460 s&w vs 454 casull vs 500 s&w
02-24-2014, 11:44 AM
#1
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 26,274
460 s&w vs 454 casull vs 500 s&w
I am in the market for another BFR. I am looking at the above revolvers. I would like to hear what your take is. I have shot the 500 smith, and the 454 casull, but have yet to shoot a 460 smith. I am drawn to the 460 but not quite sure. What is your opinions on these three revolvers? I am not real concerned with versatility because I have revolvers in all the smaller loads that they can also shoot, 45 colt, 44 mag, etc.
02-24-2014, 03:27 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
Depends what you're really looking for. The difference in weight and size between the .454 and the S&W mags in the BFR is substantial. The 454 BFR is basically a Ruger Super Blackhawk clone, a bit larger, whereas the .45-70, .460 & 500 are stretched frame versions, a pound and a half heavier than an SBH, and a few inches longer for the same bbl length.
I had a BFR in .45-70 many years ago, for what it's worth, I DRASTICALLY favor the Ruger Super Redhawk in .454 Cassull over the .45-70 BFR. Favoring the nicer handling 7.5" Ruger SBH in .44mag and 7.5" SRH in 454 over the bulky BFR.
So if you want something handy and powerful, the .454 is likely the better option. But comparing the 454 to the S&W mags is like comparing the .357mag to the .44mag, or the .44mag to the 454 or .480. Or similar to comparing the .30-30 to the .300win mag. Big jump in power and performance.
Between the 460 and the 500, it depends what you're looking for. I'm doubting that you want to have the coolest toy on the street, so the "It's the 500" appeal won't matter to you. When the .460 came out, it seems like a lot of hunters realized that it superceded its big brother, so guys that buy the big cannons to play at the range still buy the 500's, guys that want to use them want the .460's.
The size of the BFR or the X-frame S&W's is what turns me off from these rounds. If I'm going to carry a 4.5-5lb revolver that's a foot and a half long, I'd rather carry a rifle, or bolt pistol in a flatter shooting round. I like shooting them when I have a chance to, but I'd rather have the portability over the power.
So my first inclination would be the .454Cassull for the portability, but on the other hand if you're looking to get big power, I'd get the .460 over the .500 or the .454, if I were choosing a BFR.
I had a BFR in .45-70 many years ago, for what it's worth, I DRASTICALLY favor the Ruger Super Redhawk in .454 Cassull over the .45-70 BFR. Favoring the nicer handling 7.5" Ruger SBH in .44mag and 7.5" SRH in 454 over the bulky BFR.
So if you want something handy and powerful, the .454 is likely the better option. But comparing the 454 to the S&W mags is like comparing the .357mag to the .44mag, or the .44mag to the 454 or .480. Or similar to comparing the .30-30 to the .300win mag. Big jump in power and performance.
Between the 460 and the 500, it depends what you're looking for. I'm doubting that you want to have the coolest toy on the street, so the "It's the 500" appeal won't matter to you. When the .460 came out, it seems like a lot of hunters realized that it superceded its big brother, so guys that buy the big cannons to play at the range still buy the 500's, guys that want to use them want the .460's.
The size of the BFR or the X-frame S&W's is what turns me off from these rounds. If I'm going to carry a 4.5-5lb revolver that's a foot and a half long, I'd rather carry a rifle, or bolt pistol in a flatter shooting round. I like shooting them when I have a chance to, but I'd rather have the portability over the power.
So my first inclination would be the .454Cassull for the portability, but on the other hand if you're looking to get big power, I'd get the .460 over the .500 or the .454, if I were choosing a BFR.
Last edited by Nomercy448; 02-25-2014 at 06:58 AM. Reason: Learned that the .454 BFR is just a super blackhawk clone...
03-01-2014, 02:28 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,834
Having owned the 454 Casull in a BFR, the 480 Ruger and now the 460 in a S&W 8-3/8ths, I love my 460!!! I got rid of the BFR cause of the wrist snap from the cartridge. The 480 cause thats all I could shoot out of it and loading it down really did nothing. I now own the 460 and can shoot 45 Long Colt, 45 Schofield, 454 casull, 460 S&W and 410 rounds all in the same pistol and in the cylinder at the same time!!!!! Load for the 500 as well, nice round, just not the versatility of the 460. I as well have several 44 mags to shoot lighter loads. Don't care if the gun is heavy, I shoot it off sticks when hunting, have a scope on it.
03-02-2014, 02:14 PM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 332
I own a 460, and its crazy accurate. I got a Smith performance center. And it gets 4" groups to 100 yards.
Bad part is, the 11" barrel makes it so front heavy, its not practical. With the effective muzzle-brake, fire shoots out 5 feet in all directions at low light. Its freakin blinding. I highly suggest hearing protection. I shot a doe 3 years ago, and was blind and feel like I did permanent damage to my left ear.
Same deal with the 500. Lastly, its hell on scopes, both the 460 and 500. No matter what the mount, (and I have tried em all) they will twist. I went thru 2 leupolds and a bushnell elite on my 460. Well, one leupold just sent back twice. Leupold said these guns are killing these scopes and actually recommended mounted with the mount touching the erector/recticle housing.
I like the guns, but I seem to love 44/454's better for practical hunting. I also have a super redhawk that is my now hog pistol.
Bad part is, the 11" barrel makes it so front heavy, its not practical. With the effective muzzle-brake, fire shoots out 5 feet in all directions at low light. Its freakin blinding. I highly suggest hearing protection. I shot a doe 3 years ago, and was blind and feel like I did permanent damage to my left ear.
Same deal with the 500. Lastly, its hell on scopes, both the 460 and 500. No matter what the mount, (and I have tried em all) they will twist. I went thru 2 leupolds and a bushnell elite on my 460. Well, one leupold just sent back twice. Leupold said these guns are killing these scopes and actually recommended mounted with the mount touching the erector/recticle housing.
I like the guns, but I seem to love 44/454's better for practical hunting. I also have a super redhawk that is my now hog pistol.
03-02-2014, 03:19 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,834
I own a 460, and its crazy accurate. I got a Smith performance center. And it gets 4" groups to 100 yards.
Bad part is, the 11" barrel makes it so front heavy, its not practical. With the effective muzzle-brake, fire shoots out 5 feet in all directions at low light. Its freakin blinding. I highly suggest hearing protection. I shot a doe 3 years ago, and was blind and feel like I did permanent damage to my left ear.
Same deal with the 500. Lastly, its hell on scopes, both the 460 and 500. No matter what the mount, (and I have tried em all) they will twist. I went thru 2 leupolds and a bushnell elite on my 460. Well, one leupold just sent back twice. Leupold said these guns are killing these scopes and actually recommended mounted with the mount touching the erector/recticle housing.
I like the guns, but I seem to love 44/454's better for practical hunting. I also have a super redhawk that is my now hog pistol.
Bad part is, the 11" barrel makes it so front heavy, its not practical. With the effective muzzle-brake, fire shoots out 5 feet in all directions at low light. Its freakin blinding. I highly suggest hearing protection. I shot a doe 3 years ago, and was blind and feel like I did permanent damage to my left ear.
Same deal with the 500. Lastly, its hell on scopes, both the 460 and 500. No matter what the mount, (and I have tried em all) they will twist. I went thru 2 leupolds and a bushnell elite on my 460. Well, one leupold just sent back twice. Leupold said these guns are killing these scopes and actually recommended mounted with the mount touching the erector/recticle housing.
I like the guns, but I seem to love 44/454's better for practical hunting. I also have a super redhawk that is my now hog pistol.
Last edited by SecondChance; 03-02-2014 at 03:21 PM.
03-03-2014, 10:15 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
The more I handle them, the X-frames, even the Ruger SRH 7.5" or especially 9.5" just aren't "handy". They're just too big. The weight is an issue, but not unmanageable (well, at least for the SRH's), but the size just doesn't make sense. Revolvers shouldn't necessitate shoulder slings! 
I just picked up this Toklat, .454Cassull. After only a week in hand, I'm pretty certain this is the one that causes me to sell my 7.5" SRH. The Alaskans are just a bit too short for hunting, but this 5.5" barreled SRH is right on the money for sight radius vs. balance/handling. Ideal balance in my hand. Gonna replace the sights with a frankensighted Meprolight tritium set, do a trigger job and spring job to it, then slap on a GP-100 style grip. Little more punishing, but a lot sexier, and a bit less bulky. Gonna try out a Jpoint rear sight mount for a Burris FastFire II for hunting also.
I just picked up this Toklat, .454Cassull. After only a week in hand, I'm pretty certain this is the one that causes me to sell my 7.5" SRH. The Alaskans are just a bit too short for hunting, but this 5.5" barreled SRH is right on the money for sight radius vs. balance/handling. Ideal balance in my hand. Gonna replace the sights with a frankensighted Meprolight tritium set, do a trigger job and spring job to it, then slap on a GP-100 style grip. Little more punishing, but a lot sexier, and a bit less bulky. Gonna try out a Jpoint rear sight mount for a Burris FastFire II for hunting also.
03-05-2014, 11:36 AM
#8
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,745
I was right:
The .460 S&W round is a lengthened, more powerful version of the popular .454 Casull, itself a longer and more powerful version of the .45 Colt, which is a longer and more powerful version of the .45 Schofield. Consequently, firearms that fire .460 S&W are usually capable of firing the less powerful .454 Casull, .45 Colt and .45 Schofield rounds, but this must be verified with each firearm's manufacturer. For instance, some lever actions are designed to handle cartridges within a certain length and bullet profile range. The reverse, however, does not apply: .45 Schofield, .45 Colt and .454 Casull handguns generally cannot safely fire .460 S&W rounds—nor can they even chamber the .460 S&W because of the longer case length. The length of the .460 S&W was intended to fully utilize the overall length (2.30") of the S&W X frame cylinder thereby increasing its powder capacity.[citation needed]
The .460 cartridge achieves high velocities by operating at pressures normally reserved for magnum rifle cartridges.
The .460 S&W round is a lengthened, more powerful version of the popular .454 Casull, itself a longer and more powerful version of the .45 Colt, which is a longer and more powerful version of the .45 Schofield. Consequently, firearms that fire .460 S&W are usually capable of firing the less powerful .454 Casull, .45 Colt and .45 Schofield rounds, but this must be verified with each firearm's manufacturer. For instance, some lever actions are designed to handle cartridges within a certain length and bullet profile range. The reverse, however, does not apply: .45 Schofield, .45 Colt and .454 Casull handguns generally cannot safely fire .460 S&W rounds—nor can they even chamber the .460 S&W because of the longer case length. The length of the .460 S&W was intended to fully utilize the overall length (2.30") of the S&W X frame cylinder thereby increasing its powder capacity.[citation needed]
The .460 cartridge achieves high velocities by operating at pressures normally reserved for magnum rifle cartridges.
03-05-2014, 02:02 PM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
I'd likely go for the .460 out of these 3, simply more versatile being able to run .460, 454, and .45colt out of it. Plus, I'd expect the 460S&W to eclipse the other two quite handily in all but the most potent of handloads. Go big or go home in this case.