Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
+1 (except in a DA revolver). Specifically, I sure wouldn't mind acquiring a Talo / Toklat 5" SRH in .454 C.
Last edited:
Which is best? .454 Casull / .460S&W / .480RUG
- Thread starter Sequins
- Start date
+1 (except in a DA revolver). Specifically, I sure wouldn't mind acquiring a Talo / Toklat 5" SRH in .454 C.
RIDE-RED 350r
New member
TimSr: Yes, Smith is making X-frames (both 460 and 500) in quite a few barrel lengths and configs these days. Some top ported only, others fulled comped, some not ported or comped at all.
I haven't looked at Smiths website in awhile, but I believe you can get a 460 or 500 in barrel lengths as short as 3" now? Don't quote me on that, but I am sure there are models out now with shorter barrels than my 5 incher.
I have to agree with Buck460XVR on pretty much every point. POI IS quite different when power levels are changed from one to another. But I would add that Smith does include 2 rear sight assemblies with most if not all new 460's. One high and one low for the different POI's between 45 Colt loads and 460 mag loads. My 460 didn't demonstrate a huge difference with 454 level stuff compared to 460 level, at least not at the range I am still practicing at. (still working on working up to shooting at distances >50 yds but I think my shorter barrel is making that a bit more difficult) There was some though. My assumption is that the high profile rear sight is for use with 45 Colt level ammo.
Jackmoser: my perception of weight may be a bit different than others. I have always owned mostly larger revolvers since I got my CCP here in NY. I do have one J-frame and one 4" K-frame. But all the rest are N and X-frame. My first Smith was a 6" 686 L-frame. I suppose that due to the restrictions put on most CCP's in NY kind of making it so I do not carry all day every day probably accounts for less sensitivity to heavier sidearms. I mainly carry when I'm hunting. But those are usually all day affairs too though. I guess it's just what I've gotten accustom to due to my buying habits.
I haven't looked at Smiths website in awhile, but I believe you can get a 460 or 500 in barrel lengths as short as 3" now? Don't quote me on that, but I am sure there are models out now with shorter barrels than my 5 incher.
I have to agree with Buck460XVR on pretty much every point. POI IS quite different when power levels are changed from one to another. But I would add that Smith does include 2 rear sight assemblies with most if not all new 460's. One high and one low for the different POI's between 45 Colt loads and 460 mag loads. My 460 didn't demonstrate a huge difference with 454 level stuff compared to 460 level, at least not at the range I am still practicing at. (still working on working up to shooting at distances >50 yds but I think my shorter barrel is making that a bit more difficult) There was some though. My assumption is that the high profile rear sight is for use with 45 Colt level ammo.
Jackmoser: my perception of weight may be a bit different than others. I have always owned mostly larger revolvers since I got my CCP here in NY. I do have one J-frame and one 4" K-frame. But all the rest are N and X-frame. My first Smith was a 6" 686 L-frame. I suppose that due to the restrictions put on most CCP's in NY kind of making it so I do not carry all day every day probably accounts for less sensitivity to heavier sidearms. I mainly carry when I'm hunting. But those are usually all day affairs too though. I guess it's just what I've gotten accustom to due to my buying habits.
jackmoser65
New member
My first revolver was a Redhawk, decades ago and several more big revolvers have followed since. It's not about what one is accustomed to. It's questioning the use of a 5lb revolver chambered in a 65,000psi cartridge for such purposes where a 3lb revolver in a standard cartridge would handily get the job done. There is a trade off. My observation is that those who are so enamored of the X-frames had little use for big bore revolvers before their inception. They like the big, heavy, long barreled .460 because it's a lot of cartridge without a lot of recoil. They're easier for the average person to shoot than a standard sized .44 Magnum like the 4-6in N-frame. Even the 52oz .480 Super Redhawk can get downright nasty with full loads using heavy bullets. A 425gr at 1200fps is no slouch. No .460 macho-man fan wants to admit their choice is due to less recoil.
From folks who do such things for a living.
Doesn't sound very "versatile" to me.
Oh really? You .460 fans can never handle a dissenting opinion. What, pray tell, do you think you're gaining over standard cartridges, from the .41 up to the .454?
Look, I don't care what you or anybody else shoots. Not one bit. But when you tout "versatility" as a feather in the cap of a 5 pound revolver designed for a two inch long, 65,000psi cartridge, because it can also chamber and fire the .45 Colt (or even more silly, the .45 Schofield), my BS meter gets pegged. Why is the same statement not made for the massive 9.5" Super Redhawk .44 Magnum, which can also fire .44 Russian, .44 Colt and .44 Special? Because using that fact to espouse the 54 ounce Super is almost as silly as shooting .45 Colt in a 5 pound .460.
Last edited:
jackmoser65
New member
Apparently lots of owners consider it a selling point. Hordes of shooters and S&W theyself proclaim the .460 is "versatile" because it can shoot .45 Colt and .454 Casull. Somehow I doubt that S&W condones the use of non-SAAMI spec ammo like "Ruger-only" .45 loads. I don't know why anyone would buy a .460 and then shoot .45 Colt out of it. Standard pressure or "Ruger-only".
Cosmodragoon
New member
As I said previously, shooting .460 out of an XVR has less harsh felt recoil than shooting the less powerful .454 out of most guns specifically chambered for it. More objective power with less subjective recoil sounds like a win to me!
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
And it cost more than twice my entire Encore set-up and almost 4 times the barrel cost. The Encore isn't light, but with 15" barrel it is still almost25% lighter than a 14" X-frame. Unloaded. What do the five extra rounds weigh? And I am fine with a single shot for hunting. I've not held the X-Frame for long, but it felt far more awkward than my Encore.
OTOH, TC used the wrong twist on their factory Encore barrels. They used .454 blanks which don't stabilize full power 460 SW loads well. I think that has caused a lot of talk about the chambering not working well for all three rounds, although it is the opposite of what many seem to repeat.
If you have one and you love it, great. It isn't for me. My 45-70 shoots great, and I can simply put a handgun scope and pistol grip on my Encore and have a good "pistol". The pistol barrels are available pretty cheap now also.
Last edited:
jackmoser65
New member
You'll have to explain that one. If it works for .454, it should work fine for the .460.
jackmoser65
New member
I don't know how realistic that is. Why would someone buy a 5lb X-frame to shoot 32,000psi .45 loads when you can run a Redhawk to 50,000psi? Or better yet, a 36oz Blackhawk. Sure, do it if you like but is it really a selling point? 
buck460XVR
New member
....as it should be within the shooting community. I actually confirmed this earlier in post 60.
No where within this thread have I chastised anyone for their choice. No where did I feel the need to ridicule the choice of others in a vain attempt to validate my own choice. I did not feel the need to use statements like.....
....just not necessary. Our choice should be just that, and the only one we need to validate it to is ourselves. If it works, it works.
Funny how in a vain attempt to dis the X-Frame, ol JM actually touts one of it's biggest assets.
I think he's finally getting it.
Real men don't need abusive recoil to make them feel Macho. I have no problem admitting the lessened recoil is one reason I enjoy shooting legitimate .460 ammo so much at the range every session. If new shooters(or average shooters) can experience shooting a highly accurate hand cannon without breaking their wrist, what's the problem with that, other than just cause you don't have one?
But you've spent every post you've made in this thread contradicting this claim. Actions speak volumes over words.
Because they can also shoot 460 S&W Mag and .454 Casull and most importantly because it is the only S&W gun to allow exploring the full pressure potential of the 45 Colt cartridge. I am not sure what you mean with the 50k psi number, because the 45 Colt stops at around 30k. I don't think you can seriously disallow shooting 45 Colt just because they could have bought a Ruger.
RIDE-RED 350r
New member
460 S&W is a 60k psi cartridge. It will handle ANY 45 Colt load.. Ruger spec or otherwise...
S&W advises against reloaded ammo too and recommends only factory ammunition.. As I'm sure many if not all other manufacturers do. So the statement about Smith advising against non-SAAMI spec 45 Colt loads is a moot point.
FTR: I reload and have never fired anything other than 460 loads from mine. Granted, when I first brought it home, I was not tooled up to reload for that cartridge and bought all 3 boxes of ammo the LGS had on the shelf. 2 of those boxes were Winchester Reduced Recoil 460 S&W. Looking at the numbers on the box they were running about 454 level. Fired those and got to reloading.
I myself have no plans of shooting the shorter cartridges in my 460. I also shoot very little 38spl in my 357s. So that being said, the whole (apparently controversial) selling point of versatility via the ability to fire 45 Colt and 454 Casull was never a factor for me..
Funny, when people ask what a good first centerfire revolver is, about 99% of respondents suggest a 357 because of.................................The ability to shoot lighter/easier to handle 38spl for practice and range plinking and 357 mags for carry/hunting/etc..... in other words... versatility!
But I suppose that trait only equates to versatility in certain firearms that are deemed "practical"...
Practical is not a universally applied trait. What is practical for one person may or may not be practical for another. It's all subjective, and that's a fact.
S&W advises against reloaded ammo too and recommends only factory ammunition.. As I'm sure many if not all other manufacturers do. So the statement about Smith advising against non-SAAMI spec 45 Colt loads is a moot point.
FTR: I reload and have never fired anything other than 460 loads from mine. Granted, when I first brought it home, I was not tooled up to reload for that cartridge and bought all 3 boxes of ammo the LGS had on the shelf. 2 of those boxes were Winchester Reduced Recoil 460 S&W. Looking at the numbers on the box they were running about 454 level. Fired those and got to reloading.
I myself have no plans of shooting the shorter cartridges in my 460. I also shoot very little 38spl in my 357s. So that being said, the whole (apparently controversial) selling point of versatility via the ability to fire 45 Colt and 454 Casull was never a factor for me..
Funny, when people ask what a good first centerfire revolver is, about 99% of respondents suggest a 357 because of.................................The ability to shoot lighter/easier to handle 38spl for practice and range plinking and 357 mags for carry/hunting/etc..... in other words... versatility!
But I suppose that trait only equates to versatility in certain firearms that are deemed "practical"...
Practical is not a universally applied trait. What is practical for one person may or may not be practical for another. It's all subjective, and that's a fact.
A choice which is "Better" will always be subjective, sure i'd like to own a 460 s&w 5" comped model.
But that wasn't on my radar at the time my friend called me asking if I was interested in a model 83 preimer freedom arms 454 with 7 1/2" magnaported barrel, factory trigger forcing cone upgrades, 10 boxes of factory 300 gr ammo, a set of pacific dies & load data, belt holster, shoulder holster, and a leupold 2x scope and mounts.
He offered it at a price that was hard to pass on.
If I was searching to buy a big bore, I probally would have wound up with a different choice.
But it is nice that freedom arms has load data on their website.
And it is a finely built single action, but I would not want any more weight and barrel length.
It is a interesting thread, and I like the pictures and opinions of the posters.
But that wasn't on my radar at the time my friend called me asking if I was interested in a model 83 preimer freedom arms 454 with 7 1/2" magnaported barrel, factory trigger forcing cone upgrades, 10 boxes of factory 300 gr ammo, a set of pacific dies & load data, belt holster, shoulder holster, and a leupold 2x scope and mounts.
He offered it at a price that was hard to pass on.
If I was searching to buy a big bore, I probally would have wound up with a different choice.
But it is nice that freedom arms has load data on their website.
And it is a finely built single action, but I would not want any more weight and barrel length.
It is a interesting thread, and I like the pictures and opinions of the posters.
Last edited:
jackmoser65
New member
It's not moot at all. Most those that are going to shoot .45 Colt in their .460 are going to be using factory loads. Because handloaders know they'll get better results with the longer cases. So again, why buy a 5lb revolver to do it? I don't care if you do, just don't try to sell it as some sort of advantage or quality of "versatility".
So what??? You're buying a 5lb .460 so you can shoot loads better suited to a much lighter gun? Again, I don't care if you do, just don't try to sell it as some sort of advantage or quality of "versatility".
.45 Colt goes all the way up to 55,000psi, in loads suitable to custom five-shot single actions and the Redhawk. Again, I don't care if you do, just don't try to sell it as some sort of advantage or quality of "versatility".
Then espouse the gun and cartridge for that reason. Dispense with all this nonsense about "versatility". Seems we actually agree on something. That the X-frame is an overweight, oversized gun in an oversized, excessive cartridge. You see those aspects as positive, I see them as negative.
Nor do they need 5lb monstrosities that do little more than make a big show at the range.
This is true. What is also true is that you guys can't handle an objective discussion about your choice. Any negative comment is taken as a personal insult.
RIDE-RED 350r
New member
Jack: I say the following with all due respect, there HAVE been insults thrown around and mainly by some who aren't fans of the X-frames. I still haven't figured out how to quote a post, but somewhere back on page 1 or 2 there was a comment about people getting "starry eyed" over big velocity numbers along with other subtle and not-so-subtle insults sprinkled in here and there in various other posts. Comments with a general implication that buyers of these weapons are less intelligent, easily persuaded to part with their hard earned, and compensating for some shortcomings of their manhood. The thing about these comments is that my gut tells me that most or maybe even all of these comments come from people who have never laid a hand on a 460, let alone fired or carried one.
Nobody on this side has any problem with open (respectful) discussion. But be honest with me and yourself, this thread has not really been just that.
It's not that you have decided for yourself that an X-frame is not for you. It's the tone of ridicule toward those who do own them, and the repetitive pontificating about who needs this, who needs that, what is or is not practical, and what is or is not versatile along with it that is taken as insulting.
Back to the versatility question. I would like to know if you consider a 357 chambered revolver and the fact that it can fire 38spl "versatile". You didn't address my statement on that topic in your last reply. Heck, I see people comment all the time touting even the 44 mag chambered revolvers and the ability to fire 44spl loads making them more versatile. I would bet that there are people using 45 Colt in 454 chambered revolvers out there too. How can you exclude the 460?? Just because of it's weight?? That is just silly and completely subjective. Too heavy for you may not be too heavy for the next person. I have carried my 460 in my chest rig on all day hunting outings and I can tell you based on experience that it is less noticeable and fatiguing to carry than any rifle I own. Any comment on ease/difficulty of carrying that is not based in first hand experience is completely and in all ways irrelevant. As far as shooting relates to the weight... most handgunners use some sort of shooting stick/sticks in the field (as do I). Tell me what difference a pound or even a pound and a half makes when shooting with the aide of a shooting stick??? Granted, you may be forced to shoot at an angle that the stick cannot be employed... Know your limits. This is when your ethics as a hunter come into play...
You don't like the 460 and that is fine... it is what it is though, whether you like it or not. The ability to fire 3 different cartridges IS in fact seen as versatility by the vast majority of shooting enthusiasts, the same way a 357 chambered revolver is seen as versatile. Simply weighing 5lbs does not disqualify it. That is where it becomes a matter of your opinion.
Nobody on this side has any problem with open (respectful) discussion. But be honest with me and yourself, this thread has not really been just that.
It's not that you have decided for yourself that an X-frame is not for you. It's the tone of ridicule toward those who do own them, and the repetitive pontificating about who needs this, who needs that, what is or is not practical, and what is or is not versatile along with it that is taken as insulting.
Back to the versatility question. I would like to know if you consider a 357 chambered revolver and the fact that it can fire 38spl "versatile". You didn't address my statement on that topic in your last reply. Heck, I see people comment all the time touting even the 44 mag chambered revolvers and the ability to fire 44spl loads making them more versatile. I would bet that there are people using 45 Colt in 454 chambered revolvers out there too. How can you exclude the 460?? Just because of it's weight?? That is just silly and completely subjective. Too heavy for you may not be too heavy for the next person. I have carried my 460 in my chest rig on all day hunting outings and I can tell you based on experience that it is less noticeable and fatiguing to carry than any rifle I own. Any comment on ease/difficulty of carrying that is not based in first hand experience is completely and in all ways irrelevant. As far as shooting relates to the weight... most handgunners use some sort of shooting stick/sticks in the field (as do I). Tell me what difference a pound or even a pound and a half makes when shooting with the aide of a shooting stick??? Granted, you may be forced to shoot at an angle that the stick cannot be employed... Know your limits. This is when your ethics as a hunter come into play...
You don't like the 460 and that is fine... it is what it is though, whether you like it or not. The ability to fire 3 different cartridges IS in fact seen as versatility by the vast majority of shooting enthusiasts, the same way a 357 chambered revolver is seen as versatile. Simply weighing 5lbs does not disqualify it. That is where it becomes a matter of your opinion.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Versatility:
The "versatility" factor is very high for the 460 SW IMO. Not so much for the ability to shoot light practice loads, as most who shot one much will reload, but to save my bacon. One is not likely to find 460 SW, 500 SW, 445 Mag, or 500 SW on the shelf in most locales. Either 45 Colt or 454 Cassull should be available in most places most of the time. If on a hunt and you have an issue with your ammunition, you are much better off than with the other super magnums.
One of the things I like about the 357 max. I only know of one manufacturer who loads factory ammunition for it and there may only be a handful of shops in the entire country who have ever stocked it, but 357 mag is everywhere.
On twist rate:
The SW revolvers use a gain twist rate to stabilize the round. 460 bullets run heavier and faster than 45 Colt or 454 and there are issues. I am not an expert and I suspect it depends on expectations. Very few are able to achieve the sub-MOA guaranteed accuracy TC gives for their Encore barrels in 460 SW. There are some threads at specialty pistols and Encore classifieds that go into it in detail. MGM, BellmTC, and the others use a different twist rate than TC on their barrels. Some of the shooters at those forums are looking for extreme accuracy though. For me while hunting off an improvised rest at ranges that are hopefully less than 100 yards, it makes little difference.
The "versatility" factor is very high for the 460 SW IMO. Not so much for the ability to shoot light practice loads, as most who shot one much will reload, but to save my bacon. One is not likely to find 460 SW, 500 SW, 445 Mag, or 500 SW on the shelf in most locales. Either 45 Colt or 454 Cassull should be available in most places most of the time. If on a hunt and you have an issue with your ammunition, you are much better off than with the other super magnums.
One of the things I like about the 357 max. I only know of one manufacturer who loads factory ammunition for it and there may only be a handful of shops in the entire country who have ever stocked it, but 357 mag is everywhere.
On twist rate:
The SW revolvers use a gain twist rate to stabilize the round. 460 bullets run heavier and faster than 45 Colt or 454 and there are issues. I am not an expert and I suspect it depends on expectations. Very few are able to achieve the sub-MOA guaranteed accuracy TC gives for their Encore barrels in 460 SW. There are some threads at specialty pistols and Encore classifieds that go into it in detail. MGM, BellmTC, and the others use a different twist rate than TC on their barrels. Some of the shooters at those forums are looking for extreme accuracy though. For me while hunting off an improvised rest at ranges that are hopefully less than 100 yards, it makes little difference.
Last edited:
jackmoser65
New member
That's not an insult, it's a fact. Some people are impressed with velocity (and energy) numbers. There are many who think the .460 is more effective than both the .454 and the .45 strictly due to the higher velocity. It's simply not true and an indication those those people do not understand how handguns work on big game.
That's not my intent but to bring a little honest reality into focus.
Yes, I do. Wanna know why? Because your typical .357 revolver does not weigh a pound more than your typical .38 revolver. Oftentimes, they are the same. Even the short 5" .460 goes 60oz. By contrast, a 4 3/4" Colt SAA weighs a svelte 36oz. Thanks for helping me illustrate my point.
Good example. Would you buy a Ruger 10" .357 Maximum to shoot .38's in it?
S&W's twist rate goes from 1-100" at the forcing cone to 1-20" at the muzzle. This serves two functions. It allows the bullet, driven by 65,000psi and a lot of powder, to be more gently spooled up into full rotation after the violent freebore and transition from cylinder to bore. Which keeps it from stripping off in the rifling. This also serves to slightly lessen pressures.
The T/C twist rate is a straight 1-16". But the T/C is not a revolver so that is moot. Either twist rate is perfectly fine for the whole range of bullets appropriate for the cartridge. Due to the pressures and velocities involved, there's no reason for such a fast twist but it should still work. Standard for the .454 is 1-24" and that works for a whole range of bullet weights. If Encore shooters are having issues, it's probably with the lighter bullets. Which are rather silly anyway and do nothing more than produce those numbers some shooters are impressed with.
The .460 does NOT handle heavier bullets than the .45 and .454.
Nope but it can push them several hundred feet per second faster.
It's funny reading some of the comments on here about the .460. Seems like only 30 or so years ago people said the same thing about the 454.
Seems like 99% of the dislike for it come from people who have never shot one.