newfrontier45
Moderator
The big X-frames and long frame BFR's really move away from traditional, packable revolvers and are more in the category of dedicated hunting guns like T/C Contenders, Encores, XP-100's and the like.
Originally posted by saleen322:
I really bought the .460 because I heard from folks I trust that it was accurate.
Originally posted by Lost Sheep:
The 460 is harder to control, practice with and more expensive to feed if you don't handload.
Originally posted by newfrontier45:
The big X-frames and long frame BFR's really move away from traditional, packable revolvers and are more in the category of dedicated hunting guns like T/C Contenders, Encores, XP-100's and the like.
Uh, yeah. I reckon you forgot the svelte Paterson guns that preceded them. Which included pocket models. As well as the 1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army that succeeded them. Accounting for production in the hundreds of thousands. In reality, the Walker was a horse pistol with VERY limited production and with very limited application. They were never intended to be carried in a belt holster but were carried by the Texas Rangers that ordered them in pommel holsters. Not very practical sixguns. They are sought after by collectors for their rarity.Funny........one of the most famous and most sought after revolver ever made, the Colt "Walker" is the same size and weight as most long piped X-Frames. It was designed in 1846. So much for the statement that revolvers were originally intended to be lightweight and "packable".
That 6lb monster would be more practical if it had a buttstock. Of course you "can" but the question is, should you? For me, that's a definite no.Here's my S&W PC460.
Uh, yeah. I reckon you forgot the svelte Paterson guns that preceded them. Which included pocket models. As well as the 1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1860 Army that succeeded them. Accounting for production in the hundreds of thousands.
Seems you tend to Troll threads that deal with calibers and firearms you do not own. Almost as if you're trying to validate your choices by trashin' others. Thank goodness not everyone here is like that, nor do others here lower themselves to your level. Not everyone here has the same priorities nor the same desires that you have. Must be what makes us all individuals. Seems contradictory at a time like this, that one should be critical of fellow gun owners simply because of their caliber/platform choice.....but as I said before, we all have our priorities.That 6lb monster would be more practical if it had a buttstock. Of course you "can" but the question is, should you?
That 6lb monster would be more practical if it had a buttstock. Of course you "can" but the question is, should you? For me, that's a definite no.
Uh, okay, you did bring up the Walker, remember. It is also, far as I can tell, still supposed to be a "hand" gun.None of which would be considered a legitimate, primary big game hunting revolver capable of making DRT shots out to 200 yards, with no hold over. Not at all comparable to the .454 or .460. Which is what this thread was about.
I don't think you could call any of them "popular" as the Paterson venture was an utter failure.Iffin I remember correctly, the most popular Paterson had a 9'' barrel and it also was made in a 12'' "Buntline" Model.
No sir, just trying to present a contrasting point of view. Otherwise, folks might think you need .460's to slay Bambi at 50yds. Sorry if I can't jump on your hypewagon. Sorry if I challenge you to present "why" someone needs a .460 to shoot deer. They don't, which is my point. Which was always my point. Being that if you don't need to shoot 200yds, you don't "need" a .460. If you just want one, well that's a different matter entirely. Grow up.Almost as if you're trying to validate your choices by trashin' others.
Originally posted by newfrontier45:
I don't think you could call any of them "popular" as the Paterson venture was an utter failure.
Dude, if you're gonna use history to make your point, at least educate yourself on it.
Originally posted by newfrontier45:
No sir, just trying to present a contrasting point of view. Otherwise, folks might think you need .460's to slay Bambi at 50yds. Sorry if I can't jump on your hypewagon. Sorry if I challenge you to present "why" someone needs a .460 to shoot deer. They don't, which is my point. Which was always my point. Being that if you don't need to shoot 200yds, you don't "need" a .460. If you just want one, well that's a different matter entirely. Grow up.
Maybe not the Colt Patterson only had a 7 1/2" barrel. For the record the Walker did have a 9" barrel and weighed a bout the same as a 8 3/8" X frame but was designed to carry on the pommel of a horse.My statement was that from the Paterson line, the model with the 9'' barrel was one of the more popular models. My education is fine.
Maybe not the Colt Patterson only had a 7 1/2" barrel. For the record the Walker did have a 9" barrel and weighed a bout the same as a 8 3/8" X frame but was designed to carry on the pommel of a horse.
You're right I shouldn't assume posters here know that the saddle isn't really part of the horse. I guess I'd also need to point out that they would have actually been carried in holsters hung from said pommel and not held to the pommel with velcro.Since you seem to be a stickler for factual accuracy, you make want to note that horses do not have pommels. Saddles have pommels.
Originally posted by mavracer:
Maybe not, the Colt Patterson only had a 7 1/2" barrel.
The Paterson was sold in 2 & ½" to 12" barrel lengths the longest 12" was called a Buntline. The majority of the weapons had a 7 and ½" or 9" barrel.
I appologize also as I figured out a while back that the OP is talking about a carbine any way.Only reason I brought up the Walker and the 9'' barreled Paterson was to show folks that the idea of using a long pipe for accuracy and a heavy frame to tame recoil is not new.
I've never had a problem with them, only problem I have is if they are convienently left out of the story to make the hunter seem more impressive.I used to have a problem with folks that shot rifle caliber TCs and those bolt action rifles with their stock cut off like the XP-100s and wanting to call them "hunting handguns".
IMHO That depends on the rest of the story too.While they aren't a tradional type handgun, they too are more of a challenge for deer than a regular long gun and take a tad more skill and self control.
Ummmm, this is a discussion board and he did ask for opinions.what is it to you?????