Ruger 454 Casull 5 inch vs Smith & Wesson 460 5 inch

C

cjsoccer3

New member
So I'm caught between the two. I live in Va and am looking for a woods defense gun. The largest game we have here is black bear. The Ruger is 2.9 pounds. The Smith is 3.7. I could see myself possibly hunting with it but not in near future. With regards to the Ruger it comes with scope rings, and the Smith needs an aftermarket base to get a scope up. I also wonder if the 460s comp would mess with a scope.

I don't want to just shrug off the additional option of 460, but I feel like 454 cuts it for everything in Va. With the lesser weight and rings, it seems like Ruger is where I should go, but then again could somebody talk me one way or another?
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that the .454 has taken every game animal on the planet so unless you just need something to brag about the ruger seems the better deal.
 
Ruger 454 Casull 5 inch vs Smith & Wesson 460 5 inch

I have both calibers but I have 3 454 Casulls in 7.5", 5" and the 2.5" Alaskan.

A Ruger Toklat 5" 454 Casull. The gun handles recoil very well and if you want to hunt, it does come with scope rings. The gun is overbuilt and will handle heavy loads. It shoots 454 Casull, 45 Colt +P and 45 Colt. The additional advantage is that it has a 6 round capacity. For mine, I put a SS Weigand rail for a red dot.

The S&W 460 has the advantage of shooting 460, 454 Casull, 45 Colt +P, and 45 Colt. At 5" you are giving up some velocity, though, but it is more portable. The disadvantage is that it gives up one round compared to a 454 Casull with a 5 round capacity. I have a Weigand SS Rail for it with a red dot.

The 454 is more than capable, but the 460 is more versatile because of more loads that it can shoot, particularly, as a hunting cartridge for longer distances. The biggest advantage I see with the 460 in the longer barrels is the ability to be a flat shooter out to 200 yards. Mine is 8 3/8", and it's what I plan to use to hit deer with a 200 grain bullet. The Ruger Toklat or Alaskan 454 will be my backup.

Either would be great for defense, but I give an advantage to the 454 for capacity. Both would be good for hunting, with an advantage to the 460 for variety of cartridges and its weight.

I hope you're a reloader. It makes for a more accurate round for your gun, plus you can load for the various rounds that each is capable of shooting.

a49f93dd0b6e57333e2e5a0d1d91bad8.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
Using the same .454 ammo, the XVR should be easier to control and more comfortable to shoot. The "affordable" 200-grain .460 ammo from Hornady will make a heck of a fireball at five inches but it shouldn't be terrible in hand. Even as a relatively light hollow-point, that load should be plenty for whatever you come across.

Some of the guys in my shooting group have taken to making jokes about Zeus throwing thunderbolts every time we bring out the XVR. It is our favorite jug buster by far and that lighter load has performed admirably against all sorts of junk. I haven't hunted with it but I imagine the same rules apply. The longer barrel would be better. A scope can extend your range but at the end of the day, you are still hunting with a handgun and want to make your kills as quickly and humanely as possible.
 
Typical, I know, but I have to ask: Is .454 or .460 all that necessary for Black Bear?

If it's what you want, then fine, but I imagine .44Mag in a 4-6" package would be more than enough power and carry the full 6 rounds and be cheaper to load up and lighter to carry... (some might even say .357, but I wouldn't know)

Ruger has the 4.2" and the 5.5" Redhawk and SRH and S&W have several offerings (Model 29 and 629, amongst others, I believe)

As I said, if you want the .45 cal, then go for it and ignore everything before and after this sentence, but if you're open to options and things like weight (and price) are a consideration, perhaps broaden your search.
 
As CDR Glock pointed out, the S&W 460 will shoot both. So you can save yourself some money and buy one pistol and shoot both calibers.

If you plan on hunting get the 8 3/8" barrel and a nice scope with the money you'll save buying one pistol. Also agree that reloading for it will save you money and you'll be able to make better ammo. There are alot of different .45 bullets out there and you can taylor the ammo to whatever you're shooting at.

Just be sure to keep the bullets in the factory boxes, some of them can't be pushed at the same velocities as others. You'll want ones that have a thicker jacket if you plan on shooting them at velocities that could separate jacket from core.
 
In a heavy duty hunting double action I'll take the Ruger any day of the week. For a more traditional double action Smith and Wesson gets the nod. In this case the Ruger is an extremely practical and even packable revolver with the perfect setup for optics. The Smith is an overweight revolver trying to be a rifle.
 
I'm having similar thoughts of .454 vs .460, but in a single shot Thompson Center.

IMO, I don't see the benefit of .460 over .454 in a revolver. I do in a rifle because the .460 is pretty much equivalent in power when you compare it to a similar weight bullet in a standard pressure .45-70 load.

But we're focusing on revolvers here.

The .454 is available in more than just Ruger, which will speak to ammo availability in stores, and Ruger's are most affordable. The S&W .460 revolvers will cost you almost double what a Ruger Super Redhawk will and will not perform much better.

For a flat shooter out to longer distances, yeah, it will do better, but I would just find a way to decrease the distance to make a shot with .454 more accurate.

The biggest problem with the .460 revolver is weight. They are super heavy guns. The weight will make it a boat anchor if this is just for woods defense. You could get a .480 Ruger in a lighter weight and have even more penetration with the heavier bullets.

Bottom line with .460: Lose a round and gain a pound.
 
With a 5'' barrel, I doubt if there's much difference performance wise. The Smith will be more pleasant to shoot and more control-able due to more weight. It's when you get to the long pipes that the .460 really shines. For woods defense where there is nuttin' bigger than Black bear, I see no reason to go with either, as .44 mag is more than sufficient and ammo is inexpensive enough that one can practice and get proficient drawing and shooting quickly in D.A.
 
Typical, I know, but I have to ask: Is .454 or .460 all that necessary for Black Bear?

If it's what you want, then fine, but I imagine .44Mag in a 4-6" package would be more than enough power ... (some might even say .357, but I wouldn't know)
Click to expand...

Necessary? Probably not. So long as a person can handle it, the added power might increase something I call "degree of relief" should you be unfortunate enough to end up in an inescapable confrontation with wildlife.

I've spent a fair amount of time in the woods across the Northeastern United States, excepting Maine. I haven't seen too many black bear and most were probably under 300lbs. That doesn't mean there aren't bigger ones out there. It just means that based on the ones I've seen, I feel like .357 magnum or even .357 Sig could do the job (so long as we do ours). I'd certainly feel better with more power but I probably won't be carrying it unless I'm already bringing it out for recreational purposes. The biggest animal I see are moose but I've heard of people dropping them with .40 S&W.

If I was planning on spending time outdoors in a place with bigger or more aggressive wildlife, I might consider anything from Ruger Alaskan size up through that 5" XVR. If I were already committed to carrying a brick and a half, I'd probably say "go big or go home" and pick the XVR. That, and it's better at pulling double duty with recreation.
 
So long as a person can handle it, the added power might increase something I call "degree of relief" should you be unfortunate enough to end up in an inescapable confrontation with wildlife.
Click to expand...

I think that relief would be wholly psychological rather than factual. Surely anything from .44Mag up would give consistent pass-through on that size animal...

Once you reach that stage, how fast that heavy bullet is still travelling once its traversed its target is pretty redundant, unless it hits another living organism in the process.

But, ultimately, it's the OP's pocket that will shoulder the burden so it's their choice.
As it happens, faced with that choice myself, I'd go SRH .454...

Believe it or not, I like the looks!! :eek:
 
As long as you don't have an infestation of giant African game or large dinosaurs running around the 454 is more than enough cartridge for anything in the woods. Black bears can be dispatched quickly with a 45 ACP so I doubt they will notice a difference in the two calibers you are comparing. Now the guns are different enough that I would not even consider the Smith for a steady diet of maximum pressure rounds. The Ruger is built strong enough to handle a steady diet of full power loads for a couple of lifetimes.

I wonder if Smith has the same warnings about frequently using full power loads in that gun as they do in other revolvers and light weight semi autos?
 
I think that relief would be wholly psychological rather than factual.
Click to expand...

"Degree of relief" is definitely psychological. Like a lot of things that come up on gun forums, it's just another facet of where we feel comfortable in the compromise of what can be carried versus what it can do. I shared where I come down for my woods time. There is a reason I suggested keeping an eye on "double duty" with respect to recreation in this case.
 
I had a Toklat and it was possibly one of the most accurate guns I've ever owned, I do mildly regret getting out of it. To me the 460 S&W is almost clownish, if I'm getting into something that requires a bigger frame, make it a 500 any day. The 454 is more than enough medicine for almost any handgunner.
 
To me the 460 S&W is almost clownish, if I'm getting into something that requires a bigger frame, make it a 500 any day.
Click to expand...

If you want to push mass, the 500 is great. The 460 pushes velocity and, at least for me, it does so with enough mass to be anything but "clownish". Now, I haven't tried every load out there and I have much more experience with 460 than I do 500. However, my limited experience has shown me that 460 is more enjoyable for me to shoot. I know I'm not alone on that and in my estimation, recreation is the practical reality for most of us (or at least most of our use) when it comes to these hand-cannons.
 
IME the 460 is much more enjoyable to shoot than the 454 Casull. It also laps it by a few hundred feet per second and softer recoil.

I can shoot 454 Casull in my 460 XCR, but don't because the recoil is sharp and nasty instead of a nice solid push like the 460. It is an often heard criticism of the 454 that is has nasty sharp recoil.

I can't say what a short barrel 460 would be like, but the XVR is very easy to shoot. If there is a down side it would be the muzzle blast which you will have with the 454 as well.
 
Hi cjsoccer,

I have fired a Freedom Arms 7.5" .454 Casull exactly 3 times. After the 3rd round, I put the gun down on my friend's bench & never looked at it again.

I was unable to tame recoil of a 6" S&W .44 Mag. I sold it. No regrets.

My advice is to shoot guns you're thinking about buying before you do so.

Best of luck to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top