4MUL8R
Single-Sixer
I want a Bisley stainless Blackhawk in 480 Ruger.
Why hasn't Ruger made a revolver in S&W 500 yet?
- Thread starter Nakanokalronin
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
dad11345 said:
I hunt with handguns almost exclusively nowadays and expect good accuracy out of my hunting revolvers. The whole point of the .460 is "long" range accuracy, which they are usually capable of delivering. The chamber is cut for a 1.8-inch case, so there is quite a bit of space there for the other two cartridges (1.28 and 1.4-inch respectively). I ran a lot of different loads (known commodities that delivered good accuracy out of other revolvers I own/tested) of .45 Colt and .454 through my XVR and it never delivered what I would call acceptable accuracy -- perhaps to plink with, but that is it as far as I am concerned. Your mileage may vary, but I think it would be better to download using .460 cases if the recoil is an issue. JMHO.
Absolutely. It isn't just about the freebore, when a bullet starts out unsupported (short of the throat) it then has to align with the throat while being propelled at high speed with no guidance. Not a recipe for accuracy at all. The ability to shoot the 3 different cartridges in the same gun is purely marketing hype.
All you guys talking about the "practicality" of the S&W 500............so what, who cares about that. What does the average guy need with a .338 Lapua or a 50 BMG. Answer he doesn't NEED one.........he WANTS one, because they are fun to shoot. I don't care about practical. If I want one, I want one and I would like a SA Ruger in that caliber as well.
I don't hunt and don't use anything because I should, I have it because I want it. I have .38, 357, 41, 44, 45, 454 Casul, 460 and 480. I shoot hot loads in all, because if I want less, I grab a smaller caliber. So yeah, I would like a .500 as well
I don't hunt and don't use anything because I should, I have it because I want it. I have .38, 357, 41, 44, 45, 454 Casul, 460 and 480. I shoot hot loads in all, because if I want less, I grab a smaller caliber. So yeah, I would like a .500 as well
gtxmonte said:
And we are all for you. If you enjoy your guns, that is the important thing. Heck, I have a .458 Winchester stashed somewhere that I have no earthly use for. I just like to be prepared in case someone invites me to Africa...
As a handgun hunter, practicality is a big factor in choosing a viable hunting revolver. For me at least, if it can't be shot well offhand, it might as well have a buttstock. If it can't comfortably be carried in a holster, it might as well have a buttstock. But that's just me. If you have to have a bigger .50 than a JRH, or WE, or Linebaugh, you can always have a .500 Maximum built on a .357 Max Blackhawk. If that doesn't satisfy the need for a big cartridge and big recoil, the X-frame in .500 S&W certainly won't. The point I have been trying to make is that all of the extra weight, and noise from the brake (and the high pressure) doesn't lead to killing game any better so that is where again practicality comes into focus. I hunt with my handguns in some ares where you are thankful the package is small and unobtrusive when you're crawling through the briar, trying to keep up with dogs nipping at the heals of a black bear. Again, JMHO. Now, if you simply want one because you want one, have at it. There is no reason to justify wanting something. I only talk practicality from a hunting standpoint because that is the intent of these revolvers by the manufacturer, and that is what I do with them. That said, I can pretty much say with a modicum of certainty that Ruger will never produce a revolver in .500 S&W.
And likely for the same reason that other-than-Glock pistols chambered for the .45GAP are marked ".45 Auto".
CraigC
Hawkeye
As usual, intended purpose should ALWAYS be stated up front.
Obviously, if all you're interested in is a range toy for making noise, then practicality can be an afterthought. The X-frames are right up your alley. However, if you actually USE your handguns for the purposes for which they are intended, whether just carrying them afield or as dedicated hunting weapons, than practicality is a HUGE factor. Personally, I'm not going to carry a 5lb revolver, that only weighs 5lbs because it's chambered in a 65,000psi cartridge capable of making shots at 200yds, if I do not need to cover 200yds with a handgun. Not when a proper beltgun weighing half as much will handle what I need handled and cover the range I need it to cover. Nor am I going to subject myself to a 65,000psi handgun cartridge if I do not need to. I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the job and for shooting deer and hogs under 100yds, the .460 and .500S&W are akin to using a 10lb sledgehammer to drive tacks. While not as glamorous as the big S&W cartridges and lacking their impressive numbers (for those impressed by such nonsense), the .480 is a far better, far more practical cartridge than either of them. This is an example of where something good fails where a bad idea succeeds and it is all due to marketing.
I see very little reason for their being anyway. 99.99% of shooters have no business taking 200yd handgun shots at game. For bigger critters at shorter ranges, there are far better choices than those two that fit into guns that will ride in a belt holster and handle fast when you need it to.
And why would they mark both .45GAP and .45ACP chambered guns ".45Auto"???
Obviously, if all you're interested in is a range toy for making noise, then practicality can be an afterthought. The X-frames are right up your alley. However, if you actually USE your handguns for the purposes for which they are intended, whether just carrying them afield or as dedicated hunting weapons, than practicality is a HUGE factor. Personally, I'm not going to carry a 5lb revolver, that only weighs 5lbs because it's chambered in a 65,000psi cartridge capable of making shots at 200yds, if I do not need to cover 200yds with a handgun. Not when a proper beltgun weighing half as much will handle what I need handled and cover the range I need it to cover. Nor am I going to subject myself to a 65,000psi handgun cartridge if I do not need to. I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the job and for shooting deer and hogs under 100yds, the .460 and .500S&W are akin to using a 10lb sledgehammer to drive tacks. While not as glamorous as the big S&W cartridges and lacking their impressive numbers (for those impressed by such nonsense), the .480 is a far better, far more practical cartridge than either of them. This is an example of where something good fails where a bad idea succeeds and it is all due to marketing.
I see very little reason for their being anyway. 99.99% of shooters have no business taking 200yd handgun shots at game. For bigger critters at shorter ranges, there are far better choices than those two that fit into guns that will ride in a belt holster and handle fast when you need it to.
I don't think that's the reason. I think it has more to do with designing a new platform for two silly cartridges.Ale-8(1) said:
And why would they mark both .45GAP and .45ACP chambered guns ".45Auto"???
Craig, every gun except a Glock that I've seen chambered for .45GAP was marked ".45 AUTO".
And my suggestion would be to avoid any guns you feel are "unnecessary" and let the rest of the world decide on their own. We're all painfully aware of your feelings on this . . . and most other things, as well.
And my suggestion would be to avoid any guns you feel are "unnecessary" and let the rest of the world decide on their own. We're all painfully aware of your feelings on this . . . and most other things, as well.
CraigC
Hawkeye
I'm sorry, did I invade a .500S&W smoochfest? My memory could be failing, have we had a lot of discussions about the .500S&W? Is my opinion on this subject invalid? Are my opinions not relevant to the OP? I'm not the only one expressing this opinion, why are you not calling them out as well? Do you have anything useful to add, or are you just expressing your opinions of others' opinions on a subject you know nothing about?Ale-8(1) said:
I guess that's how you get 15,000 posts in 7yrs. :roll:
I think his point was.........The OP would like to have a Ruger handgun in a .500 S&W. He didn't ask if it was practical or anything else, he just said he would like to have one. Then several want to delve into how impractical and useless the caliber is.........Well guess what, that is YOUR opinion and not everyone shares it, yet you keep telling the same stuff over and over.CraigC said:
You also say a pistols "intended" purpose is hunting.......who says? A pistols "intended" use is whatever the end user chooses to do with it. You don't like or want the .500........fine, but quit telling the rest of us we shouldn't either. Nobody wants to be told what they SHOULD want or SHOULD have. That is why the cartridge books are just full of calibers.
Jimbo357mag
Hawkeye
Go ahead CraigC, I enjoy your well educated posts about guns and cartridges. Never too much and certainly not too much this time. Ale boy who has posted 7 times on this thread compared to your 3 can take a leap.CraigC said:
Ale-8(1) said:
I would assume Glock 45 GAP's are marked .45 AUTO because Glock .45 ACP's are marked .45 AUTO.
Glock .40 S&W's are marked simply .40
Glock .357 SIG's are marked simply .357
.45 GAP is a fine round and a good idea. .45 ACP power in a 9mm sized gun. It was just 20 years too late to catch on. Had it come out when the .40 S&W did I think it would succeeded.
As for X-frames, I view them as cartoonish novelty guns. Sort of like desert eagles, if you enjoy shooting it, God bless, have fun. I had one come through my hands as part of an estate deal and I could have kept it for a song, but it held no interest with me.
Really no need to turn this into a pissing contest, however, from Smith & Wesson's website, the following:
"In 2003 the gunsmiths and engineers at Smith & Wesson wanted to deliver maximum power for serious handgun hunters. The power they sought required an entirely new frame, the massive "X-Frame™," and was the basis for the new Model S&W500™, the most powerful production revolver in the world."
Why else would they build a 4 1/2- 5-lb revolver in an obnoxious caliber like the .500 S&W? Plinking? Punching paper? I don't think so.......
Again, if someone wants one because they simply want one, then more power to them. I won't disparage anyone for their choices, however, if the intent is to hunt, there are better ways to skin a cat in my humble opinion.
"In 2003 the gunsmiths and engineers at Smith & Wesson wanted to deliver maximum power for serious handgun hunters. The power they sought required an entirely new frame, the massive "X-Frame™," and was the basis for the new Model S&W500™, the most powerful production revolver in the world."
Why else would they build a 4 1/2- 5-lb revolver in an obnoxious caliber like the .500 S&W? Plinking? Punching paper? I don't think so.......
Again, if someone wants one because they simply want one, then more power to them. I won't disparage anyone for their choices, however, if the intent is to hunt, there are better ways to skin a cat in my humble opinion.
All of my limited posts do not add up to one of Craig's lengthy tomes that essentially say that this (or any other round he doesn't happen to like) are worthless, impractical, and indicative of users with less than a realistic grasp of firearms use. "Smoochfest"? Geeze.
Jimbo . . .right in there with no contribution except your usual ad hominem attack when you have nothing of consequence to add, I see. Nice to see you are consistent if nothing else.
Jimbo . . .right in there with no contribution except your usual ad hominem attack when you have nothing of consequence to add, I see. Nice to see you are consistent if nothing else.
Oh no..........I guess since I am not a "hunter" and just strictly shoot my handguns because I WANT to, that I better sell them.
I am not a "sniper" either..........but I have a .50 BMG. Wonder if I should get rid of that too, since I am not using it as intended and it is a seriously UNEEDED rifle for what I do, which is paper punching. After all, my .223, 6mm, 300WM, 6.5 x .284 and several others I own can make holes in paper at 1000yds.........why in the world do I need a .50..........LOL!!!
Hey, did you guys see the custom chopper OCC built for Shaq. Thing was massive, yet looked small under him.........the point? The X frame is not massive and heavy to EVERYBODY on the planet.........jus sayin
I am not a "sniper" either..........but I have a .50 BMG. Wonder if I should get rid of that too, since I am not using it as intended and it is a seriously UNEEDED rifle for what I do, which is paper punching. After all, my .223, 6mm, 300WM, 6.5 x .284 and several others I own can make holes in paper at 1000yds.........why in the world do I need a .50..........LOL!!!
Hey, did you guys see the custom chopper OCC built for Shaq. Thing was massive, yet looked small under him.........the point? The X frame is not massive and heavy to EVERYBODY on the planet.........jus sayin
Similar threads
