalo has a 45-70 dropped? Nobody knows.

What is wrong with a large revolver that can produce similar or close to that performance? Some folks want, need or like that power, especially in a handgun.
Because a handgun is not a rifle. Again, it has nothing to do with the ability of the cartridge but the ability of the shooter to make a precise shot under field conditions. I would love to live in a world where you can just walk into a gun shop, buy a .460, step outside and start blasting 8" plates at 200yds but that ain't reality.


And most large frame .44 magnum / 45 LC weigh north of 50 ounces.
All of mine are well under 50oz.


the X-frames fill a niche in the handgun market that was void for a long time.
Real or perceived???

JohnM
February 16, 2013, 09:26 AM
Quote:
The MOA Long Range Handgun Match in Sundance is where the pistoleros do their thing.
Shooting at inanimate objects on a wide open range is entirely, 100% different from shooting critters in the woods. Nobody cares if some loon with a brand new .460, who has never shot anything bigger than a .357, gutshoots a steel ram at 200yds.


Reeely? :rolleyes:

Hit_Factor
February 16, 2013, 09:31 AM
What I fail to understand is why anyone would want a

CraigC Sounds like the President and his common sense statements.

CraigC
February 16, 2013, 09:43 AM
Wow, the comprehensive and profoundly intellectual responses are overwhelming. Strong words from the guy who made the joke about wheels and thought you could shoot .45AR out of the thing. I guess I'm out of my league with this panel of experts. :rolleyes:


Sounds like the President and his common sense statements.
Thanks for twisting my words so you could make a personal insult.


My hunting ethics put 1000 foot pounds of energy minimum on the target at the max range I will take a shot. This provides a humane harvest. Because the .460 replaces a rifle I have chosen to apply the same standard to it.
You've chosen to apply a standard that does not apply. Energy does not kill and your requirement, while interesting, is more than a little silly. I was going to ignore this but since you've stooped to personal attacks, here we are. Energy is far too dependent on velocity. It does not place any importance on diameter and trivializes mass. Big bore handguns do not kill in the same way as rifles and the old foot pounds of energy nonsense needs to die a quick death. Energy does not kill. Blood loss caused by tissue damage is what kills. That velocity you love so much, only serves to flatten trajectory. That energy you love so much, does not kill them any deader. Those lightweight jacketed loads you're referencing might put up some impressive energy figures but they give up a lot of the cartridge's potential with their low mass and rapid expansion. If a 250gr at 900fps will fully penetrate from any angle and kill any deer on planet earth deader than a hammer, yet only produces 450ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, that should tell you that maybe energy is not the proper gauge. But you're already an expert, so don't let me confuse you with facts. :rolleyes:

codefour
February 16, 2013, 11:21 PM
Because a handgun is not a rifle. Again, it has nothing to do with the ability of the cartridge but the ability of the shooter to make a precise shot under field conditions. I would love to live in a world where you can just walk into a gun shop, buy a .460, step outside and start blasting 8" plates at 200yds but that ain't reality.

CraigC, you are right regarding the 200 yard shots with a revolver. Yet, they are quite possible with a good rest and good optics. But, if I were trecking through grizzly country, I would only have my .460 mag. Not one of my .44 mags or a .45 Colt (I dont's have a .45 Colt yet).

All of mine are well under 50oz.

Most large bore .44 mag or .45 Colt that are designed for hunting weigh 50 oz or more. Yes, the Model 29 with an eight inch barrel weighs 48 oz IIRC. But the X-frames weigh from 56 oz (4" 500) to 88 oz (14" PC 460). The most common 8 3/8 barrel weighs 72 oz.

Energy is far too dependent on velocity. It does not place any importance on diameter and trivializes mass. Big bore handguns do not kill in the same way as rifles and the old foot pounds of energy nonsense needs to die a quick death. Energy does not kill. Blood loss caused by tissue damage is what kills. That velocity you love so much, only serves to flatten trajectory.

Extra velocity creates more energy exponentially. Yes, the bullet as it travels through media leaves a hole behind the same diameter as the bullet. But, there are many secondary effects of energy. All that extra energy creates collateral damage. Have you ever seen a bullet go through gelatin? After the bullet passes through the gelatin, there is so much extra damage visible in the gelatin. That is catastrophic damage if there is enough energy. Energy increases the size of the wound channel.

Yes. I understand it destroys meat. On the other hand, when you are trying to bring down a big beast whether for dinner or self preservation, I want all the energy I can get.

This was the "niche" I was referring to in my previous post.

I know we disagree on this matter. I am not trying to throw flames. This post is all in good faith for benevolant debate. Nothing more. It is good to debate these topics but is bad when people take it personal or throw personal attacks. There is a very large group that we need to keep our negative energy flowing too, i.e., the anti second amendment nuts.

JohnM
February 17, 2013, 08:48 AM
Humorless drone, why bother?
Been an otherwise interesting thread.

musicman10_1
February 17, 2013, 09:33 AM
Back to the topic at hand:

I chose the .500 Magnum. I got the 8 3/8" barrel and a set of dies and components to load my own rounds. With the variety of bullets and a lot of good load data there seemed to be no reason to consider something other than the .500 for my needs. I do a little handgun hunting (mostly with a T/C set-up) and a lot of paper punching at the range. The .500 allows me to pursue whatever handgun hunting I am interested in and having shot everything from 300 gr up to 700 gr chunks of lead I think that it fits the profile of being versatile.

BTW - the 700 gr bullets are not practical at all and I love them because of that.

Deer_Freak
February 17, 2013, 09:36 AM
Shooting 45 LC ammo from an X-Frame defeats the purpose of practicing. I have to shoot a 460 quite a bit before I quit pushing. I would want to practice with 460 ammo so I am used to the recoil and muzzle blast.

HKGuns
February 17, 2013, 09:43 AM
We're all on the same side here guys, especially now. We can agree to disagree on some minor technical points, however, we have FAR more in common than those who would limit our freedom and interests.

Looks like the Xframe is down in the queue by one as I picked up a Pro Series model 60 yesterday and am seconds away from heading out the door to the range.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Smith X-Frame?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!