No 454 Casull

Has anyone ever wondered why S&W doesn't have a revolver chambered in 454 Casull? I might be in the market for one and it seems my only options are Ruger, Magnum Research and ummm Taurus. I do not like the looks of the Super Redhawk and the BFR is single action and I think I would rather a double action right now. I'm not keen on Taurus revolvers so that leaves me out in the cold.

I could buy a S&W 460 Magnum but the cost is prohibitive. Of course there's Freedom Arms but again, the price is prohibitive and they are SA. I wish the Redhawk came in 454 Casull because I like the Redhawk frame much better than the Super Redhawk frame. What to do?

NOTE: Please don't try and convince me to buy a Taurus. I'm not badmouthing them, I just don't like them and nothing anyone can say will change that.

 

S&W doesn't make one cause they kinda already do. The 460 smith can shoot 454 Casull, 45 Colt and along the same lines 45 Schofield.

The X frame is nice in the smaller barrel lengths, for me anyways. I was looking for a 460 smith when I came into a Ruger SBH in 454 Casull. After shooting it with all out handgun loads, I don't see the need for anything bigger, although I'd sure love to try the 460 or 500 smith.

So I guess my advise is to go for a SRH or wait for a used 460 to come along.

 

My brief affair with 454 casull involved a very nice field grade Freedom Arms which, considering the quality of the gun, was fairly priced. In any event, I was unable to manage the recoil even with a single action gun. Any chance you can test fire any one first?

 

^^^This. I shot .454 outta a few S.R.s and I did not like the recoil they produced. I too was not taken by the R.B.s. and I too prefer D.A.s I then shot a X-Frame. Altho they are large and heavy, they do the caliber justice with accuracy and easy shooting. The .460 is only a mild step up from there. Difference in price between the X-Frame and SRs is not really that much considering what they are. Most used X-Frames I see, go for less than new S.R.s. Most of those used ones have been shot very little and most are P.C. models with great triggers. Cost to reload .454 and .460 is a moot point because the cost is so similar.

 

Do you handload? Because the .45Colt Redhawk can be loaded to 50-55,000psi and that is equivalent to most factory .454 loads. That said, going much beyond standard Ruger only .45Colt loads does little more than flatten trajectory.

S&W needed a new frame anyway and I reckon they preferred to go even bigger with their stretch frames and the very long cartridges they chamber.

 

IMO, the X-Frame is just silly big. The guns are almost cartoonish looking kinda like a Desert Eagle.

I'd think you could get a Redhawk rechambered to .454 Casull. I'd rather have a SA though.

 

I have wanted a Freedom Arms Premier grade in .454 Casull for over 20 years.
Long story short, traded a basically new in box S&W model 52-2 for one.
I had a 454 Super Redhawk a few years ago, but let it go.
The FA is a keeper.
The single action type revolvers are solid and accurate.
No need for a double action, especially in an ass kicking recoil that the 454 has.
Shooting double action in a massive recoiling cartridge is going to take some work on your part to accomplish and be accurate with it.
I shot a Colt Python in double action for the short line to get my DR badge, but we are talking about 158gr .38 specials here with no recoil and controllable.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

Clarence

 

+1. First time a saw an x-frame 500 at my LGS, I thought it was a fake. A plastic promo piece based on a smaller framed model. When the sales person offered it to me to hold I was shocked.
It is just impractically silly, though I wouldn't mind trying on out, um, now and then. But it's not the kind of thing I'd make space for in my safe. Unless of course I had that ugly 'downed bush pilot bear problem'. Then I'd check for it in my chest rig every few steps and it would look just right.
B

 

The S&W N-frame was not up to the pressure demands of the 454 Casull and the cylinder would be way too short in the N-frame to handle the longer 454 cartridge.

S&W decided to break the mold and make the 500 S&W and 460 S&W Magnums. Great calibers.. You can get 45-70 level performance in a handgun. I believe the fact the 454 was a proven diameter (452) to make the 460. S&W would have to make a whole new frame to make a reliable and safe 454, maybe the "R-frame" (my made up name) for a reliable maxim in the 454 Casull. It could be the moderate magnum frame with the N-frame being a small Magnum frame LOL.
I have hit 8 inch plates at 300 yards with my 460 XVR. The 460 and 500 can deliver huge performance from a revolver. I just do not see the marketability of a 454 from S&W.. The X-frame negates the need of a 454S&W..

But, I hunt with a Ruger SBH Bisley Hunter in .44 Mag.. Go figure. I love my 460 XVR, but a .44 Mag will do all I will ever need. I also have a 454 SRH. But I always hunt with my ole 44 Mag.. Sometimes with my four inch RedHawk in .44..

 

Yes, I reload for everything I shoot except of course rimfire ammo.

I also know the .460 Magnum will shoot the 454 Casull and 45 Colt. You will notice I mentioned the S&W 460 Mag in my OP because of that fact.

No need to test fire a 454 Casull since I've already shot one several times. I know exactly what the recoil is like. I already reload for the 45 Colt and will load for the 454 Casull so not all the rounds shot in the 454 will be full power. (actually, most won't be full power) I'm looking at a 454 instead of a 44 Magnum because like I just said, I already load for the 45 Colt.

 

A customer at our range handed me a 6" S&W 460 with 45 long colt, 454, and lastly a 460.
I was waiting for the 460 to take my arm off and firing it was a pleasant surprise. I think if I hunted with a revolver, this would be my choice. Very versatile with a wide variety of ammo to choose from.

 

Sucks that cost is an issue cuz yeah, the 460 is a nice gun to own. Could you just save a little longer?

I am not a fan of Taurus either.

This is the same deal I came across when I wanted a cannon. I wanted a Smith in 454, but none existed. I didn't care for the SRH much, but was willing to buy that, and nearly did.

Then I found the 460V with the 5" bbl. I suddenly discovered how practical the 460 is.

 

It's not a matter of not having the money, it's a matter of being willing to spend that much on a revolver. The 5" S&W 460V is well over $1000 online plus S&H and transfer fees. In turn the Ruger SRH is under $700 and the BFR will run you ~$800.

I guess a used S&W M460V would probably be acceptable if the price is right but those guns usually go for close to the original selling price for some reason.

 

Ah, I see. Yeah, it is a lot of money, and definately over priced. They do seem to retain their value. When They stopped producing them, I saw a 50% increase in the value of mine on Gunbroker.com. Now that they are making them again, the price seems to have come down.

I paid $1025 in 2009. I guess I don't regret spending the money as it is my "do everything gun".

 

I sort of had that quandry with caliber offerings. I chose to get a BFR in 480/475 which is all the gun I will need for anything I am likely to hunt. Have a lot of factory 480 Ruger but only a little 475L. Will eventually start reloading for it. 480 Ruger was one of the few calibers (along with 454C) that you could acquire during this shortage. Kind of tells you those calibers aren't for everyone.

To answer you question, I'd get the long frame BFR in 460. Don't recall if they offer a short frame BFR in 454C.

 

I really like the X frame. it is one of the most accurate guns I have ever shot that didn't have any work done to it. The 460 is one rocking cartridge. The X frame with a 10" barrel is one of the I want to own guns on my list. Buying an X frame with a short barrel is like pissing up a rope. You have a massive load of powder to burn and the gas needs to expand. 10" is the minimum barrel length to get that done. Having a shorter barrel is like the 4.5" GP100 in 357 mag. Geez I have a 357 mag! It throws fire out of the barrel and it is bad! But when you shoot it through a chronograph you are disappointed. Everyone elses 357 is way faster than your flame thrower. I buy guns that shoot well. If I want a flame thrower I can dig a hole and put some gas in it a lot cheaper and it makes a bigger flame.

 

The 460 was originally designed around a 8 and 3/8ths inch bbl. So 10" minimum?...... You are of course correct that a longer tube will allow more complete burning of the powder, better accuracy, better velocity, and more effective use of the cartridge.

Not entirely depending on your desired use. While as stated above, I agree with you that the longer bbl makes full use of the cartridge's potential, a shorter bbl is not a total waste. I find 5 inches is a great balance for handling. It is capable of accurate shots as far out as I care to make them for hunting, and added velocity over the same length bbl in .454 (if the powder used burns fast enough to create faster velocities out of the same length bbl) will aid in penetration if dealing with a dangerous critter on the trail.

Now if you are using a load that will gain you no extra velocity over a .454 due to the powder being used, then the extra expense of an X frame is silly. Also, if hunting is your only concern, then again I agree with you that a shorter bbl is silly.

If you are talking about the 2.5" bbl versions of the 460, I whole hartidly agree with you that they are crazy, and the loss of velocity is likely so great in that short of a bbl that I'd rather have a .454 or .44 in longer bbl. Accuracy and recoil management will actually be acceptable then.

I need a chronograph.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not an X-frame fan but this is just pure nonsense. Revolver cartridges will always achieve the highest velocities with the same slow-burning powders. So regardless of barrel length, 40gr of H110 will yield higher velocities than 30gr, if the bullet and pressures are the same. No, it absolutely won't yield as much velocity as it would in a longer barrel but everything is relative.

 

What is the point in spending $1100 or more on an X frame with a 5" barrel? I can buy a 44 mag redhawk with a 7.5" barrel that will come close to equalling the performance. The X frame weighs close to 3 lb without a barrel. What difference is couple ounces going to make for an adequate barrel? I can't see spending a bunch of money on a gun with an inadequate barrel.

That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. No one is wrong! We are just exchanging thoughts. If you can't handle exchanging thoughts you need another hobby than internet forums. If you all think everyone has to agree with you I need to find another forum.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and no one is keeping you from it. However, your statements about ballistics are absolutely debatable and yes, you are wrong. To preface this, I would much rather have a .44Mag and in fact, I have seven of them and no .454's or .460's. I choose differently but for different reasons. That said, nothing you can do with a 7.5" .44Mag will equal a 5" .454 or .460. Nothing you can do with a smaller case that operates at lower pressures will make up for the case capacity and pressures of the .454 or .460S&W. You obviously have some misconceptions of internal ballistics and your mind is made up without any real facts. If you can't handle your erroneous statements being debated then perhaps YOU need to find another forum.

Whether or not you actually need the additional velocity is what I question.

 

You are talking about CUP and I am talking about velocity and energy on the target. I would only use an X frame for hunting or defense against large animals. I want a long sight plain so I can hit the beast and a balanced gun so I can fire it quickly..

Moreover, you have admitted you have never fired an X frame. I can tell you from experience it's a handful with a 10" barrel that balances the gun very well. All you seem to care about is bunch of dry numbers instead of performance in the field.

You can say I am wrong if you want to. I don't give a rats a** what you think.

 

What do you think produces velocity, pixie dust and wishful thinking??? This is how it works. Pressure and gas volume produces velocity. More powder = more gas volume. Increase pressure and increase velocity. Increase gas volume and increase velocity. Increase both and REALLY increase velocity.

No, I didn't but it's irrelevant anyway.

We're talking about velocity and you're deflecting with a bunch of subjective, tangent nonsense. If I thought a 10" 5-6lb .460 was a handful, then I probably wouldn't want a 5" either.

Obviously. You can puff up and pitch a fit if you want but it won't make you any less wrong.

 

Eh..... this has fallen apart. ArchAngelCD, I think you'd enjoy a 460V. It is a nice in between model on the available choices. You may have to grit your teeth and endure the price.

If not, I wish you luck in your search.

pm me if you want any other info on that particular model.

 

My guess is that if S&W did make one it would be priced right along side the 460. There is no reason to wish S&W would make a 454 in the Taurus and Redhawk range. Why would a 454 cost any different than a 460? So even if they made what yo wanted it would be just as cost prohibitive as the 460

 

I enjoy my .454 Casull quite a bit, but alas ArchAngelCD has a hankering for a DA revolver, and mine is SA (Freedom Arms). On a DA frame .44 Magnum is about all I really care to shoot out of a normal size revolver, normal meaning less than 60 ounces with less than a 8" barrel. In other words an actual handgun, not a carbine that the manufacturer neglected to put a butt stock on.

I will make a few observations in general about barrel length since that seems to be a hot topic here. I don't personally like short barreled revolvers very much, but I also don't like overly long barrels either. My M83 has a 6" barrel, and that is about right for me although if it were 7.5" it would work too. I suppose if I had my druthers I'd split the difference at 6.75" and might in fact someday do that when I decide to have FA install an octagonal barrel. At any rate in the 5.5"-7.5" barrel length range you should get enough barrel to get useful velocity out of the .454 Casull, with enough sight radius to shoot reasonably well with practice, and enough weight to make it half tolerable to practice with all while still being handy enough to actually carry in a holster. That is the crux of it for me, the revolver must be of a size that it can actually be carried in a holster on a belt, or shoulder rig. The S&W X frame, to me, seems impractically large and heavy. You see many of them with slings on them, well if I need a sling to carry a firearm it may as well be a damn rifle or a carbine (particularly if the gun weighs as much as a carbine anyway...).

I am sure that a .460 S&W out of a 5"-6" barrel will be faster and more powerful than a .454 Casull of the same or longer barrel length. How much faster I do not know, and of note all the reloading data for the .460 S&W I have seen has been worked up on longer barrels than that. I have my doubts that such a beast would really give much in the way of ballistic advantage over the .454 Casull versus the extra weight you would have to lug around to get it.