Out of Style?

N

n3twrkm4n

New member
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on Smith and Wesson constantly updating their calibre ranges with 'big bore' alternatives to the previous.

Examples such as their .500 and their new .460, are they simply reaching to compete with the .454 or the .480? (I'm not sure if S&W makes a .454 though).

I was interested in buying a .480 ruger back a couple months ago they were like 800$ around here, now you can pick one up for $600.

I guess I'm starting to wonder coming from a Computer background if calibres will soon be outdated like technology and they will 'banish' them from the market.

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments :cool:
 
I think the problem with the .480Ruger® was that it just didn't catch on and I'm thinking the same thing is going to happen with the .460S&W®. The .500 is more of a novelty right now, if more manufacturers start to produce their own handguns chambered for that round, then it could expand further...I think for the most part the .44mag still fills the nitch for most handgunners in the big bore arena....and that makes it nearly impossible for anything else to come along and ùņ§34ŧ 1ŧ.
 
Definately! I also think there are other novelty cartridges out there, like the .17... yeah it's nice to have a flatter shooting bullet but what happens when you need more power. I know people would argue but for YEARS people used .22 LR/Magnums without any hitch and hunted with them successfully and won many target matches. Who says it's time to move on to a new cartridge?

The other thing is about the .480 that it's pretty much the .475? Linebaugh cartridge with a miniscule change... That seems to be the way everything is.

Why do we need calibres that are so close? Why not develop something truly unique... When it all comes down to it it seem the gun manufacturer's are trying to keep a long lived firearm market alive and fresh. But why? It's worked since the beginning of firearms how many hundreds of years ago, why change what's worked all this time?
 
The deal with the .480 Ruger is that the Super Redhawk cylinder isn't quite long enough to chamber it, so, rather than decide to design a new frame and cylinder, they opted to make a new cartridge. I think the SRH would have been vastly more popular if they redesigned it to take the .475 AND offered the reduced .480 at the same time. Reason being a lot of people just can't afford the revolvers in .475 (possibly excepting the BFR), and Ruger would have been bringing a SIX shot, double action to the table for about the cost of a BFR, and if you decided the .475 was too much recoil, there'd already be factory reduced loads available.

It would also have helped if Marlin could have brought the 1895RL to fruition, even if it could only handle the .480.

The other thing being .44 Magnum is the most that a lot of people can handle (and a lot can't handle that), and if you truly want more power, there's the .454, which you can still shoot the .45 Colt from, including the heavy boomers, or even download the .454 to .480 levels, all you don't get is the bullet diameter. So the high-power big bore arena is a tough nut to crack.
 
The problem with the .480 Ruger WAS that it didn't catch on?!?!?!
Did I miss something and has the .480 Ruger been discontinued?

I can't imagine after such a short run the caliber has disappeared. The .44Remington Magnum took close to 30 years to catch on,,,and it took a hollywood movie to really make that happen.
 
The deal with the .480 Ruger is that the Super Redhawk cylinder isn't quite long enough to chamber it, so, rather than decide to design a new frame and cylinder; they opted to make a new cartridge.
Click to expand...

If you want to read a good article on the .480 Ruger along with correct information as to its inception, read this one:

http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=696

I wouldn’t rule the .480 Ruger out. As Hal stated, look how long it took the .44magnum to become popular. Have a great day everyone.

.44mag
 
The 45 colt,22lr and the 45-70 are a11 around 130 years old and still going strong , are there bigger or better cartridges ? sure . There have been many cartridges that have died in the mean time but some things just keep working . age does not mean it will become obsolete
The 500 and 460 S&W I belive is more than the average shooter can handle well and there is realling nothing that they can do that 44 mag cant on this continent
Life is to short to hunt with a gun as ugly as the super redhawk and that aint helping sales
 
"Large Frame" revolvers

With the addition of the new S&W 500 and the other larger revolvers maakes me remember all those other caliber that their guns did not like:
[1]There was the Model 19 [For the police officers] that could not take steady use of full powder loads.
[2] Their PINED "N" frame revolvers were better but did not like reloads.
[3] Non-Pined "N" frame revolvers were made in such a way that the barrel woould turn outward and the cylinder would not lock for firing. This would also, stress the frame, requiring Smith to "sell" you a new frame.

My question is...Are the new guns any better?
 
Life is to short to hunt with a gun as ugly as the super redhawk and that aint helping sales
Click to expand...
Man, I hope guys keep thinking that, more for me!
I think they are some FINE looking guns, real aggressive.
 
Does it matter if it goes "out of style"? These aren't plinking loads - they're very pricey hunting loads. The best situation is to handload for them, and handloading can keep a caliber going indefinitely.

I could see the concern if it was something like .357 Sig, but .480 Ruger is more like a wildcat rifle round.
 
OK, so in power terms, roughly, for revolver-chambered cartridges, we have:


1. .44 SW spec (& .45 acp)
2. .45 Colt (standard)
3. .44 Rem mag
4. .45 Colt "hot-rodded +P/Magnum" loads
5. .480 Ruger
6. .44 Maximum (Dan Wesson)
7. .454 Casull
8. .475 Linebaugh
9. .460 S&W mag
10. .500 Linebaugh
11. .500 S&W magnum

1, 3, & 6 are same caliber (.429)
2, 4, 7, & 9 are same caliber (.451)
5 & 8 are same caliber (.475)

Where would .50AE fit in, in momentum, not energy? (probably similar to .480 ruger, I'd guess). 8 & 10 will probably go the way of the dinosaurs, with all the new rounds with marketing hype.
 
Oddball cartridges die hard when you buy the dies (ok bad pun).

It is American to go bigger and better. The Magnum cartridges and the fine revolvers that shoot them were invented over here.
 
Life is to short to hunt with a gun as ugly as the super redhawk and that aint helping sales
Click to expand...

As of a few minutes ago when I checked the stock, Ruger was trading at $8.53 a share and Smith & Wesson was trading at $2.23 a share. Ruger must be doing something right. It is and has always been a Profitable American Company. Can our friends at Smith & Wesson say the same? Didn’t think so! Apparently the Super Redhawk is selling well, especially since 3 more models were added since it’s release. Ruger does not keep selling things that don’t work. It shows in their health as a company and their long life as such. Unless the apparent Ruger Financial Executive that made the above statement would like to educate us with some actual data, I think we realize that this was an aesthetic opinion, which of course he is entitled to. The fact of the matter is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As I have stated many times and will state again. People who buy guns based upon adequate functionality and looks, buy Smith & Wesson. People who buy guns based on reliability and strength buy Ruger. Of course all this is way off the thread topic. Sorry.

Good luck.

.44mag
 
Well to keep with all the off topic discussion I wanted to point out that Ruger is over eight times the size of Smith & Wesson. I'm sure that if it really really bothered me to the extent of actually caring, I could find also that the number of public shares available on the market are probably more per capita for Smith & Wesson than Ruger. That is, based upon the net assest value of the company you are indeed buying less with one stock of Smith than vs. Ruger considering Ruger's stock is in the majority ownership of the Ruger family and not a publically held investment firm.....of course you already knew all of this though didn't you?

You're right I like my Smith's better than Ruger. They look nicer, they shoot nicer (trigger), and they have a higher resale. Those are the facts. As for "adequate" functionality, I wouldn't use that term to describe either of them. Anyone who has actually handled or owns/owned both would be hard pressed to make such assinine assessment. Enjoy your Ruger. I'm happy that you and others enjoy them, but to "bag" on others simply because they don't find the aesthetics appealing reveals more petty pride than factual actuality.

Edit to add: Coincidentally the next firearm I plan on purchasing is a Ruger Super Blackhawk. Just wanted to assauge your integrity and pride, that I'm not Anti-Ruger :D
 
This has been going on ever since metallic cartridges came into being. It isn't nearly as common in handguns, but it is a many times a year phenomenon with rifle.
 
They look nicer, they shoot nicer (trigger), and they have a higher resale. Those are the facts. As for "adequate" functionality, I wouldn't use that term to describe either of them. Anyone who has actually handled or owns/owned both would be hard pressed to make such assinine assessment.
Click to expand...

BodyBagger,

I would point out that looks and feel are not facts, but personal opinions. The higher resale is a fact that can be proven. So now that we have that straight lets talk about a few things.

First, higher resale, I have never had a reason to sell my Rugers. Where I come from people who sell their guns either lose their love of them or they can’t afford to keep them. I never understood the reasoning behind selling any gun.

Now lets talk about my supposed “asinine” comments regarding “adequate” functionality in a firearm. First let’s define the two flash words here.

asinine: adj. Utterly stupid or silly.

adequate: adj. Sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need.

First let’s look at your comment and see how these two adjectives apply.

As for "adequate" functionality, I wouldn't use that term to describe either of them. Anyone who has actually handled or owns/owned both would be hard pressed to make such assinine assessment.
Click to expand...

After seeing what those two adjectives mean, it is clear that you are saying that anyone who finds either brand of gun to be “adequate” (see definition above) is making an asinine (see definition above) assessment. Well then, thank you for pointing out your obvious lack of knowledge regarding the definition of these two adjectives.

Second the word “adequate” is not a negative comment, so how does this inspire such a strong reaction out of a person discussing the facts? Apparently we are not talking about facts here, but an emotional reaction. So let me explain so that you can feel more comfortable. My comments regarding “adequate” functionality in a Smith and Wesson revolver point to the fact that with the exception of the new X frame, the rest of the Smith and Wesson line is not made to handle the loads that Rugers are made to handle. So if I own a 4” Model 29 in .44magnum, which I do own as well as a .44 Mountain Gun, I can’t shoot the same “Ruger only” loads that I shoot in my 5 ½” Ruger Redhawk. This to me is “adequate”, not optimum functionality. Before you start arguing about looks and trigger feels, note that these are personal opinions, not fact. Look in any reloading manual to see the “RUGER ONLY” loads that are fact.

In the end the comments I made before have been proven true to me in my experience of owning, shooting, and selling (professionally) firearms. There are two kinds of people when it comes to buying guns and they have different reasons for buying the type of guns they buy. What is the most important to one group is not the same to the other, one will prefer looks and the other will prefer durability.

I would point out that I did not "BAG" on anyone regarding their desire to own a Smith and Wesson. I was responding to the following comment, which was a bag on the looks of a gun. Reread my post, apparently you missed a paragraph. :)

Life is to short to hunt with a gun as ugly as the super redhawk and that aint helping sales
Click to expand...

Good luck and thank you. Have a great day.

.44mag

P.S. And I will respond to your comments regarding the two companies and share information. I am pulling Ruger's and Smith's financial statements off their investor relations sites. Might be late tonight before I am done reading. :)
 
The ultimate thread hijack has been accomplished... The Eagle has landed and all is well, however insightful your dissertations are about which company has the higher stock price and how it relates to overall quality is interesting.... This thread is WAY outa control when it started from the question if anyone thought that calibres of today are merely 'fashion statements' and are a 'fad'....

:eek: Its been fun, Its been real, but it hasn't been real fun :eek:
 
n3twrkm4n,

I would love to take credit for the ultimate hijack, but there have been many that are way worse. lol. Besides I did not bring up the look or sales of Ruger products. I just had to defend them. :) If you read my second post I tried to drop the side bar topics. It appears some people didn't want to. Good luck and have a good one.

.44mag
 
haha I completely understand your reasoning the hijacking did not start nor will it probably end with you. If it happens it happens I always like to see what conversations come up from no where :rolleyes: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top