Why no S&W 454 Casull revolvers?

[Zaydok Allen]

In looking at the history of the 454 Casull cartridge you will find it was developed in the 50's, and finally brought to commercial production by Freedom Arms in 1983. Ruger started chambering revolvers for it in 1997 and Taurus in 1998.

Smith & Wesson, as near as I can tell, never produced a 454 Casull chambered revolver. Then the 460 S&W magnum came out in 2005, which was also capable of chambering the 454, but that seems like quite a length of time between the 454 Casull coming on to the market in commercial production to when they had a gun capacble of firing the cartridge.

So does anyone know why? Did they just not feel a 454 Casull would sell well because the 44 magnum was more manageable? Did Dirty Harry make the 44 so popular at the time that they had no need to market a bigger gun? Did that popularity make demand for the model 29 so great that they just couldn't make room, time, and a financial commitment to getting production up on a 454 gun, because they couldn't keep up with demand for 44 magnum guns?

I'm just curious. When looking at the time frames, it seems odd to me that they never offered a 454 Casull, and instead waited a long time and jumped straight to the 460 magnum.

I guess that sort of brings up another question. Was the 454 not that popular when it came out in a Freedom Arms gun? I would guess that the high price for one of those guns probably had an effect on people's interest in the cartridge. Did the birth of the X frame and the 460 mag cartridge actually make the 454 Casull a more appealing cartridge as well because it offered additional versatility and ammo options, or was it pretty popular from the start?

 

[Sam1911]

I imagine they knew the N-frame really wasn't up to .454 energy levels, and didn't feel the time was right to develop (or there was a market for) the big X frame until the last decade.

 

[627PCFan]

Never having shot one, I have seen people shoot the Taurus 454's and they look very very snappy but if you throw that in the 460 on that big X frame it wasn't so snappy. My guess is the round fits and works in the Nframe (or Taurus version of it anyway) but with a price on your wrist. The Linbaugh revolvers have been out there a while and people buy them but they never were a big seller. More of a niche market. Loading a 454 in a 460 might change things.

 

[Ed Ames]

I suspect the blame belongs to the British. During the period in which Ruger and Taurus were adding Casull models to their lineups, S&W was owned by a British investment firm that...well let's just say they seemed to have a different focus than gun enthusiasts. They wouldn't have seen much potential or value in a .454 model. There may have been some NIH involved, but I suspect it was mainly that Tomkins PLC couldn't see a lot of potential police or military sales of the .454, and was not particularly comfortable with the civilian gun market.

Arguably, the .460 and .500 were released as part of an effort to undo the reputation harm S&W earned during the Tomkins PLC era.

Of course once they built the .460, there wasn't much need to make a specific .454 model.

That's my guess, anyway.

 

[Drail]

It's because of that old "not invented by us" mentality coupled with "we're just sure we can make a better one".:

 

[4v50 Gary]

Didn't Ruger make a SuperBlackhawk that fired the .454 Casull? I remember firing one once and after three shots, I said forget it. I don't have big hands or big wrists. My wrists were going limp from the recoil. They hurt that much. By comparison, the 44 Magnum was pleasant.

 

[HankB]

The M29/M629 was considered marginal for continuous use of .44 mag, in much the same way that K-frames like the M19 were considered marginal for continuous use of .357. This was somewhat remedied by the "Endurance Package" that S&W introduced around 1987, but the N frame just isn't well suited to .454 Casull; in fact, IIRC, S&W's N-frame .45 Colt revolvers usually aren't recommended for "hot" .45 Colt handloads the way some Rugers are. (Although I've wondered if a 5-shot N-frame variation would work, sort of the way S&W just did with .44 mag in their L-frame.)

Otherwise . . . can't you shoot .454 Casull in their .460s?

 

[CraigC]

I can think of several reasons.

1. S&W had been relying on old designs for all their revolvers for years. Sure, they made incremental changes and improvements over the years but they were all basically the same as they were 100yrs ago. S&W knew that the .454 would require a brand new frame with redesigned lockwork to survive the pressures of the .454. It would have to be just as large as the X-frame but could've been a little shorter.

2. Anything over the .44Mag is really a niche within a niche. S&W is a major manufacturer and surely wouldn't have wanted to bank on such an undertaking before the time was right. Remember, with new guns and cartridges timing is critical.

3. Very few shooters are up to the challenge of learning to shoot these guns with any degree of proficiency. Recoil is severe and it takes dedication to get good with them.

4. Like Ruger, they probably wanted their name on a new cartridge more than they wanted someone else's on their gun.

5. Related to #2, it was Ruger that really created the market for the X-frames. The massive Super Redhawk required only a new alloy to withstand the .454 cartridge and it was the first .454 on the market that was actually affordable for the average shooter.

 

[22-rimfire]

I suspect that when Ruger was developing and introduced the 480 (.47 caliber) and 454 (.45 caliber) Super Redhawks, it captured S&W's attention and nudged them toward having a revolver in this power level. So, they make a bigger one (500 S&W) and the 460 that can chamber the 454 C. The big bore+ single action market was already covered with customs (generally modified Rugers), Freedom Arms and BFR and many people "think" that they would prefer a double action revolver.

Handgun hunting for deer sized game has been growing as a sport as well. A number of the bigger outdoor writers of the 70-80's hunted with revolvers and really pushed them as well. But we know that Elmer pretty much started it all.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Didn't Ruger make a SuperBlackhawk that fired the .454 Casull?

Super redhawk, yes. Don't know about the blackhawk.

Otherwise . . . can't you shoot .454 Casull in their .460s?

Yes you can, and I do frequently as factory ammo is a little cheaper than 460 ammo and still shoots plenty flat. It's a fantastically versatile gun in a 5" barrelled version. Though, if you have no interest in those power levels, one would be better served by a smaller and lighter 45 Colt revolver. I like having the options available to me though. I was wondering though because of the time between Ruger and Taurus offering 454 guns, and S&W not coming out with the 460 until 2005.

Thanks for the responses guys. They all seem reasonably well thought out and logical. The N frame internals not really being up to the task of handling regular 454 shooting seems to make a lot of sense now that I think about it. But really, they would have needed a longer frame too.

Good info. That hole in my brain is now patched.

 

[PapaG]

Buy a 460. Shoot your 454s, 45 Colts, and even the intended 460.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Buy a 460. Shoot your 454s, 45 Colts, and even the intended 460.

I already own one. That wasn't the point of the question at all.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I was also surprised S&W didn't chamber a revolver in 454 Casull but I was even more surprised when Ruger discontinued their 454 Casull revolvers. That must tell us something about the 454 Casull market.

 

[CraigC]

I don't believe Ruger ever discontinued the .454 SRH. They stopped making .480's for a while but those are back too.

 

[rcmodel]

As for why S&W didn't in 1958?
Well, there was a little problem called the Vietnam war they couldn't keep up with production fast enough at the time.

And changes in ownership, nationality, and company direction at about the same time too as already mentioned.
It was a bad time for a fine old American Company at that time, and for many years after.

And as already mentioned, they didn't have a gun with a frame strong enough or long enough to handle the pressure and cartridge length.
And were smart enough to know that.

I also lean toward a little, or a lot of the 'Not Invented Here' theory.

S&W, throughout cartridge firing revolver history, has had their name on most of the most powerful revolver cartridges in the world at the time.
(Excepting the .45 Colt of course)

.44 S&W American - 1869
.32 S&W - 1877
.38 S&W Special - 1899
.32 S&W LONG -1903
.44 S&W Special - 1907
.357 Magnum - 1935
.44 S&W Magnum - 1955
.41 S&W Magnum - 1964

They were on a long run of introducing the most powerful handguns in the world at the time.

And were not going to spend money on a new frame & cylinder size in 1958 for the .454 Casull, until they truly had the most powerful revolvers in the world to Out Power it the next time too.

Then, they did.

.500 S&W - 2004
.460 S&W - 2005

rc

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I don't believe Ruger ever discontinued the .454 SRH. They stopped making .480's for a while but those are back too.

I don't know what I was thinking about but you are correct. The Ruger SRH is still chambered in 454 Casull... My mistake.

Did they even chamber the Redhawk in 454?

 

[ljnowell]

As for why S&W didn't in 1958?
Well, there was a little problem called the Vietnam war they couldn't keep up with production fast enough at the time.

And changes in ownership, nationality, and company direction at about the same time too as already mentioned.
It was a bad time for a fine old American Company at that time, and for many years after.

And as already mentioned, they didn't have a gun with a frame strong enough or long enough to handle the pressure and cartridge length.
And were smart enough to know that.

I also lean toward a little, or a lot of the 'Not Invented Here' theory.

S&W, throughout cartridge firing revolver history, has had their name on most of the most powerful revolver cartridges in the world at the time.
(Excepting the .45 Colt of course)

.44 S&W American - 1869
.32 S&W - 1877
.38 S&W Special - 1899
.32 S&W LONG -1903
.44 S&W Special - 1907
.357 Magnum - 1935
.44 S&W Magnum - 1955
.41 S&W Magnum - 1964

They were on a long run of introducing the most powerful handguns in the world at the time.

And were not going to spend money on a new frame & cylinder size in 1958 for the .454 Casull, until they truly had the most powerful revolvers in the world to Out Power it the next time too.

Then, they did.

.500 S&W - 2004
.460 S&W - 2005

rc

I've always known the 44 magnum to be the 44 Remington Magnum. The 44 Special was the S&W Special though, I thought.

 

[Lucky Derby]

I've always known the 44 magnum to be the 44 Remington Magnum. The 44 Special was the S&W Special though, I thought.

.44 S&W Special is correct.
.357, .41 & .44 Remington Magnum is correct. HOWEVER-They were developed as a joint project between Remington & S&W. Remington was not producing handuns during that time, only long guns and ammunition.

 

[98Redline]

I don't know what I was thinking about but you are correct. The Ruger SRH is still chambered in 454 Casull... My mistake.

Did they even chamber the Redhawk in 454?

The Redhawk was never chambered in 454. There have been a couple of conversions as the SRH and RH cylinders are interchangable, but never as a stock item.

 

[ljnowell]

.44 S&W Special is correct.

.357, .41 & .44 Remington Magnum is correct. HOWEVER-They were developed as a joint project between Remington & S&W. Remington was not producing handuns during that time, only long guns and ammunition.

Yeah skeeter has told the story of how Elmer Keith met with S&W and Remington and talked them into it.

In Elmer's own words:
http://darkcanyon.net/The 44 Magnum Begins.htm

 

[22-rimfire]

I don't believe Ruger ever discontinued the .454 SRH. They stopped making .480's for a while but those are back too.

Is your 480 SRH one of the new production? My impression is that Ruger has been so stretched producing models that really sell well and even though they said they were bringing back the 480 SRH, it didn't seem to happen at least for now.

 

[DPris]

Ruger never put the .454 into anything but a Super Red.

The caliber is still in their line-up, I have a brand new 7.5-incher & a brand new Alaskan here.
Put 95 rounds of mixed factory loads through the longer-barrel Monday, not too bad on the wrists.

S&W never chambered the N-Frame for it because it couldn't handle the pressures.
Deciding to design the big X-Frame was a major milestone for the company & took them quite a while to persuade themselves to do it.

They'd managed to run with existing frame sizes for many decades & the X is a huge gun, but not a huge seller for them.
Denis

 

[HexHead]

I was also surprised S&W didn't chamber a revolver in 454 Casull but I was even more surprised when Ruger discontinued their 454 Casull revolvers. That must tell us something about the 454 Casull market.

Ruger's Raging Judge fires .454 Casull, .45 Colt and .410.

 

[DPris]

Ruger has no Raging Judge....
Denis

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Yeah, that would be Taurus.

454's out of an x frame are pretty pleasant to shoot.