Big-Bore Wheel Gun

[buckhorn_cortez]

I doubt if there is anyone here that would rather take that shot with a .44 or .45 than a .460.

People commenting on the .460 probably don't own one and understand how versatile the .460 can be.

The .460 with a 200 grain bullet has a velocity of 2,000 fps+ (depending upon barrel length) - and that is better than the 30-30 rifle that so many people think is perfect for short range deer hunting.

 

[buck460XVR]

People commenting on the .460 probably don't own one and understand how versatile the .460 can be.

The .460 with a 200 grain bullet has a velocity of 2,000 fps+ (depending upon barrel length) - and that is better than the 30-30 rifle that so many people think is perfect for short range deer hunting.

Folks commenting also have probably never shot one with the proper ammo either. The X-Frames are scarey accurate. With 300 gr pills, my .460 revolver is more accurate @ 100 yards than my Winnie .32 Special. That's what it's all about for me.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I saw an article about a 'model 1889' (1886/1892 levergun hybrid) a few years back that was going to be chambered in .500 s&w, I don't know what ever became of it.

Big Horn Armory is the company you are thinking of. I desperately want to order a 460 lever gun, but probably will never afford one.

http://www.bighornarmory.com/catalog/1/big-horn-armory-products/

 

[CraigC]

People commenting on the .460 probably don't own one and understand how versatile the .460 can be.

I have to question the "versatility" (a word so often used for the .460) of a revolver that weighs as much as some rifles and has more effective range than most people can use.

I doubt if there is anyone here that would rather take that shot with a .44 or .45 than a .460.

At 125yds, I really don't think it matters one way or another.

...and that is better than the 30-30 rifle that so many people think is perfect for short range deer hunting.

Better according to what standard, energy? A 200gr .45 is not going to penetrate like a 170gr .30-30.

 

[TimSr]

The bigger mystery to me than going from 44 to 460 is whay the felt the need to further step up the 454 Casull.

A 200gr .45 is not going to penetrate like a 170gr .30-30.

I don't know how much further you can penetrate than all the way through. most people hunt with larger than 200 gr. bullets. I use expanding 240gr XTP-MAGs from a 454 Casull and I have yet to find a bone mass in a deer heavy enough to stop an exit wound at 100 yards or less. I put a 300gr bullet through both shoulders of a 300lb black bear at 75 yards. Of course, your 30-30 won't shoot either of those bullet weights. Keep in mind my .454 is only the little brother of the 460 which is a .454 long.

I got my .454 for an Alaskan bear hunt, but I started using it in place of 44 mag for deer long agao, not just because of extended distance, but because it always gives me an exit wound from an expanding bullet, which means a quicker kill at any distance I am proficient enough to shoot it.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

I have to question the "versatility" (a word so often used for the .460) of a revolver that weighs as much as some rifles and has more effective range than most people can use.

Versatility = having or capable of many uses.

The .460 can do that - from deer and other medium game to large North American game.

Let's get this out of the way - the gun isn't made for what "most people can use." It's made for people that have a specific need and either know how to use it or want to learn how to use it.

It's also for people that just like to shoot large caliber pistols. The problem with that is...??

The remainder of your post is simply complaining about things you've decided to be critical about.

A long barreled (14-inch) .460 with a scope and bipod has the same effective range as a rifle with equal bullets weights and ballistics.

With heavier bullets, the range is the same as a .454, or .44 magnum.

As for weight - the heaviest .460 is 5.5 lbs. I'm sure somewhere there's a lightweight bolt action mountain rifle that is around 5.75 pounds.

You take weight and size into account when you buy the gun - no matter if it's a revolver or rifle - and you deal with it accordingly.

I don't get any of the "problems" you find with the .460.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The bigger mystery to me than going from 44 to 460 is whay the felt the need to further step up the 454 Casull.

The recoil from a .454 is completely different than the .460. The .454 has more recoil (about 13%) than the .460 with the same bullet weight. Part of that has to do with the greater weight of the X-Frame - but, the recoil impulse of the .454 is a lot sharper. I'd rather shoot 360 grain .460's that 300 grain .454's. The recoil difference is that noticeable.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Better according to what standard, energy? A 200gr .45 is not going to penetrate like a 170gr .30-30.

You'll have to explain this further. If you can't get the results you need with a 200 grain .45 at 2100 fps, how does a 170 grain at 2200 fps give you a better result?

The game is going to be "deader" with the 30-30? How's that work...?

 

[buck460XVR]

I have to question the "versatility" (a word so often used for the .460) of a revolver that weighs as much as some rifles and has more effective range than most people can use.

While the X-Frames may weigh as much as some rifles, they are also as accurate as some. But they are still a revolver and hunting with them is still more of a challenge than using that rifle. I carried a M1917 for hunting deer for the first 30 years I hunted deer. Like the .460 it was heavy, but accurate as hell. Like the .460 it was me that had to carry it.....not anyone else. While the .460 may have more effective range than I can use, I still can effectively use it at ranges farther than my .44s. As for the versatility of the .460, it matters little to me that it can shoot .45 Colt and .454. I don't have t for that. I have it to shoot legitimate .460 loads. That's all the versatility I need.

At 125yds, I really don't think it matters one way or another.

Maybe for someone who hasn't shot one. But I have shot .44, .45 and .460 extensively. At 125 yards the .460 really shines. At least in my hands. I don't think this, I know. The other two aren't even in the same ballpark. In areas where my longest shot will probably be under 100 yards, I take the .44. In areas where my longest shot will probably be under 50 yards I take the .357. They all work very well within their parameters.

 

[rswartsell]

buckhorn,

As I have stated more than once, if you like it knock yourself out. Be aware though that there are seasoned gunners (myself among them) that feel

A long barreled (14-inch) .460 with a scope and bipod has the same effective range as a rifle with equal bullets weights and ballistics.

With heavier bullets, the range is the same as a .454, or .44 magnum.

As for weight - the heaviest .460 is 5.5 lbs. I'm sure somewhere there's a lightweight bolt action mountain rifle that is around 5.75 pounds.

You take weight and size into account when you buy the gun - no matter if it's a revolver or rifle - and you deal with it accordingly.

a question to self like "why is it I'm not using a rifle?".

 

[Zaydok Allen]

buckhorn,

As I have stated more than once, if you like it knock yourself out. Be aware though that there are seasoned gunners (myself among them) that feel

A long barreled (14-inch) .460 with a scope and bipod has the same effective range as a rifle with equal bullets weights and ballistics.

With heavier bullets, the range is the same as a .454, or .44 magnum.

As for weight - the heaviest .460 is 5.5 lbs. I'm sure somewhere there's a lightweight bolt action mountain rifle that is around 5.75 pounds.

You take weight and size into account when you buy the gun - no matter if it's a revolver or rifle - and you deal with it accordingly.

a question to self like "why is it I'm not using a rifle?".

I agree with you completely that it does seem silly to use or own a handgun with a 14" barrel, or really any barrel over 8" in my opinion. If you are going to use a barrel that long, then a rifle is a better option.

However, there are areas restricted to handgun hunting only aren't there? I think these long barreled guns are designed to be a means to get by those restrictions. So they make sense in that regard.

Personally I find the 6.5 inch barreled 500 mag to be perfect, and the 5 inch 460 mag to also be perfect for these big revolvers. They just balance well for me.

 

[buck460XVR]

buckhorn,

As I have stated more than once, if you like it knock yourself out. Be aware though that there are seasoned gunners (myself among them) that feel a question to self like "why is it I'm not using a rifle?".

Because then you'd be rifle hunting. Anyone that seriously hunts with a handgun only, knows what the difference is. I could question why guys that hunt deer with anything other than a 30-30 aren't using a tank, but I don't. I could care less. I care more that they hunt safely, legally and ethically.

Some folks say the same thing about compounds and crossbows, when folks use them instead of a conventional bow. Some folks say the same thing when others use a sabot and a scope on their muzzle loader or shotgun with a rifled barrel. Then there are those folks claim their poop don't stink........

What difference is it what other folks use as long a it's legal, ethical and kills quickly and humanely? Why do folks continuously feel the need to condescend folks that do things differently or use something other than they do? I feel a question to self like "Is it insecurity or narcissism?"

 

[Barry the Bear]

I have to question the "versatility" (a word so often used for the .460) of a revolver that weighs as much as some rifles and has more effective range than most people can use.



At 125yds, I really don't think it matters one way or another.



Better according to what standard, energy? A 200gr .45 is not going to penetrate like a 170gr .30-30.

Wasnt it Elmer Keith whom stated that the big bore revolver rounds loaded with a hard cast flat profiled bullet will out penetrate rifle calibers that ballistically have more "power" behind them? Therefore a properly loaded big bore ( for this sake a .41 mag and above) will out penetrate a round like the .30-30 and even maybe some of the magnum rifle rounds due to heavier weight and less velocity making it penetrate deeper. Dont most hunting rifles use soft point loads designed to expand on impact? If Im wrong let me know but explain why Grand Ole Keith was wrong .

 

[j1]

For the same reason that 410 costs more than 12 gauge.

 

[TimSr]

Once a bullet exits, penetration is irrelevant.

A 30-30 performing at its best might make 45 caliber hole all the way through.

A .45 performing at its worst will make a .45 caliber hole all the way through.

 

[CraigC]

Ole Elmer wasn't wrong, he wasn't using lightweight jacketed bullets at 2000fps either. He was using a 250gr at 1200fps that would fully penetrate any deer from any angle. Same goes for the 170gr .30-30. Which can't be said for a light jacketed bullet in a revolver. Sorry but the 200gr .460 load is trying to make a revolver into a rifle and even with all that powder and 65,000psi, it still ain't one. What a big bore revolver has working for it is mass and diameter. Velocity in big bore revolvers is vastly overrated. It may impress those who still worship energy figures but you simply don't need a lot of it. There's not a lot of it to begin with.

The .460 can do that - from deer and other medium game to large North American game.

And how exactly is it set apart from the .44Mag, .45Colt, .454Casull and .480???

The remainder of your post is simply complaining about things you've decided to be critical about.

Yes, I am very critical of a handgun that defies the definition of "handgun". A handgun should fit into a belt holster and carry all day. If you need a 14" barrel, bipod and a big variable scope, you're deluding yourself into thinking you're really handgun hunting.

The .454 has more recoil (about 13%) than the .460 with the same bullet weight.

This is utter nonsense. The .460 runs at the same pressure with more powder and more velocity. It is going to have more recoil.

Maybe for someone who hasn't shot one. But I have shot .44, .45 and .460 extensively. At 125 yards the .460 really shines. At least in my hands. I don't think this, I know. The other two aren't even in the same ballpark. In areas where my longest shot will probably be under 100 yards, I take the .44. In areas where my longest shot will probably be under 50 yards I take the .357. They all work very well within their parameters.

The .460's greater velocity may deliver a more dramatic impact but it's not going to kill them any deader. IMHO, the trade-off is not even worthy of consideration. It's simply more weight, more muzzle blast and more velocity than is necessary to get the job done. To me, it's akin to carrying a 10lb .416 for deer. Sure, it'll work and you can certainly do it if you like but there are more efficient options available.

I feel a question to self like "Is it insecurity or narcissism?"

Are those the only two options? Why would it be insecurity? Because we can't handle it? I've got a newsflash, a 40oz 629 Mountain Gun with full loads is more abusive than a long barreled X-frame. As is the .500JRH I've got in the works. Why would it be narcissism??? I don't even see how that comes into play. Are we trying to impress someone with a smaller revolver chambered in a smaller cartridge??? You might ask yourself the same questions.

It's neither, it's a discussion. A legitimate, objective discussion. IMHO, anyone researching this subject should hear both sides of the discussion, not just X-frame fans lauding their favorite cannon. I'm emotionless about it. I ask myself the same questions. Why would I carry a 45oz .44Mag when a 37oz .44Spl will do what I need it to? Why would I carry a 52oz .480 when a 45oz .44Mag will do what I need it to? Those questions all have varying answers. If it doesn't pertain to needs it pertains to wants. Same applies to the X-frames versus their brethren. The decision is to be made by the user. Folks are free to hunt with whatever they like. I just want people, who may not know, to understand that you don't need such a massive sixgun firing such a massive cartridge to kill Bambi at 50yds.

 

[buck460XVR]

Sorry but the 200gr .460 load is trying to make a revolver into a rifle and even with all that powder and 65,000psi, it still ain't one.

No it isn't trying to be a rifle. It's just trying to be a flat shooting revolver capable of shooting longer distances without aiming it like a mortar. I don't consider the 200 gr load any more than advertising hype and a good varmint load. I prefer 300 grainers doing around 1800 fps.

And how exactly is it set apart from the .44Mag, .45Colt, .454Casull and .480???

The trajectory sets it well apart from the .44 mag and the .45 Colt, and less from the .454 and the .480. Similar to comparing a recurve to a compound bow. Why is it folks prefer a compound.....flatter trajectory and a longer effective range. Why is it folks use sabots with a rifled barrel slug gun or a muzzle loader? Flatter trajectory and more effective range.

Yes, I am very critical of a handgun that defies the definition of "handgun". A handgun should fit into a belt holster and carry all day. If you need a 14" barrel, bipod and a big variable scope, you're deluding yourself into thinking you're really handgun hunting.

You my friend may be deluding yourself into thinking you know what defines a handgun to everyon else in the world. Even my 5'' 686 that I use for deer does not sit in a holster on my belt, altho it certainly could. I use a hunting type bandolier/shoulder holster or the guns are in my hands anytime I am actively hunting. Don't mean I have anything against those that use a belt holster tho. I don't have a 14'' barrel, a bipod or a scope on any of my revolvers. Don't mean I have a problem with those that do. While I have no desire for a bolt action handgun with a 18'' barrel or a TC using a rifle round, I don't feel I need to condescend those that do. Why is it that you feel this need.

The .460's greater velocity may deliver a more dramatic impact but it's not going to kill them any deader. IMHO, the trade-off is not even worthy of consideration. It's simply more weight, more muzzle blast and more velocity than is necessary to get the job done. To me, it's akin to carrying a 10lb .416 for deer. Sure, it'll work and you can certainly do it if you like but there are more efficient options available.

Again, flatter shooting and more range, and not more velocity than is needed for the buck@ 125 yards.

Are those the only two options? Why would it be insecurity? Because we can't handle it? I've got a newsflash, a 40oz 629 Mountain Gun with full loads is more abusive than a long barreled X-frame. As is the .500JRH I've got in the works. Why would it be narcissism??? I don't even see how that comes into play. Are we trying to impress someone with a smaller revolver chambered in a smaller cartridge??? You might ask yourself the same questions.

It's neither, it's a discussion. A legitimate, objective discussion. IMHO, anyone researching this subject should hear both sides of the discussion, not just X-frame fans lauding their favorite cannon.

I'm not trying to impress anyone with smaller revolvers using smaller chamberings. I use them myself. At the same time I'm not condescending you for having a 40oz .44 that you admit is more brutal to shoot than my X-Frame. Or the .500JRH. Good for you to be able to own and shoot such nice firearms. If there's a difference here, in this discussion, this is it.

IMHO, anyone researching this subject should hear both sides of the discussion, not just X-frame fans lauding their favorite cannon. Folks are free to hunt with whatever they like. I just want people, who may not know, to understand that you don't need such a massive sixgun firing such a massive cartridge to kill Bambi at 50yds.

No where was I just lauding the .460, I was only defending myself and the caliber against the emotional naysayers here. If you go back and look at my posts over the years I have always told folks to use whatever they want, as long as it's legal, ethical and gives a quick and humane kill. The .460 does this but for some reason you are against it. I just don't understand. Maybe it's because I hunt deer bigger than Bambi at ranges farther than 50 yards.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The .454 has more recoil (about 13%) than the .460 with the same bullet weight

This is utter nonsense. The .460 runs at the same pressure with more powder and more velocity. It is going to have more recoil.

Craig, I did a double take on that remark as well. I think the problem is buckhorn didn't illustrate that he was talking about two different weight guns very well.

If you read buckhorn's next statement, I think what he meant was that because the 454 comes in a smaller and lighter package in a dedicated 454 platform, like a FA or a SRH, the perceived recoil of the same weight bullet out of that lighter gun will be greater than firing the same weight bullet in a 460 cartridge out of a heavier X frame revolver, purely because of the weight of the X frame.

Out of the same X frame, the 460 does of course recoil harder.

 

[WestKentucky]

BFR is pretty neat, and no they are not oddities or anything of the sort. They are handguns built for folks who like massive recoil and more often thapn not can either afford to shoot them a lot, or are reloading for them to optimize them in the platform they are used in. They are no more ridiculous than the TC contender.

 

[CraigC]

No it isn't trying to be a rifle. It's just trying to be a flat shooting revolver capable of shooting longer distances without aiming it like a mortar. I don't consider the 200 gr load any more than advertising hype and a good varmint load. I prefer 300 grainers doing around 1800 fps.

You miss the point. Lightweight bullets at high velocities is an attempt to attain rifle killing power (small, fast vs big, heavy) out of a handgun. I agree on the 200gr load but others tout it as the best thing since sliced bread. It offers impressive numbers but I'd rather use a heavier bullet.

The trajectory sets it well apart from the .44 mag and the .45 Colt, and less from the .454 and the .480.

And as I already said, out to 125yds, it doesn't matter. A .300Mag might shoot flatter than a .30-30 but if you never shoot beyond 150yds, what does it matter?

You my friend may be deluding yourself into thinking you know what defines a handgun to everyon else in the world.

Not at all. The handgun's sole purpose is to be smaller, lighter and handier than a rifle. More easily carried on one's person and readily available when a longarm may be cumbersome and impractical. A handgun as long and heavy as an X-frame defies the very definition of a handgun. Just like XP-100's and Contenders, they were invested to minimize the disadvantages inherent in all handguns, while still "handguns" only in a technical sense.

I don't feel I need to condescend those that do. Why is it that you feel this need.

That is not what I am doing, nor do I have a 'need' to. I am simply offering a differing perspective and consider this to be valid, legitimate discussion. Like I said, FOR THOSE WHO ARE RESEARCHING THIS SUBJECT, THEY NEED TO HEAR BOTH SIDES. I don't care what anybody uses but lots of people go into a gun shop looking to get into handgun hunting come out believing they need a cannon to kill deer. To be honest, my posts are not for you. They're for the undecided. There's no reason for you to be defensive.

The .460 does this but for some reason you are against it. I just don't understand.

Like I've said a million times, because a standard cartridge will get the job done in a smaller, lighter, more portable and cheaper to feed package. Again, I don't begrudge anyone a choice that differs from mine. I just think decisions should be made with all information available and that is what I am trying to provide but you X-frame fans get defensive whenever that choice is questioned. If you want to hunt deer with a .460, you won't get an argument from me. Just don't go into it thinking you need that much for deer.

Maybe it's because I hunt deer bigger than Bambi at ranges farther than 50 yards.

There's not a critter alive that the .460 can take but the .44Mag cannot. Again, range is its only advantage.

I think the problem is buckhorn didn't illustrate that he was talking about two different weight guns very well.

He should've made that stipulation. X-frame vs Freedom Arms, he's probably right.

 

[Snowman269]

Funny....when I tell folks I hunt deer with a .357. I get told it's "marginal" and I really should use a .44 or a .45. Then, when I tell them I use a .460 for deer they say deer aren't armor plated or Tyrannosaurus Rex and I should just use a .44 or .45. Apparently the only appropriate handguns for deer are .44 or .45. Still these same folks think they need a 30-06 or 7mm mag for deer, much more gun than a .460 revolver. I just don't get it.

Most folks I see dissing the really big bores have never shot a good one. But they have an opinion on them. For most of us that use the really big-bores for deer, what we are looking for over a standard .44 or .45 is range, not killing or knock-down power. I hunt areas where there are good odds of a 160-170 class, 250# buck giving me a standing shot @ 125 yards or so. I generally hunt deer with a revolver being my primary weapon. I doubt if there is anyone here that would rather take that shot with a .44 or .45 than a .460.

well said

 

[mnrivrat]

I hunted black bear with .357 and see nothing wrong with using the same for deer.
Wether it's my opinion or anybody elses opinion you always have to take it as just - Opinion ! And you know what they say about opinion .

 

[dvnv]

"And as I already said, out to 125yds, it doesn't matter."

For me, this is where it does matter. How are you killing deer with a 300 gr in 44 mag at 125 yards without making some elevation correction?

 

[TimSr]

After hunting deer with .44 magnum, and then later being able to use .454 Casull, the idea that it doesn't matter is absurd to me, even at closer ranges.

Yep, they are just as dead, but I prefer they die nearer where I shot them.

Anything can make a good kill through the ribs, but the biggest difference between the 44 and 454 is that the 454 always exits, and there are no bones or bone combination that will ever keep it from going out the other side at pretty much the same angle it went in. Heart lungs will kill them quickly, but taking out a shoulder or two when you do it puts them on the ground.

 

[gotboostvr]

This thread need more pictures. What's a discussion without a visualation of how impressive these things are?


I just realized you can see how much of a roll crimp I put on those 500's in that picture. I would describe that as a "heavy" crimp!
And I think these count too. (44 Mags)