Why hasn't Ruger made a revolver in S&W 500 yet?

[MaxP]

Go for the BFR...it's just a giant Ruger even the grips fit it!

You can get a "normally sized" BFR in .500 JRH, just like this one:

As far as I am concerned, the extra velocity potential of the .500 S&W isn't needed. JMHO.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Yes indeed. Notice the price . . .

http://www.magnumresearch.com/Firearms/Magnum-Research-500-JRH-Revolver-55-inch-Barrel.asp

 

[dad11345]

Please give consideration to buying a 500 with a muzzle break. I have owned two Smith`s and had no problem with either. With hunting loads it like bull riding. You have to hold on to finish the ride.

 

[CraigC]

The .500S&W is a silly cartridge anyway. It's a whole lot of weight, noise and recoil for nothing. It offers nothing of practical value over the "standard" .50cal cartridges. Ruger isn't going to delve into all the marketing nonsense involved with the S&W X-frames. The .480 is a more practical, useful and usable cartridge than the X-frames will ever be. It will do everything that needs doing with a handgun, won't pull your pants down in a holster and doesn't require a crew to field. If you require more, the .475Linebaugh, .500JRH and Linebaugh provide it. All in a standard sized sixgun. Not that retarded monstrosity they call the X-frame.

 

[k22fan]

First off, I'll be delighted to NEVER fire a .500 S&W unless of course someone handed me theirs with drastically reduced reloads. Rejecting the smallest .45 autos a friend remarked "shooting is supposed to be fun". I concur.

That said, who casts Magnum Research's extra long frames? Pine Tree Casting by any chance? If so they may have some sort of non compete clause in the contract. I've read Ruger started selling 1911s for the same reason S&W did, Pine Tree Casting was already casting 1911 frames for other companies. Of course 1911s have a much larger market than any .50 caliber, but if Pine Tree Casting is making extended SA frames for other companies, Ruger might catalog some.

The .480 SRH is as large as I'm going to own, in both recoil and revolver size. The .480 was designed to make the SRH the best big bore 6 shot that specific frame could be. In that it was a great success but I don't see where the cartridge fits in to S&W's frames. I like my .480 but as a reduced X frame chambering .480 makes no sense. That and Ruger's inability to sell enough .480s to continuously catalog them is the reason S&W hasn't made any, not the cartridge's name.

 

[MaxP]

First off I'll be delighted to NEVER fire a .500 S&W unless of course someone handed me theirs with drastically reduced reloads. Rejecting the smallest .45 autos a friend remarked "shooting is supposed to be fun". I concur.

That said, who casts Magnum Research's extra long frames? Pine Tree Casting by any chance? If so they may have some sort of non compete clause in the contract. I've read Ruger started selling 1911s for the same reason S&W did, Pine Tree Casting was already casting 1911 frames for other companies. Of course 1911s have a much larger market than any .50 caliber, but if Pine Tree Casting is making extended SA frames for other companies, Ruger might catalog some.

The .480 SRH is as large as I'm going to own, in both recoils and revolver size. The .480 was designed to make the SRH the best big bore 6 shot that specific frame could be. In that it was a great success but I don't see where the cartridge fits in to S&W's frames. I like my .480 but as a reduced X frame chambering .480 makes no sense. That and Ruger's inability to sell enough .480s to continuously catalog them is the reason S&W hasn't made any, not the cartridge's name.

Frankly, even the most obnoxious loads for the .500 Smith aren't so bad in a 4 1/2-lb X-frame with a brake, however, for me at least, a handgun is something that is supposed to be handy, convenient, and not a crew-served weapon. Call me crazy.

Magnum Research is no longer getting their frames from Pine Tree. No reason for a large frame like the X-frame for a cartridge the length of a .44 Mag, when you have the N-frame available. That said, the N-frame isn't a good platform for the .44 Magnum, let alone the 48,000 psi .480 Ruger. Yes, my comment about using a S&W cartridge in a Ruger was conjecture, but keep in mind that these companies are in competition with one another for shares of the market. Also, I really do believe that S&W wouldn't chamber a revolver in .480 Ruger unless they though it was the best idea since sliced bread. S&W believes they have all bases covered with their .460 and .500. Also, the .480 was on and off again due to the ejection issues not because they haven't sold many, although they really do not sell a lot of big-bore revolvers. I was sent one to test a year or two ago, and shortly afterwards they asked me not to write about it until they re-release it yet again. I then got the first of the new configuration SRH where the ejection issue was purportedly resolved -- and it was in the case of my revolver. I believe it is here to stay now.

 

[davcar.45]

IMHO there's no real "need" for anything in excess of a stout .44 Magnum or "Ruger only" .45 Colt chambering. With the possible exception of huffalumps, rhinos, and the like, there's not a critter going that would be any more dead when shot with "bigger" stuff. Like I said, JMHO.

That said, there's nothing wrong with these biggies, and they are a lotta fun for those who can afford the tariff and tolerate the recoil. Mae said something to the effect of "Anything in excess is a pleasure" and that applies to guns as well as cars, motorcycles, etc.

Ain't it great to have all these choices?

IMO anything in excess of a stout 44 magnum should be fired from the shoulder.... at least by me. :mrgreen:

 

[Nakanokalronin]

I didn't and wouldn't buy the gun again to hunt with. It's a fun gun to shoot and after renting the 8 3/8" and 4" model, I wanted one for myself. I've had a few SA revolvers, but never warmed up to the grips. Since a DA model isn't made by Ruger, I think this time around I'll buy the 4" model so it's more balanced.

When I originally bought my 500 I noticed the K frame grips fit and posted this on another forum as a joke. They actually do fit and screw down, but I don't think anyone would dare shoot it this way. :wink:

 

[TRanger]

I think S&W introduced the .500 largely to put an end to the "most powerful handgun of the month" business that was going on for a while. The cartridge is practically useless in a handgun platform; much better suited to a lever action or single shot rifle. The attributes of a handgun are convenience and fast handling, neither of which are applicable to a hand arm chambered for this cartridge.
It will never be worth the expense for Ruger to tool up to produce such a revolver.

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

Oh wow... I really like the 7.5 inch model.
https://www.magnumresearch.com/Firearms/Magnum-Research-500-SandW-Revolver-75-inch-Barrel.asp

 

[OldePhart]

When I originally bought my 500 I noticed the K frame grips fit and posted this on another forum as a joke. They actually do fit and screw down, but I don't think anyone would dare shoot it this way. :wink:

Oh, my, that is funny. I think if I had that revolver I'd have to add a forward off-hand grip under the barrel...then maybe I'd be able to hit something with it and would still be able to play my bass after shooting a couple of rounds...

 

[MaxP]

Don't forget wheels to help move it place to place....... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

The X frame qualifies as a crew served weapon. No thanks!

 

[txbandit]

I've had a S&W 500 for several years and have 100's of rounds through it. Didn't realize how much I had shot it until I started decapping brass a few days ago. I mostly target shoot but do use full power loads. My gun is as tight as the day I bought it. Practical?, maybe not, but a heck of a lot of fun.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Oh, my, that is funny. I think if I had that revolver I'd have to add a forward off-hand grip under the barrel...then maybe I'd be able to hit something with it and would still be able to play my bass after shooting a couple of rounds...

If you put flesh in line with the B/C gap expect it to be stripped from the bone. There are grizzzly pictures of guys with only part of their thumbs left. 8)

 

[OldePhart]

Oh, my, that is funny. I think if I had that revolver I'd have to add a forward off-hand grip under the barrel...then maybe I'd be able to hit something with it and would still be able to play my bass after shooting a couple of rounds...

If you put flesh in line with the B/C gap expect it to be stripped from the bone. There are grizzzly pictures of guys with only part of their thumbs left. 8)

Yeah...it was only a joke...wouldn't ever actually do that...

Reminds me of a training video I saw in the AF a few decades ago of what had happened to a fella what thought it would be good to "feel" for a hydraulics leak...

 

[grumpy7159]

I just bought a barrel for my Encore to satisfy my 500 S&W fix. love it. And it is cheaper than a x-frame Smith. It is still a hand full though. I have a 460 barrel also but haven't tried it yet.

 

[dad11345]

Actually the 460 is a better choice. I have the 10.5 inch Performance Center with a 2x7 Burris in 3 Warne rings. You can shoot 454 and 45 LC out of it to add to its versatility.
With heavy bullets the 460 will take anything in North America. It is also not limited to 100 yards.

 

[MaxP]

Actually the 460 is a better choice. I have the 10.5 inch Performance Center with a 2x7 Burris in 3 Warne rings. You can shoot 454 and 45 LC out of it to add to its versatility.
With heavy bullets the 460 will take anything in North America. It is also not limited to 100 yards.

The .460 I had wouldn't shoot .45 Colt or .454 well, the bullets having to make too long a jump.

 

[dad11345]

This is the first time bullet jump has been mentioned in a post on a handgun that I can remember seeing, but as my wife says I don`t get out much. I do feel it is a big deal when tuning reloads for bench rest rifles. I am not sure it a big enough concern on a hunting handgun.