Which Smith X-Frame?

[22-rimfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

a handgun is basically a short range hole puncher

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

 

[22-rimfire]

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]

? 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]

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]

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]

Oh to heck with it all.....I just got this one instead.

Click

 

[JohnM]

ROFLMAO------------ I about spit coffee all over my computer!!!

 

[22-rimfire]

Good choice!

 

[codefour]

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]

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

 

[lobo9er]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Hit_Factor]

What I fail to understand is why anyone would want a

CraigC Sounds like the President and his common sense statements.