Big Bore Dan
Member
I just bought a S&W 500 Hunter model, I also own a BFR in 500 S&W. Both shoot well, very accurate even with my flinch. Anyone out there have an opinion as to which is a sronger gun?
500 S&W BFR or Smith? Strongest?
- Thread starter Big Bore Dan
- Start date
- Status
JesseL
Member
Without either doing an extensive analysis of the design and metallurgy of both guns, or blowing up a few of each; I don't think anyone here is going to be particularly qualified to say which gun is stronger.
All other things being equal (which they never are) single action guns tend to be stronger due to their solid frames, absence of a cylinder crane or ejector star, and simpler lockwork.
I'd say both guns are every bit as strong as they need to be and should last a very long time if they're not abused.
All other things being equal (which they never are) single action guns tend to be stronger due to their solid frames, absence of a cylinder crane or ejector star, and simpler lockwork.
I'd say both guns are every bit as strong as they need to be and should last a very long time if they're not abused.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The problem is not blowing the guns up, but shooting them out of time. The BFR is a simpler, more rugged design and will hold up better to a lot of full-charge rounds.
Tom C.
Member.
The Smith locks up on the width of the hand. The single actions lock up on the length of the hand. If they are both fitted closely, they shouldn't batter too much and shoot loose.
A big part of the actual strength is based on the material and geometry of the cylinders. 17-4PH stainless or the Carpenter proprietary steel Ruger uses in the .454 would work fine.
A big part of the actual strength is based on the material and geometry of the cylinders. 17-4PH stainless or the Carpenter proprietary steel Ruger uses in the .454 would work fine.
Big Boomer
Member
I have a S&W in 460 mag and a 500 in a BFR, the reason I bought the BFR was the S&W is just getting the crap beat out of it.
Single action is inherently a stronger action, the top strap could be used for I beams in the Sears tower.
I have seen a picture of a 500 BFR that was BLOWN UP from a squib load and then a full power load right after it. Now when I say blown up I mean in a good way! The only thing that happened was the barrel peeled away from the rear just behind the bullet that was lodged in the barrel.
This would have caused a MAJOR KB in any other pistol IMHO. The cylinder held, the top strap was slightly bowed up I was amazed!
My S&W is nice, accurate but has had the frame replaced, and now jumps cylinders when firing heavier rounds. Like this I'll shoot 1-2-3-click...***? I had loaded 5 in there thinking it was a bad primer (did the normal oh crap safety procedures and waited) nope, the case was the cylinder had over rotated do to the torque causing it to skip to the next round then finally came back around to to the already shot one.
I also like that there is NO muzzle break on the BFR's I got the 10" to put all the possible power out the end of the barrel.
As far as double action vs single action, have you ever TRIED to shoot a quick double tap with your 500 smith? I would end up in your forehead! I can shoot single action just as quickly.
The only plus that I see is the quicker reload. Reloading from the gate is a pain in the rear but considering it's a hunting gun and not a SD gun it really doesn't matter. If I were hunting dangerous game I would have a 45-70 lever as a back up anyhow. So a quicker reload is kinda moot point.
I guess the costs now are about the same for the shorter barrels but as you reach out to the 10"+ barrels the cost of the 500 BFR is really quite a bit cheaper. I picked mine up new for $699
If I could only find a holster for the darn thing
Single action is inherently a stronger action, the top strap could be used for I beams in the Sears tower.
I have seen a picture of a 500 BFR that was BLOWN UP from a squib load and then a full power load right after it. Now when I say blown up I mean in a good way! The only thing that happened was the barrel peeled away from the rear just behind the bullet that was lodged in the barrel.
This would have caused a MAJOR KB in any other pistol IMHO. The cylinder held, the top strap was slightly bowed up I was amazed!
My S&W is nice, accurate but has had the frame replaced, and now jumps cylinders when firing heavier rounds. Like this I'll shoot 1-2-3-click...***? I had loaded 5 in there thinking it was a bad primer (did the normal oh crap safety procedures and waited) nope, the case was the cylinder had over rotated do to the torque causing it to skip to the next round then finally came back around to to the already shot one.
I also like that there is NO muzzle break on the BFR's I got the 10" to put all the possible power out the end of the barrel.
As far as double action vs single action, have you ever TRIED to shoot a quick double tap with your 500 smith? I would end up in your forehead! I can shoot single action just as quickly.
The only plus that I see is the quicker reload. Reloading from the gate is a pain in the rear but considering it's a hunting gun and not a SD gun it really doesn't matter. If I were hunting dangerous game I would have a 45-70 lever as a back up anyhow. So a quicker reload is kinda moot point.
I guess the costs now are about the same for the shorter barrels but as you reach out to the 10"+ barrels the cost of the 500 BFR is really quite a bit cheaper. I picked mine up new for $699
If I could only find a holster for the darn thing
Jim March
Member
Yeah...what a lot of people miss is that there's two kinds of "strength": "blowup resistance" and "action strength".
"Blowup resistance" isn't something the SAs have a huge advantage in. It's really about cylinder strength first and foremost - as long as the cylinder holds, the gun will (for a while anyways).
Action strength is another matter.
Sometimes you get a gun with a lot of "blowup resistance" but the action strength is marginal or worse. A classic example: the S&W model 27 and 28 (N-frame 357s) were damned difficult to blow, but fast firing with 38s just shredded the innards, esp. the ejector star and pawl. So people doing rapid-fire revolver competition (PPC and the like) usually used K-frames over N for improved reliability.
Different kind of strength...aided by the fact that the K-frame's smaller cylinder with less mass was less of an "impact" each time it's rotation was stopped. By the mid-80s the N-frame innards were upgraded over this issue.
I would bet on the BFR's beefed-up Ruger-pattern "innards" over the S&W DA action for long-term reliability.
On top of all that, Big Boomer notes about recoil and follow-up shot speed being a non-issue in this power level makes a LOT of sense.
If I wanted the S&W 500 cartridge, I shoot it out of a BFR - upgraded to a Bisley hammer/trigger/grip set.
"Blowup resistance" isn't something the SAs have a huge advantage in. It's really about cylinder strength first and foremost - as long as the cylinder holds, the gun will (for a while anyways).
Action strength is another matter.
Sometimes you get a gun with a lot of "blowup resistance" but the action strength is marginal or worse. A classic example: the S&W model 27 and 28 (N-frame 357s) were damned difficult to blow, but fast firing with 38s just shredded the innards, esp. the ejector star and pawl. So people doing rapid-fire revolver competition (PPC and the like) usually used K-frames over N for improved reliability.
Different kind of strength...aided by the fact that the K-frame's smaller cylinder with less mass was less of an "impact" each time it's rotation was stopped. By the mid-80s the N-frame innards were upgraded over this issue.
I would bet on the BFR's beefed-up Ruger-pattern "innards" over the S&W DA action for long-term reliability.
On top of all that, Big Boomer notes about recoil and follow-up shot speed being a non-issue in this power level makes a LOT of sense.
If I wanted the S&W 500 cartridge, I shoot it out of a BFR - upgraded to a Bisley hammer/trigger/grip set
.Big Bore Dan
Member
BFR VS Smith&Wesson 500
Thanks for the input, the 6 1/2" Smith does seem to recoil less than the 7 1/2" BFR, I guess the Muzzle break is effecient. The non fluted cylinder on both make the guns look as mean as they shoot. Thanks again.
Thanks for the input, the 6 1/2" Smith does seem to recoil less than the 7 1/2" BFR, I guess the Muzzle break is effecient. The non fluted cylinder on both make the guns look as mean as they shoot. Thanks again.
- Status
