Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

s&w x frame

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by southernjeep80, Dec 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. southernjeep80

    southernjeep80 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    im guessing theirs only one size of x frame but id figure id still ask.

    is the s&w 460 as big as there 500 guns??

    i have seen a 500 and i didnt think it is a realistic daily carry here if florida (light clothing) that thing was huge. i cant seem to find anyone with a 460 but there in the same frame dropdown at s&w.com so are they the same size.

    if so i guess im going with the Ruger srh 454 since it actually can be a daily carry.




    ps. im not just going for a DC gun it is some what of a rifle replacement for the close range shots down here and if i can hunt and carry well nothings better than multi purpose right.
     
  2. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    Yes, the X-Frame is the X-Frame, regardless of the caliber.

    As for daily carry of the Ruger Super RedHawk 454?

    You must be a better man then I!!

    Any handgun that big & heavy should come standard with wheels already mounted on it.

    My upper limit for comfortable all-day pack'n is about a S&W Model 29 or Ruger flat-top .44 Mag.

    In a real good holster, on a real wide gunbelt.

    rc
     
  3. Action_Can_Do

    Action_Can_Do Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    574
    There is one minor difference between the 500 and 460 magnums. The 460 magnum's cylinder is a little smaller. It doesn't really make the gun any more packable though. I have to agree with RC. The super redhawk isn't exactly a lot smaller than a x-frame revolver.
     
  4. jad0110

    jad0110 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,048
    Location:
    Somewhere between the Eastern Block states and Flo
    If you don't mind me asking, what would you be hunting with that hand cannon? I can't imagine anything in FL that couldn't be dispatched with a good hardcast .357, .41, .44 Mag or even 45 Colt.
     
  5. BCRider

    BCRider Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    7,780
    Location:
    Pacific North"Wet" Coast of Canada
    "daily carry" of a .454 , .460 or .500 implies that you either meet up with seriously steroid fed oversized bad guys or you live in areas infested with hungry 'gators.
     
  6. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Carry the most powerful caliber you can accurately shoot, in the heaviest gun you can comfortably carry.. If you can comfortably carry a SRH in .454 Casull every day, more power to you (figuratively and literally).
     
  7. pikid89

    pikid89 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    The Gator Nation
    for a multi purpose gun you would probably be better served with a nice 357 or 44 mag
     
  8. 340PD

    340PD Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,376
    One benefit of the 460 S&W is the ability to shoot 45 long colt, 454 casull, or 460 S&W. I would much prefer to own a gun with all those options. Good luck with the daily carry.
     
  9. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,316
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Somehow I don't think he meant for concealed carry but for woods bummin'.

    Why (how!) would the .460's cylinder be smaller than the .500's?


    With equivalent barrel lengths, the Ruger SRH is A LOT lighter than an X-frame .460! Something like 20oz lighter!!! My 7½" .480 is actually two ounces lighter than a Bisley Hunter .44 of the same length. IMHO, SRH's look bigger and heavier than they actually are.


    IMHO, the .454 is all one would ever need, unless you want a .500. The .460 only adds velocity and all that does is flatten trajectory. The .454 is a viable 150yd cartridge and very few have any business taking shots 'that' long with a sixgun. Much less any further. The .460 is just too much of an unnecessary thing.
     
  10. Action_Can_Do

    Action_Can_Do Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    574
    CraigC

    The 460 magnum cylinder isn't as wide as the 500 cylinder. You can tell if you look at the rear profile of both guns at the same time. I don't really buy much into the whole argument of any cartridge being unnecessary. As General Geoff said, carry the biggest you can handle. Keep in mind that at one point, popular opinion held that the 45 colt was far more powerful than anyone could handle and that only a fool hunted with a handgun.
     
  11. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,316
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    I have a really hard time buying that. Knowing that if the cylinder is smaller in diameter, not only would it cause manfucturing difficulties but the chambers would have to be closer to the centerline of the cylinder, which throws off the geometry of the whole design.

    Also understanding how big bore handguns kill, I stand by my previous statement. It has nothing to do with what the shooter can handle, but everything to do with diminishing returns. It has been well proven that the best, most efficient handgun hunting bullets are heavyweight hardcast designs, preferably LBT's. It has also been proven that pushing them much over 1200fps simply flattens trajectory. With that in hand, how flat a trajectory do you really need? Because 1500fps shoots plenty flat enough for 150yd capability and very, very, very few handgun hunters need to be shooting at game beyond that. The few that I know of have mastered the sixgun. Nope, it's a lot of noise, a lot of hype, a lot of velocity and very little of it is really necessary.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page