454 casull question

[Rugerhunter]

If you were gonna buy a 454 Casull handgun, would you buy a Ruger or the Freedom arms model 83? what other options for this caliber is there?

Any comments, experience, details, links or other info?

Thanks

 

[batmann]

No experience in .454, but if you can afford the FA, I would go for it. The Super Redhawk is a very nice gun, but FA is about thre best there is.

 

[Axehandle]

If you can afford the FA 454 IMHO there is no other choice. Grab it and never look back....

 

[ctkelly]

Magnum research BFR. Not quite the fit of a FA but at a much lesser cost also.

 

[revhigh]

Not exactly a fair comparison ... FA is at least double the price. Have the money ?? Get the FA. Don't have the money ... get the Ruger ... it's really as simple as that.

REV

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Not exactly a fair comparison ... FA is at least double the price. Have the money ?? Get the FA. Don't have the money ... get the Ruger ... it's really as simple as that.

REV

Yup.

BTW, I think Taurus makes a .454 if you don't like the other options.

-- Sam

 

[rhatimi]

I would have to say it depends on your use. While the ruger is a double action and the FA is a single action, but in all seriousness I doubt the double action capability would be of much use in a .454 unless you are up against a grizzly or Kodiak, but that's another story. From a practicality stand point the ruger will handle both .45 colts or .454's fairly well and you get a sixth shot as well. With the FA cylinder tolerances you might be better served with an additional .45 colt cylinder, additionally the FA does not have the transfer bar so that means that you can "safely" only carry 4 shots in the five shot cylinder. I think the amount of cash you are willing to pay is a big factor, but there can be FA's found on the used market for less of a mark up price if you want a little better quality.

 

[Bucks Owin]

Definately the Freedom Arms until Ruger sees fit to build a "fivegun" SBH in .454. (Or bigger!) Why there isn't one yet I don't know. I guess the Redhawks outsell the Blackhawks? ......Dennis (Altho' for the price of a new M-83, you'd likely be able to have a .454 BH built!)

 

[Sonnytoo]

Not exactly a fair comparison ... FA is at least double the price. Have the money ?? Get the FA. Don't have the money ... get the Ruger ... it's really as simple as that.
REV

I would get the Ruger (Money means something), but I don't want the longer barrels. They're heavier than sin. My buddy keeps sending them to Andy Horvath to get 'em cut down to 5". .
p.s. I have a FA and it's a nice gun, but yeah, I'd probably take the Alaskan or get a long-barrel cut down to 4".
Sonnytoo

 

[Lee Martin]

FA 83

 

[azrugershooter]

The FA is the production gun GOD of sa revolvers. But the FA cylinder is limiting on bullets over 300 gr if those weight bullets are your thing? I'd buy a BFR first then the super redhawk 2nd if I had it to do over again. I ended up with a super redhawk. I love the gun but I would rather have the sa. Besides the BFR looks like a super blackhawk twin.

 

[maxpress]

i am settling on the BFR after the research/funds that i have.

 

[the fatman]

Question have you ever shot a 454 casull? If not you may want to find someone who would let you shoot theirs first. It might help your decision. Then the question might be which 45 colt should I buy.

 

[revhigh]

Good point fatman !!! I know several shooters who 'desperately' wanted a 454, and upon getting one, didn't really like shooting it. The 454 is quite a violent round ... it is a real handful. I always say it makes a full house 44 magnum seem like a 38 special (compared to the 454), and I believe that's quite accurate.

I am a self confessed recoil junky and really like the Casull, but most of my friends who shoot mine shoot a round or two and hand it back saying 'that's enough', thanks. I can easily shoot 50 or so in a shooting session, and I've done 100 a time or two, but 100 in a session is pushing most shooter's limits.

To this day, the 454 is the ONLY caliber that I use shooting gloves to shoot with, and I also wear DOUBLE hearing protection ... plugs and 29DB muffs.

Prior to shooting the 454, I commented that 'how bad (or good LOL) can it be', it can't be much more than a 44 mag, can it ? I can say for a fact that it is the most violent caliber that I have ever shot, FAR FAR more violent than ANY 44 magnum, and the 460 S&W or 480 Ruger is also nowhere near the 454. I've never shot a .500, so I can't comment on that one.

It's also pretty damn expensive to shoot too, and I reload for it. A box of 50 is about $20+ reloaded cost. 50 factory rounds is EASILY more than $60.

THere's a lot of used 454's out there just because of the above. If you're getting one just to say you have it, and not for a specific reason, be aware of these things going in.

Also, although I think Taurus makes some 'decent' guns, I would NOT want a Taurus with a round like the 454.

Just trying to help out, not talk you out of it. Let us know what you do.

REV

 

[Yosemite Sam]

^ Rev, thanks for the post. It helps clarify some things for me, too.

And if you merely want a stout load, .44 mag or .45 Colt can be made quite stout. Especially in a Ruger!

-- Sam

 

[Bucks Owin]

I would get the Ruger (Money means something), but I don't want the longer barrels. They're heavier than sin. My buddy keeps sending them to Andy Horvath to get 'em cut down to 5". .
p.s. I have a FA and it's a nice gun, but yeah, I'd probably take the Alaskan or get a long-barrel cut down to 4".
Sonnytoo

Sonnytoo, I respect your savvy as a sixgunner, and I'm curious as to the velocity loss when shooting a .454 in a 4" barrel. Seeing as how the .454 Casull is really nothing more than a "hot rodded" .45 Colt with a rifle primer to light big charges of slow powder in a longish barrel and an additional .010" of case to keep it out of SAA Colts and others that would "grenade" with that round, shooting it in a "belly gun" barrel seems to me like having a .220 Swift "carbine". Do a couple inches of barrel steel really weigh that much? Do they "fast draw" that much better? Honest to God, I'm not looking for a pissing match, I just don't understand the almost fanatical trend these days to short barrels on handguns. How can powder get burned efficiently enough to get "real" .454 performance?. If one is a handgun hunter only, even a 10" barrel with scope is easier to carry than a rifle. (eg Steve Herritt) And if the handgun is meant to be 2nd fiddle to a rifle, why the need for a hellblaster sidearm anyway? If I was facing down a charging toothy critter, I think I'd rather have one accurately aimed shot with almost any rifle than 5 hastily fired handgun rounds "around the edges", no matter the caliber. Maybe some folks are cool enough to empty a revolver into a fast closing threat and shoot accurately enough to actually drop it , I doubt I'm one of them. If I was tromping around in Grizzly country again, and wanted something for protection only, it's be a cut down, cyl choked Model 12 shotgun with slugs first then heavy buckshot. Fairly light and easy to carry with a sling, stone cold reliable, and far more lethal at short range than anything else I could get into action with in a hurry. So what's with the cut back (thereby somewhat watered down) .44 mags, .454s, .475s, .500 S&Ws etc?.... Guess I'm old school, but willing to learn, Dennis :? (Maybe the muzzle blast will discombooburate a grizz? :lol: )