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.
454 casull vs 460 sw
- Thread starter bigbore96
- Start date
buck460XVR
New member
...and they are. Took three friends to my range last weekend. All shoot handguns occasionally. We shot my .357s and .44s at hangin' bowling pins from 40 yards and they hit them shooting the 686s and the 629s with about half their rounds, using a bench and a rest. Moved back to 75 yards to shoot the handgun caliber carbines and I brought out the X-Frame. All three hit the bowlin' pin with every round in the cylinder, and this was the first time any of them had ever shot a .460. This was with irons, not scoped. Coincidence? Not to us that shoot X-Frames.
Those three gents had less of an issue with control of the X-Frame than they did with my 637. All three preferred to shoot the X-Frame with legitimate hunting loads than the J-Frame with .38s. Again, none of them had ever shot a .460 before and only occasionally shot any handgun. Still they were more accurate with the X-Frame at almost twice the distance as the milder .357s and .44s. Their accuracy with the lighter magnums was borderline for hunting deer, even at the distance of only 40 yards. With the X-Frame, all three showed enough proficiency @ 75yards to legitimately and humanely hunt deer. Again....the first time they shot the damn thing!
If one does handload, the cost of loading .460 cases is virtually the same as loading any other .45 caliber. If one doesn't handload, legitimate hunting ammo for .45LC can be quite expensive also. The PC X-Frames themselves are no more expensive to buy than their PC counterparts in .44 and .357.
Exactly. This is why the argument against them using weight and size is ridiculous. Other than the snub nosed .460ES, they are not designed or intended to be carried on your hip. They are made to be supported while shot, which is how any handgun in a deer/large game hunting scenario should be shot. 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".
I have been hunting deer with gun and bow since the early sixties. I find it funny other folks think they know what's better for me, than I do, for hunting my style, in the areas I hunt. I have hunted and killed deer with .357s, .44s and the .460. All do a fine job in their own right. All have their limitations and all have their advantages. I feel no need whatsoever to justify my choices to anyone else but myself. Unlike some folks here, I also feel no need to criticize others on their choices.
Dance with the girl you brung and enjoy, and let the guy next to you do the same.
newfrontier45
Moderator
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.
And the X-frames of comparable barrel length are actually still heavier than the Walker.
Try again, we almost believed 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.
buck460XVR
New member
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. Iffin I remember correctly, the most popular Paterson had a 9'' barrel and it also was made in a 12'' "Buntline" Model. Not exactly pocket guns, but guns designed for accuracy and to make better use of the black-powder used. They were also heavy when compared to the relatively anemic round it fired. But unlike today, there wasn't much else out there. Today we have a myriad of calibers and platforms to chose from and guns designed for specific purposes and needs. .454s, .460s and other really big bores fall into that category. While they are not for everybody, they do have their place. If they didn't, they would be like the Paterson's and Walker's.....history.
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.
newfrontier45
Moderator
Uh, okay, you did bring up the Walker, remember. It is also, far as I can tell, still supposed to be a "hand" gun.
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.
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.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
I really like my .460 X-frame. I have the 5-inch barrel model, and it's not that difficult to carry in a Diamond D cross chest holster. The cross chest holster is far more practical than a belt holster for any type of revolver if you're carrying when it's cold as you can wear it on the outside of your outer garment.
While the X-frame is a big, heavy gun when compared to N-frame Smiths or even the Super Red Hawk - you can easily carry it in the cross chest holster all day. I have the holster setup with a pouch on the cross chest belt with two speed loaders, so I have 15 rounds available.
I often shoot 360 grain, 1900 fps rounds and the perceived recoil is not as bad as the heavy .44 magnums from the Ruger Super Redhawk. My only criticism of the gun is the trigger, at least on my gun, was terrible from the factory and needed attention from a smith to get it to a point where the gun was usable in double action.
I have always liked big magnum pistols and the .460 is one of the best I have ever owned. When I was first sighting it in, I kept moving the target back and finally got it to 30 yards and put three consecutive rounds into the center of the bullseye. It is accurate, the recoil is manageable, and if you have the holster setup correctly it is practical to carry in the field.
I would buy one again with no hesitation - I just wish I had gotten it sooner. It is a great revolver.
While the X-frame is a big, heavy gun when compared to N-frame Smiths or even the Super Red Hawk - you can easily carry it in the cross chest holster all day. I have the holster setup with a pouch on the cross chest belt with two speed loaders, so I have 15 rounds available.
I often shoot 360 grain, 1900 fps rounds and the perceived recoil is not as bad as the heavy .44 magnums from the Ruger Super Redhawk. My only criticism of the gun is the trigger, at least on my gun, was terrible from the factory and needed attention from a smith to get it to a point where the gun was usable in double action.
I have always liked big magnum pistols and the .460 is one of the best I have ever owned. When I was first sighting it in, I kept moving the target back and finally got it to 30 yards and put three consecutive rounds into the center of the bullseye. It is accurate, the recoil is manageable, and if you have the holster setup correctly it is practical to carry in the field.
I would buy one again with no hesitation - I just wish I had gotten it sooner. It is a great revolver.
buck460XVR
New member
If you go back and reread my post again, you may note that nowhere did I say anything about the Paterson being a popular revolver. 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. The problem seems to be with your reading and comprehension skills.
You keep saying folks claim they need a .460 to kill deer @ 50 yards, but I have not seen anyone state that anywhere in this thread. Folks don't need a ought-six to kill a deer @ 50 yards, but many still do. Maybe you need to chastise them also. Most folks tend to take the firearm they feel they need to accomplish the job at the longest range they may encounter in that outing. If there is a chance they may need to make a shot @ 150-200 yards, they take the appropriate firearm. Has nuttin' to do with hype, just the desire to make a clean and humane kill. While they may wish for a closer shot, and odds are they may have a closer opportunity, they are only preparing themselves for a longer one. Why is that a point to criticize? Some of us practice and are accurate to that range with the appropriate handgun, so there really is no reason to limit ourselves to much less. For those that don't and aren't, yes, they should limit their range to accommodate their skill level. When I hunt deer with my recurve, I limit myself to 20 yard shots. When I hunt with my compound, I limit myself to 40 yards, but that don't mean I'm foolish to take a 10 yard shot with either....or does it?
As for growing up, I'm not the one calling other folks "dude" on a social forum. I''m not the one criticizing others for their choices, nor am I continuing to belittle and make condescending statements to others after the mods have asked me to quit.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
Since you seem to be a stickler for factual accuracy, you make want to note that horses do not have pommels. Saddles have pommels.
buck460XVR
New member
Since I'll be the first to admit I have been know to be mistaken once or twice over the years, you had me wonderin' if this might be the third.......
So I Googled "Paterson Revolver barrel lengths" and this is what I found.....I apologize to the OP for going off topic. 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.
Years ago when I was young and foolish, 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". As I aged, I realized they were just like me, wanting to enjoy a sport, with a tool they enjoyed and felt confident with. 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. I realized too that folks with a difference of opinion didn't make either me or them wrong.....just different. Nowadays, as long as folks hunt legally and ethically, I could give a crap about what firearm they use.
Back in High School in the mid sixties, like many young wannabe hunters, I got conned into joining the "Outdoor Life Book Club". While it was a major mistake on my part, it did give me the opportunity to read a book by Robert Ruark titled, "Use enough Gun". It was a enjoyable read and probably had more influence on my choices in hunting weapons than I ever realized.
I appologize also as I figured out a while back that the OP is talking about a carbine any way.
Only reason I made the counter point about the Walker was to show that they really wern't that practical given their weight and extreme size.
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.
IMHO That depends on the rest of the story too.
To me a 200 yard shot from a blind using a rest with TMD's gun would take less skill and self control than a 150 yard shot standing offhand with a iron sighted rifle.
As to your mistakes since Ed Judson Sr didn't adopt the pen nam Ned Buntline, for which the Colt "peacemaker" Buntline special was named, until 1844. you might want another source.
newfrontier45
Moderator
Probably ought not trust your source because Ned Buntline would've been around 13 or 14yrs old when Colt opened the Paterson factory.
The first model Paterson revolver was a little .28cal pocket pistol. The No. 2 belt model was a whopping .31cal, as was No. 3. The No. 4 was another .28 pocket model. The No. 5 was produced in higher numbers and a .36cal. Most were NOT 9" long. What any of this has to do with the current discussion is beyond me.
The first model Paterson revolver was a little .28cal pocket pistol. The No. 2 belt model was a whopping .31cal, as was No. 3. The No. 4 was another .28 pocket model. The No. 5 was produced in higher numbers and a .36cal. Most were NOT 9" long. What any of this has to do with the current discussion is beyond me.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
What it has to do with he current discussion is that folks keep feeling the need to get in the last word.
The topic is 454 vs 460. Lets get back on it.
There won't be any more friendly reminders. Two in one thread is more than enough.
The topic is 454 vs 460. Lets get back on it.
There won't be any more friendly reminders. Two in one thread is more than enough.
Good grief this is stupid.
If someone wants a large revolver, or a small rifle, or a mid size carbine : ) , what is it to you?????
They aren't invading your home, stealing your gold dubloons to buy it. They aren't forcing you to carry, shoot, reload the caliber they enjoy.
Stuff black powder down the front, load .500 mag thru the back, pull .22's outta the box as fast as you can, black rifle, walnut rifle, .357 or .460, gasp 12 ga. WHO CARES. It's your life, live it the way you want. AShoot whatever you want.
Shooters have a lot bigger problems than caliber choice or weight of the gun to deal with today.
Just plumb flat stupid. Shoot whatever makes you happy. And let others do the same. You're an idiot to do otherwise.
J
I'll add that I don't own a .460, .480, .500, Walker, but if I decide it would be fun, and I have the funds, then it's nobody's bizness but mine, even if I only bust balloons out back. Come to think of it, I need a large bore balloon defense weapon.
If someone wants a large revolver, or a small rifle, or a mid size carbine : ) , what is it to you?????
They aren't invading your home, stealing your gold dubloons to buy it. They aren't forcing you to carry, shoot, reload the caliber they enjoy.
Stuff black powder down the front, load .500 mag thru the back, pull .22's outta the box as fast as you can, black rifle, walnut rifle, .357 or .460, gasp 12 ga. WHO CARES. It's your life, live it the way you want. AShoot whatever you want.
Shooters have a lot bigger problems than caliber choice or weight of the gun to deal with today.
Just plumb flat stupid. Shoot whatever makes you happy. And let others do the same. You're an idiot to do otherwise.
J
I'll add that I don't own a .460, .480, .500, Walker, but if I decide it would be fun, and I have the funds, then it's nobody's bizness but mine, even if I only bust balloons out back. Come to think of it, I need a large bore balloon defense weapon.
Last edited:
newfrontier45
Moderator
Ummmm, this is a discussion board and he did ask for opinions.
