Micahweeks
New member
I'm just getting into reloading and am thinking about getting a revolver in one of these calibers for larger game hunting. Which do you prefer, and what loads? Think big boar and moose mostly. I'm no bear hunter... yet.
454 or 460: Your preference for big game?
- Thread starter Micahweeks
- Start date
Without any doubt, the 454.
The 460 revolvers are simply too big and heavy. The Freedom 454 is a large revolver, but I can carry it in a regular holster for days and never feel it's in the way.
With 370 grain LBT cast bullets and heavy charges of WW 296 with a small rifle primer I have killed a lot of game and it kills as well as many rifles. So I see no reason for more power, but I see lots of reasons to not want something larger.
The 460 revolvers are simply too big and heavy. The Freedom 454 is a large revolver, but I can carry it in a regular holster for days and never feel it's in the way.
With 370 grain LBT cast bullets and heavy charges of WW 296 with a small rifle primer I have killed a lot of game and it kills as well as many rifles. So I see no reason for more power, but I see lots of reasons to not want something larger.
It depends on what you want to carry around. If your hunting in a stand then the 460 X frame would not be bad but if your out stalking then it may get heavy after a while (depends on your physical abilites). If you get the 460 you can shoot 460/454/45C but if you get the 454 then it just that and the 45C, there are also alot of different barrel lengths to think about as well. I myself like options and if I was going to do it then I would go for the 460. Good luck with your decision,
buck460XVR
New member
Uh, no it can't. The .454 and the .460 is based on the .45 Colt as the parent case. The .480 is not and is larger dimensionally, both the case diameter and bullet diameter.
Outta the X-Frame platform, the .460 is generally more accurate and much more pleasant to shoot than the .454 in the Ruger platform. This is due to the weight and size most folks whine about. One reason the .454 never caught on like the .460 is because in the Ruger platform, with full power loads, the .454 is brutal to shoot. Because my X-Frame is pleasant to shoot at the range, it gets shot regularly and thus, my accuracy with it is very good. To effectively use the accuracy and range of the .460(and also the .454) one needs to use some sort of rest anyway. So weight here is not an issue. I use either the rail in my stand or shooting sticks when still hunting. In either case, as a primary deer weapon, the 10 1/2 '' X-Frame is easier to carry thru the woods than my .347 or .44 carbines. In the lengths intended for hunting it is not a Hip holster firearm, but there are plenty of options out there that make it comfortable to carry in other modes. If the handgun is to be intended for a primary weapon for hunting, then I suggest the .460. If for a secondary weapon that might be used, but carried along with a rifle, then I would say .454.
buck460XVR
New member
This is a standard retort anytime a thread on the .460 comes up. Generally from folks that have never shot one. I hunt with carbines also as stated in my previous post. Not just handgun caliber carbines, but the .32 Special. None give any better terminal performance, range or accuracy than my X-Frame revolver. When I am using the X-Frame, I am still hunting with a traditional revolver. One of the toughest ways to hunt deer. When I hunt with a carbine, I am choosing to hunt deer with the easiest method known to fill my tag. Big difference between hunting with a long gun and a revolver, even when the weight is the same. Folks need to sit down and shoot both the .454 in the Ruger platform and the .460 in an X-Frame platform, side by side, and then come here and reply to these threads. I have.
Colt46 is correct. The Ruger 454 Casull Talo in 5" barrel is 47 ozs.
The S&W 460V with 4" barrel is 60.9 ozs.
Both of these weights are unloaded revolvers. The rounds will possibly add another 6 to 7 ozs.
You might be wanting longer barrels for hunting purposes, but this gives you a representative idea of weight differences which is close to 14 ozs.
The S&W 460V with 4" barrel is 60.9 ozs.
Both of these weights are unloaded revolvers. The rounds will possibly add another 6 to 7 ozs.
You might be wanting longer barrels for hunting purposes, but this gives you a representative idea of weight differences which is close to 14 ozs.
Last edited:
wojtekimbier
New member
I don't think you need .460 for boar or moose, .454 is good enough and much lighter.
Lost Sheep
New member
Not only cartridge differences, but the gun weighs in
My friend has a 500 S&W, I have a Super Redhawk in 454 Casull and a Freedom Arms 454 Casull.
I prefer the SRH over the other two. Why?
I had a couple S&W (K22 and Model 28). I took the sideplate off the K-22 once. Cleaned and oiled it, reinstalled the parts that sprang out when I opened it and never took it apart again. Traded it off shortly thereafter. The thing had twice as many moving parts as my Dan Wesson and I understood the DW operation a lot better than the Smith. The parts in the DW were more robust and have never broken. The parts inside my Rugers are even more robust than my DWs. So that is why I prefer them over the Smiths.
Not so my friend's S&W 500.
I have, several times, posted my regard for the 500 S&W cartridge and my desire to see Ruger offer an extended frame Super Redhawk in that chambering or even an extended cartridge 5% more powerful than the 500 S&W. I would call it the "500 Bill" after Bill Ruger.
Having mentioned one-upmanship, many people have bought the X-frame Smiths just to have the most powerful production revolver on the planet (the Pfeifer-Zaliska .600 Nitro Express really doesn't count in my mind). If that is part of your desire, go for it. The 460 matches the energy level of the 500, shoots farther, flatter and falls back only in the heavier bullets. It is an excellent choice.
Despite buck460XVR's testimony, I contend the accuracy of the two chamberings is equal. I know of no one who has done the testing of enough different guns (Smith or SRH) to categorically say either is inherently more accurate. Individual gun vary in their accuracy, so maybe buck460XVR has seen and tested a few SRH's that did not compare to a few Smiths, so I do not doubt his veracity, but my SRH matches the accuracy of my friend's 500 pretty well. (Though I admit my statistical sampling consists of just the two guns, so is not enough to make a general statement). I do know that Smiths do generally have a superior double action trigger, new in box, where the Rugers do better after a few thousand round (a number that will put a lot of Smiths into the repair shop). My FA 454 Casull, with a 4.5" barrel and fixed, small sights outshoots both my friend's 500 and my 454 SRH.
So, back to the original question. The .460 S&W (as well as the 500 S&W) deliver about 40-50% more energy at the muzzle than the 454 Casull and the weight of the gun (and the muzzle brakes) help with the felt recoil. I believe accuracy is equal between the two guns (and cartridges) if you are. A chest holster arrangement mitigates the weight concerns greatly (and makes sitting down in camp a LOT easier) though complicates your backpacking a bit.
So, the choice is yours. Accepting more weight and costing couple hundred dollars will get you the more powerful Smith X-Frame 460 S&W. Less money, less weight at the cost of less power (but arguably more durability) will get you a 454 Casull Super Redhawk.
With either choice, I STRONGLY advise you to take up reloading. My friend loads 500 S&W for a quarter of what factory ammo costs and he can load so light you can see the bullets travel downrange at 500 fps all the way up to Buffalo Bore power levels. It really help, when at the range, he lets others shoot his cannon, starting with the lowest power levels and letting them work up to whatever level makes them say, "enough". The first test, of course, is if they can actually lift the gun off the bench.
Good Luck
Lost Sheep
My friend has a 500 S&W, I have a Super Redhawk in 454 Casull and a Freedom Arms 454 Casull.
I prefer the SRH over the other two. Why?
I had a couple S&W (K22 and Model 28). I took the sideplate off the K-22 once. Cleaned and oiled it, reinstalled the parts that sprang out when I opened it and never took it apart again. Traded it off shortly thereafter. The thing had twice as many moving parts as my Dan Wesson and I understood the DW operation a lot better than the Smith. The parts in the DW were more robust and have never broken. The parts inside my Rugers are even more robust than my DWs. So that is why I prefer them over the Smiths.
Not so my friend's S&W 500.
I have, several times, posted my regard for the 500 S&W cartridge and my desire to see Ruger offer an extended frame Super Redhawk in that chambering or even an extended cartridge 5% more powerful than the 500 S&W. I would call it the "500 Bill" after Bill Ruger.
Having mentioned one-upmanship, many people have bought the X-frame Smiths just to have the most powerful production revolver on the planet (the Pfeifer-Zaliska .600 Nitro Express really doesn't count in my mind). If that is part of your desire, go for it. The 460 matches the energy level of the 500, shoots farther, flatter and falls back only in the heavier bullets. It is an excellent choice.
Despite buck460XVR's testimony, I contend the accuracy of the two chamberings is equal. I know of no one who has done the testing of enough different guns (Smith or SRH) to categorically say either is inherently more accurate. Individual gun vary in their accuracy, so maybe buck460XVR has seen and tested a few SRH's that did not compare to a few Smiths, so I do not doubt his veracity, but my SRH matches the accuracy of my friend's 500 pretty well. (Though I admit my statistical sampling consists of just the two guns, so is not enough to make a general statement). I do know that Smiths do generally have a superior double action trigger, new in box, where the Rugers do better after a few thousand round (a number that will put a lot of Smiths into the repair shop). My FA 454 Casull, with a 4.5" barrel and fixed, small sights outshoots both my friend's 500 and my 454 SRH.
So, back to the original question. The .460 S&W (as well as the 500 S&W) deliver about 40-50% more energy at the muzzle than the 454 Casull and the weight of the gun (and the muzzle brakes) help with the felt recoil. I believe accuracy is equal between the two guns (and cartridges) if you are. A chest holster arrangement mitigates the weight concerns greatly (and makes sitting down in camp a LOT easier) though complicates your backpacking a bit.
So, the choice is yours. Accepting more weight and costing couple hundred dollars will get you the more powerful Smith X-Frame 460 S&W. Less money, less weight at the cost of less power (but arguably more durability) will get you a 454 Casull Super Redhawk.
With either choice, I STRONGLY advise you to take up reloading. My friend loads 500 S&W for a quarter of what factory ammo costs and he can load so light you can see the bullets travel downrange at 500 fps all the way up to Buffalo Bore power levels. It really help, when at the range, he lets others shoot his cannon, starting with the lowest power levels and letting them work up to whatever level makes them say, "enough". The first test, of course, is if they can actually lift the gun off the bench.
Good Luck
Lost Sheep
460 Accuracy
I can't speak for all of the 460s, but mine shoots well. Those 2-piece tensioned barrels are most all accurate. It can do 5 shots under 2" @ 100 yards and repeat it. It also is quite accurate with 45 Colts @ 25 yards. I shot 5 45 Colts @ 25 yards and then flipped the target to see if it would repeat the group, it did. Maybe the Ruger 454 shoots better, and if so, that is very good. YMMV
I can't speak for all of the 460s, but mine shoots well. Those 2-piece tensioned barrels are most all accurate. It can do 5 shots under 2" @ 100 yards and repeat it. It also is quite accurate with 45 Colts @ 25 yards. I shot 5 45 Colts @ 25 yards and then flipped the target to see if it would repeat the group, it did. Maybe the Ruger 454 shoots better, and if so, that is very good. YMMV
hunting with a traditional revolver
Last I checked traditional revolvers didn't have slings, bipods, or even porting.
Without a scope how much better is an X-frame .460 magnum than say a .45 colt shooting moderate loads on deer sized game? I mean if a keith type bullet in a .45 colt at 1000 fps is good enough for deer, the same bullet screaming along at twice the velocity must make the deer deader from the .460 I understand the need to slap a scope on this gun to take advantage of performance. Still, more weight and bulk.
My definition of traditional revolver is just a bit different.
Last I checked traditional revolvers didn't have slings, bipods, or even porting.
Without a scope how much better is an X-frame .460 magnum than say a .45 colt shooting moderate loads on deer sized game? I mean if a keith type bullet in a .45 colt at 1000 fps is good enough for deer, the same bullet screaming along at twice the velocity must make the deer deader from the .460 I understand the need to slap a scope on this gun to take advantage of performance. Still, more weight and bulk.
My definition of traditional revolver is just a bit different.
I'd choose the 454. They're smaller, although my BFR 7.5" 454 isn't exactly small, and will kill anything you need to with a handgun.
To me, the beauty of big bore revolvers is in their ability to shoot big, heavy bullets. A 460 XVR shooting a 200gr to 2300 fps or whatever isn't appealing at all to me, it seems they're trying to make a small big bore medium range rifle out of it.
Although, I've not done it, I'm sure the 454 could rock a 200gr fast too. Heck it can toss a 240gr to 2000 fps, so I'm sure it could do a 200gr nearly as fast as the 460XVR and use a lot less powder too, if fast is your thing.
With hardcasts there's really not much need to ever exceed 1300-1400 fps and with the big 360-420gr hardcasts the 454 has that covered. If I was going to go a gun that large, I'd just opt for the 500 Mag.
To me, the beauty of big bore revolvers is in their ability to shoot big, heavy bullets. A 460 XVR shooting a 200gr to 2300 fps or whatever isn't appealing at all to me, it seems they're trying to make a small big bore medium range rifle out of it.
Although, I've not done it, I'm sure the 454 could rock a 200gr fast too. Heck it can toss a 240gr to 2000 fps, so I'm sure it could do a 200gr nearly as fast as the 460XVR and use a lot less powder too, if fast is your thing.
With hardcasts there's really not much need to ever exceed 1300-1400 fps and with the big 360-420gr hardcasts the 454 has that covered. If I was going to go a gun that large, I'd just opt for the 500 Mag.
The 460 has the most flexibility for bullets. It has the longest cylinder meaning it can accommodate the heaviest bullets available for 45 caliber. I have yet to see one that is not accurate. However it will be heavier to carry than the smaller revolvers. If you want light weight and accuracy is not a big issue, you have more options. It is all in what you want. YMMV
454 for Me.Do your own reloading,The 454 is pretty manly itself buy a SRH,Ruger & loading equipment & a glove You'll still be money ahead of the giant S/W.I do hunt bear and have shot more than My share of BIG HOGS with a 454 But there aint no Moose in GA.If there were I'd light him up.
Micahweeks
New member
BIG P! That's where I'm heading, Georgia. Looking forward to getting a biggun'. I'll be going to Montana for moose.