Why no Ruger 500?

P

Pond James Pond

New member
Ruger makes tough guns so it seems like a prime candidate for the brutish 500S&W.

So is it a legal issue with rounds like the 500 and 460 S&Ws being proprietary rounds for S&W?

If so is there a legal period of time as with the drugs industry when, after a time, "generics" can be made?

Or is that Ruger (or other companies) do not see these cartridges as "real world cartridges" to be used in applications outside, seeing as Ruger seems to concentrate on .44Mag, .45 Colt and .454 Casull.

I know some hunt with the 500 and I know the 460 is pitched as and successfully used as a hunting round, but I hope you see what I'm trying to communicate.

I know Ruger have their .480, but that seems closer to the Casull round.

Are any of these the reasons for the lack of biggest of the big bores from Ruger?
 
I don't believe there is a waiting period. Other companies have chambered guns in these rounds. Magnum Research makes revolvers, and other companies are starting to come out with rifles.

I'm sure it's more of a marketing/manufacturing decision. Ruger and other manufacturers have been struggling to keep up with orders for a while now. They currently don't have a revolver frame out there that they could chamber for either of these rounds without redesigning the frame because the cases are much longer than other rounds they produce for. These guns are not high volume sellers like 357 and 44 mag are, so why spend a bunch of time and money designing a new frame, when they are struggling to keep up with orders the way it is.

Magnum Research was easily able to chamber for these rounds because they already had a long cylinder frame in production, the BFR chambered in 45-70. So for the 460 and 500, they just dropped in different bored barrels and cylinders into the same frame. Easy.
 
They would have had to retool and redesign larger than the Super Redhawk frame, and they offered the .480 instead. It gave them the proprietary name on the cartridge, and no additional BIG change in manufacturing. They just didn't see enough market to compete with S&W for the few shooter that actually buy and use that kind of gun (the .500 S&W).
 
It all boils down to market demand. The .460 and .500 are niche guns and do not have a high sales demand.
 
No need for a new frame. While the big S&W's are impressive on paper, you get everything you need a .500 to do out of the .500JRH or .500Linebaugh.
 
Ruger actually came out with their .480 before S&W introduced the .500 or the .460. Very versatile and effective platform, that never really took off. I think S&Ws better marketing of their X-Frame drew more attention of those looking for a new mega-cartridge handgun. I believe Ruger thought the really big bores were more of a niche than they were and dropped the ball. Considering S&W continues to release new versions of their X-Frame almost every year shows not only the public's interest in the hand-cannons, but S&W's commitment to them.
 
I agree with Buck
I also believe that if Ruger had made a 5 shot 480 in a Bisley that sales would have been outstanding. The Super Redhawk is not as brisk a seller as the Blackhawk, and Ruger should have paid attention tot hat fact.
Also the Bisley grip is the best one ever designed for heavy recoil and comfort. The DA frames make the recoil much more unpleasant for most shooters.
I have a Freedom 454 Casull and I have been using 370 grain bullets in it for years with max charges of WW296. I also own a S&WM-29 and when I load an LBT 320 grain bullet on a load of 296 I find the recoil to be worse than the Casull with 50 grains more lead and a lot more powder.
The freedom grip is very good
The Ruger Bisley is even better.

I sure wish Ruger would pay attention to these facts.
Ruger should bring back their 480, but in a different revolver.
 
Quick question: Why has Ruger not made a revolver in .500 S&W?

Quick answer: Because Ruger has not chosen to do so.

Today, gun companies are struggling to keep up with the demand for their handguns; I don't see a lot of new stuff coming out. The "new" guns now coming on line were from projects begun several years ago. Some have been rushed to completion to meet a real or perceived demand, but I don't see any demand for more .500 revolvers.

Jim
 
Ruger may not see a need for it. There is the Ruger 480.

Personally, if I have a need for more than 44 Magnum I grab a rifle, which is far more effective at getting lead on target with far more energy. Any handgun is a compromise, and with the truly big-bore handguns they don't even save much weight.
 
Originally posted byAxelwik:


Personally, if I have a need for more than 44 Magnum I grab a rifle, which is far more effective at getting lead on target with far more energy. Any handgun is a compromise, and with the truly big-bore handguns they don't even save much weight.
Click to expand...


Regardless of weight, hunting with a revolver is still that.....hunting with a revolver. Many of those that would rather hunt with a rifle, hunt do so because they are afraid of coming home empty handed if all they had was a handgun. Those that chose to hunt with a handgun only are there because of the hunt. Same could be said for hunting with a bow. Why use a bow when a rifle is much easier and has so much more range? It is because it opens up more hunting opportunities, the challenge and thrill of getting close and using a weapon that gives one a handicap instead of an superior advantage. It's a matter of preferences.
 
S&W designed the 500 to be too long to be a simple rechambering of existing handguns. Requiring competitors to design, and tool up for a whole new gun. I'm sure Ruger feels the 500 S&W market is too small for the expense required to enter It.
 
Personally, if I have a need for more than 44 Magnum I grab a rifle, which is far more effective at getting lead on target with far more energy. Any handgun is a compromise, and with the truly big-bore handguns they don't even save much weight.
Click to expand...
Energy is not the proper measure of a cartridge's effectiveness. At least not in big bore revolvers. The only compromise with a good big bore revolver is the shooter's ability to hit with it. As far as weight, the Ruger .480 Super Redhawk is comparable in weight to a single action Super Blackhawk or Bisley of the same length or around 50-52oz.


Regardless of weight, hunting with a revolver is still that.....hunting with a revolver. Many of those that would rather hunt with a rifle, hunt do so because they are afraid of coming home empty handed if all they had was a handgun. Those that chose to hunt with a handgun only are there because of the hunt. Same could be said for hunting with a bow. Why use a bow when a rifle is much easier and has so much more range? It is because it opens up more hunting opportunities, the challenge and thrill of getting close and using a weapon that gives one a handicap instead of an superior advantage. It's a matter of preferences.
Click to expand...
Exactly! :)
 
Quote:
Personally, if I have a need for more than 44 Magnum I grab a rifle, which is far more effective at getting lead on target with far more energy. Any handgun is a compromise, and with the truly big-bore handguns they don't even save much weight.
Energy is not the proper measure of a cartridge's effectiveness. At least not in big bore revolvers. The only compromise with a good big bore revolver is the shooter's ability to hit with it. As far as weight, the Ruger .480 Super Redhawk is comparable in weight to a single action Super Blackhawk or Bisley of the same length or around 50-52oz.


Quote:
Regardless of weight, hunting with a revolver is still that.....hunting with a revolver. Many of those that would rather hunt with a rifle, hunt do so because they are afraid of coming home empty handed if all they had was a handgun. Those that chose to hunt with a handgun only are there because of the hunt. Same could be said for hunting with a bow. Why use a bow when a rifle is much easier and has so much more range? It is because it opens up more hunting opportunities, the challenge and thrill of getting close and using a weapon that gives one a handicap instead of an superior advantage. It's a matter of preferences.
Exactly!
Click to expand...

I do hunt with a revolver, and understand the ballistics and terminal performance of big bore revolvers, but again PERSONALLY I use a rifle if I think my Redhawk in 44 Mag is not enough. Each his own... Don't take it so personally.
 
S&W designed the 500 to be too long to be a simple rechambering of existing handguns. Requiring competitors to design, and tool up for a whole new gun. I'm sure Ruger feels the 500 S&W market is too small for the expense required to enter It.
Click to expand...


Absolutely incorrect.

Compare the 454 and 460. They both have SAAMI pressure limits of 65,000 psi.
The 454 case volume is a wee bit more than the 45 Colt. The 460 has a case volume a wee bit more than a 308.

Stuff a hot charge under a 300 grain bullet in the 454 and you'll see about 1600 fps.
Do the same in a 460 and you'll see velocities around 2000 fps.

The extra case volume allows the loader to pack in more powder to create more gas to push the bullet without increasing pressure.

The 500 shares the same idea. it runs at a lower pressure than the 460 (60,000 psi) but is far more capable than a 44 magnum length case driven to the same pressures.

Bigger case = more capacity for moving the bullet.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely incorrect.
Click to expand...

Maybe worded in a manor you did not understand. The length of the 500 S&W cartridge is such that a simple re-chambering of an existing revolver can not be done to chamber it. The entire frame has to be lengthened to accommodate the length of the cylinder required to chamber a 500 S&W
No Ruger revolvers had, or have a frame long enough for the 500 S&W.
Bigger case = more capacity for moving the bullet.
Click to expand...
Longer case = longer cylinder = longer frame. :D
 
Originally posted by Axelwik:

I do hunt with a revolver, and understand the ballistics and terminal performance of big bore revolvers, but again PERSONALLY I use a rifle if I think my Redhawk in 44 Mag is not enough. Each his own... Don't take it so personally.
Click to expand...


I didn't take it personally just as I hope you don't take this personally. Just cause one understands the ballistics and terminal performance of a big bore handgun and hunts with a handgun on those few occasions when they don't think they may feel a need for their rifle, does not make them a handgun hunter. It just makes them a hunter that occasionally uses a handgun or carries one as a secondary firearm to their rifle. That's where the difference lies. I never feel the need for a rifle anymore. Back when I hunted deer with my .357, even tho I had good success, I still felt the need to have a rifle along....just in case. But since 2006, the only rifles I have used for deer are handgun caliber carbines....and they are less of a deer gun than the .460 X-Frame. When I need more than them...I grab the X-Frame. I too hunt deer with a .44. A Lew Horton P.C. 629 Magnum Hunter. Excellent piece and I would recommend one to anyone looking to hunt deer with a .44. But when it "ain't enough" I don't grab a rifle, I just grab a bigger revolver. If a revolver won't get it done, than it don't get done. To me, that is handgun hunting.

As you said, to each their own.
 
I had assumed it was because there were so many used 500's on the market, most of them only fired twice. :)


Larry
 
The Ruger with the .357 Maximum frame MIGHT have been long enough to accommodate a 5 shot .500 cartridge, but might not have been strong enough to accommodate the pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top