has anyone of experience with this cartridge?

berndb., are you looking to build one? I think Grizzly Cartridge Company loads for the .500 WE.

Just went to Grizzly's website and they offer 3 different .500 WE loads, culminating in a 440 grain WFN at 1200 fps.......

Looks to be comparative to other .50 caliber offerings out there. Should kill game well!

As a hunting round the 500 WE is nothing more than a belted version of the 500 JRH and the JRH is extremly effective on game

I didn't realize it was belted.....why in the world would they put a belt on a revolver round -- or was it originally meant for rifles??

jwp475 is right.

Me, I would rather have a custom gun by Jack Huntingtion than the 500WE. But for now I will stay with my S&W 500 Mags.

Here is some of the write up on the 500 WE.

The .500 Wyoming Express has a belted cartridge case, much like many magnum rifle cartridges. Using a belted case allowed Freedom Arms to fit the fifty caliber into the Model 83 without having to deal with a cartridge rim that was too large for the revolver, or a rim that was too small to easily manufacture. The belted case seems to be a great idea. The .50 AE could not handle the heavier bullets, due to having an insufficient crimp, headspacing on the case mouth. The .500 WE can be heavily roll-crimped to handle heavier bullets. The .500 WE case uses large rifle primers. The maximum case length is 1.370 inches, and the maximum overall cartridge length is 1.765 inches. The .500 WE uses a true .500 caliber bullet diameter, many of which are readily available to handloaders.

You can see the rest of the write up here.
http://www.gunblast.com/Freedom_500WE.htm

Redhawk, you just made the case for just building/buying a .500 JRH! I would think the rim of the JRH is small enough to fit the FA 83.......

I have 2 .5500WE's, including 1 of the first 2 to leave the factory. John Taffin received the other. Both of these were retrofits of .500WE cylinders to guns that were originally .50 AE's. I used mine to take the first head of big game taken with the cartridge, a North Carolina wild boar, in October 2005. My first article on the cartridge was published in THE SIXGUNNER, the periodical of Handgun Hunters International in December of that year. John's article followed in April of 2006 in GUNS magazine.
Both John and I also acquired additional guns that were built as WE's. There's no performance difference between the retrofits and the others.
Bob Baker and I talked from time to time during his development of the WE, which was several years in the making. He believes that it is easier to hold a precise measurement on a belt which is formed when the case is headed, than it is to hold that same precision cutting a rim in a subsequent operation. Frankly, I think he also wanted something a bit different than the rest of the pack.
In any event, the .500 Linebaugh, .500 JRH, and .500 WE are all performance duplicates of each other. I can tell you, having fired thousands of rounds through my WE's that there are absolutely no performance issues with the belt, and I am very pleased with the guns. I also own 3 .475 Linebaughs, and I can also tell you that the two (or four) cartridges can be made to perform approximately the same in similar guns with similar bullets at similar velocities. Game doesn't know the difference.

I never thought the belt would present a problem, I was just wondering why the belt. You are correct in that all of the big .50s offer nearly identical performance with the exception of the .50 Alaskan and the .500 Smith that are capable of more speed (whether or not this is an advantage is debatable but we really don't want to get into this! ). I have plans to have a .500 JRH built on a Redhawk......

Kenoneill,

You just provided an answer to a question I've been pondering by stating that between the .475s and .500s "game doesn't know the difference". Would you extend that comparison to the .454 and heavy bullets and how about on to the .44Mag class?

I've only played with .44Mags, .454s, and one FA .475LB and can't say I saw any appreciable difference on game between a .454 w/360grainers@1500 and a .475LB w/400grainers@1400. I do think both are a noticable step up from the .44 however.

I think deer and .44's (with the classic Keith load or a 300grainer@1200+) are a perfect match but deer are rather fragile animals. The bigger cal's heavier bullets take over from there on bears, big hogs, elk and such.

Do you think there's enough difference between a .500 and a .454 for game to notice?

(Can you tell I'm lusting for a .50? )

The S&W mags don't count

Thanks for the wisdom!!

I want a 550 express and magnum...

same thing as the 500 Wyoming Express but use a 1.285"or a 1.4" belted weatherby cases and .550" bullets. the advantage is a heavier bullet in the 500 grain (express) to 600 grain (magnum) range. heck if a 577 can be done why not a 550 on cheap (relative) avaliable wby. cases.

A funny thing is there is propper headstamped 550 express and 550 magnum cases.

the real 550 express is a 2.65" rifle cart and the 550 magnum is a full length wby case necked to 550.

Just need 3K for R&D

also the 2.5" version can work in a BFR and a short action rifle with pistol bullets and the longer rifle bullets could work in a std action so use the same dies and reamer for all three options

Boomie, with that big case, your custom cylinder would only hold four rounds!

The .50 AE could not handle the heavier bullets, due to having an insufficient crimp, headspacing on the case mouth.The .50 AE could not handle the heavier bullets, due to having an insufficient crimp, headspacing on the case mouth.

Poppycock!

Back when Randy was the tech guy at FA WE determined separately that the .50 AE head spaced on the entire cartridge which is tapered.

We'd both fired thousands of Roger Barnes BRP 385gners at 1400-1500fps

PWS,
Although I have no personal experience with bullets heavier than 320 grains in the .454, I have friends who have used the 360 gr. bullet and like it. With that qualifier, however, I do have reasonably broad experience with the .454 on African and North American game, mostly with 300's @ 1550 and 260's @ 1725. I much prefer the .475 Linebaugh, which I have used a good deal in my FA's. Those loads have run 400 gr. XTP's and 420 gr. WFN's between 1250-1400 fps. depending upon the gun and load. I have found them to be absolutely reliable game droppers, on game up to 2000 lbs. My WE will be used on bison at the end of this month, and I expect similar performance, based on other game I've taken with it.
There's certainly nothing wrong with a .454 in my view, I just prefer the .475-500's with their heavier bullets. The .44 Mag. as wonderful as it is, is way out of its league when compared to them.
Rabbit Creek,
Not to be argumentative, but I did a good deal of work with the 50AE in the FA, and found bullet pull to be a measureable problem, by measuring the 3rd through 5th cartridges for OAL with a micrometer. FA was well aware of the same problem and even developed special test dies that straightened the end of the case, to attempt to alleviate it. Speer was also well aware of the problem and began using an adhesive on their bullet to alleviate the problem. One of their tech gurus suggested the same solution to me as a handloader, but I wasn't interested in doing that. It was this situation of bullet pull that directly led to the development of the .500WE, a case that could be roll crimped and dependably headspaced.
I believe it was Bob Baker's tinkering with those experimental special dies that gave him the original idea to consider a belt. During a conversation at an SCI convention a couple of years before the WE was announced, as we were discussing possible 50AE remedies, he asked me with a twinkle in his eye " what would happen if you used a smaller straight wall sizing die on the AE case", already knowing the obvious answer. "you'd have a buch of brass at the base" I said." That's right. A belt ! " he grinned. He'd obviously been doing a lot of thinking since we'd discussed it some months earlier.

I for one do not believe that a belt is more uniform in thickness than a rim. Anyone with a match grade chamber in a 300 Win (or other belted cartridge) knows that belts vary in thickness as some of the cases have wider belts than othres and the varience makes chambering them more difficult.
The 500 JRH was taiked about by Jack Huntington for years before the 500 S&W came out, once the S&W was a reality the parent case was now avalable. Jack Huntington gave Bob Baker cases for the 500 JRH and the proper dimensions to cut the ratchets inorder for it to work in the Freedom guns. Freedom seemed to be interested in chambering for the cartridges and asked tyechnical questions about it. When Freedom Arms came out with a 500 they put a belt on it instead of cahmbering Jack Cartridge.
BFR does chamber the 500 JRH in thier revolvers and they sell quite a few more in the 500 JRH than Freedom Artms does in the 500 WE.


I want a rim on my revolver cartridges, not a silly belt..

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbit Creek:
The .50 AE could not handle the heavier bullets, due to having an insufficient crimp, headspacing on the case mouth.The .50 AE could not handle the heavier bullets, due to having an insufficient crimp, headspacing on the case mouth.

Poppycock!

Back when Randy was the tech guy at FA WE determined separately that the .50 AE head spaced on the entire cartridge which is tapered.

We'd both fired thousands of Roger Barnes BRP 385gners at 1400-1500fps

You are correct that the 50 AE can head space on the body taper with a properly cut chamber, but I for one much prefer a rim...

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Boomie, with that big case, your custom cylinder would only hold four rounds!

yes...a 5 shot and rebore the 500 s+w

a 600 grain 550 bullet traveling 1275 fps is a 60 on the taylor knock down scale. cool!

hey whitworth how do you feel on the redhawk compared to super redhawk for the 500 conversion by jack

TBEAR -- it's strictly a matter of aesthetics for me as this will be a backup revolver, so it'll have a short (4-inch barrel), and I just think it'll look a little better. Besides, I've never had a Redhawk but have and do own a number of SRHs (including my Huntington built .475 Linebaugh). I don't think it offers and advantages or disadvantages to be perfectly honest.

i was curious i have the 2 redhawks you seen in post but i just picked up a super redhawk cheap and was thinking maybe have jack build a 500 linebaugh on it and let dustin build a 38-40 out of the bisley

Bommie, anything over 1/2" bore is a destructive device. The ATF will generally not give you a sporting exemption for a handgun , but will with a rifle.
Hamilton Bowen tried to get an exemption to build a 577 5 shot revolver, but they would not give it to him.

So 50 cal is as big as you can go without lots of paperwork.

Unless you can find an antique that is larger. I have 2 577's and 1 700

maybe make it a rifle with a rotating cylinder

ive got a 454 475 and a couple 500 line. Heres my take on it. Properly loaded its about like comparing a 2506 a 3006 and a 35 whelen. All would do fine on smaller big game but as the weight of the game gets bigger its nice to have a bigger heavier bullet. A guy has to keep in mind that even with a stout loaded 500 your still only shooting a gun that has a power level about equivelent to a black powder 4570. These guns are not dinasour slayers like everyone wants to think they are. faced with an angry big animal i would feel undergunned with any of them but if I had to be there id want the biggest one of the three.

Lloyd, I agree with that 100%.

I have used my 475 on an Artic Grizzly that came in on me when I was working a Moose kill and properly loaded it is NOT SMALL nor was I undergunned IMHO...

I wonder why they just did not use 50 S&W Special cases????

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I never thought the belt would present a problem, I was just wondering why the belt.

Freedom Arms Model 83's cylinder has insufficient diameter to allow using a rimmed .50-caliber cartridge. An acceptable work around is to chamber for a belted case -- rim present for headspace but small enough to function correctly in Model 83's cylinder.

Now comes the difficult-to-answer question: Why create a non-standard belted cartridge case rather than use standard H&H dimensions as the basis case? Both use rifle primers. I find it difficult to believe that a small rifle primer is more difficult to detonate with a single-action revolver's hammer fall than a large rifle primer. So, if the 50WE's case uses small rifle primers rather than large, I doubt this would be a valid reason for case's design. And having a non-standard basis case means -- by definition -- firearms chambered for 50WE, ammunition, and components will be scarce and expensive. This appears to be a recipe for failure. . . . But what do I know?

The WE uses Large Rifle Primers.
The brass dimensions of the WE are quite precise. Much more precise than suggested by an earlier poster who alluded to .300 Win. Mag. cases, etc. There are dozens of manufacturers of guns in the world chambering their arms for a variety of belted cartridge cases. I quickly thought of nearly a dozen ammunition companies manufacturing a variety of belted magnum cartridge cases and/or ammo. Plenty...PLENTY of opportunity for variability. Although I seldom use rifles anymore, I have experience with 9 belted magnums in 10 different rifles ranging from 7 Mag to .458. I just measured a few cases to satisfy myself of the truth of that statement.
There is one brass manufacturer of .500 WE cases...Jamison International, in South Dakota. Now I've only worked with 448 different WE cases to fire several thousand rounds through my 2 guns so far, so I defer to the greater experience and knowledge of those who have apparently worked with enough of them to comment on their likely imprecision, impracticality, silliness, etc. So far, I find zero merit in those statements.
In any event, if you want an FA, have at it. If you want someone like John or Dustin Linebaugh to build a .510 .500 Linebaugh, have at it. If you want one of Jack Huntington's JRH's, make yourself happy and have at it. They'll likely all kill what you want if you can.

I have a some cash stashed away. Wonder how a 500 JRH would work on a Ruger Bisley frame?
I have 2 44 mag packing pistols; a Ruger Redhawk built by Huntington and a Ruger Super Blackhawk worked over by Mag Na Port. Huntingtons is my favorite.

JD, I can't see why it wouldn't work fine. Jack does great work -- as you are well aware. My next toy from him will be a .500 JRH. Give him a call.

quote:

Originally posted by kenoneill:
The WE uses Large Rifle Primers.
The brass dimensions of the WE are quite precise. Much more precise than suggested by an earlier poster who alluded to .300 Win. Mag. cases, etc. There are dozens of manufacturers of guns in the world chambering their arms for a variety of belted cartridge cases. I quickly thought of nearly a dozen ammunition companies manufacturing a variety of belted magnum cartridge cases and/or ammo. Plenty...PLENTY of opportunity for variability. Although I seldom use rifles anymore, I have experience with 9 belted magnums in 10 different rifles ranging from 7 Mag to .458. I just measured a few cases to satisfy myself of the truth of that statement.
There is one brass manufacturer of .500 WE cases...Jamison International, in South Dakota. Now I've only worked with 448 different WE cases to fire several thousand rounds through my 2 guns so far, so I defer to the greater experience and knowledge of those who have apparently worked with enough of them to comment on their likely imprecision, impracticality, silliness, etc. So far, I find zero merit in those statements.
In any event, if you want an FA, have at it. If you want someone like John or Dustin Linebaugh to build a .510 .500 Linebaugh, have at it. If you want one of Jack Huntington's JRH's, make yourself happy and have at it. They'll likely all kill what you want if you can.

First off, any of the large bore handgun rounds can use large rifle primers if one wishes. The reality of it is that their is no reason to do so... As to the ability to manufactor a belt to closer tolerences than a rim is poor folly. Either one can be held to the same tolereances.Starline makes the brass for the 500 JRH (properly head stamped) and the first run of 25,000 cases were all within 1/2 of one thousndths on rim thickness. The manufacture will only guarrenty a variance of with-in .006 thousnads of an inch over the manufacturing life of the tooling. Jamison brass in the 408 Chey Tech is not the best that has been manufactured, and I seriously dought that they will be any closer in tolerance over the life of the tooling than Starline will be. The statement that a belt is more precise than a rim is no where near the fact of the matter.

Ken, thanks for the reply on cartridge comparisons. Although a .50 probably won't do much more than my .454 already will, I may just start saving for one.

I do like the fact that FA investigated the relationship of powder column/caliber/bullet weight before settling on a design. Those boys are serious about making quality revolvers.

Seems like a belt vs. a rim is more of a manufacturing issue and not one of design.

PWS, while my observations aren't very scientific, the .475sa nd .50s are a definite step up from the .45s. I've hunted with my Casull, and it kills well, but the .475 on up just seems to be in a higher class. Those heavy, big diameter bullets make a difference. I have hunted with 400 grain WFNs in my .454 and they were good as long as I didn't shoot game too far out and in fact will step back to the 360 grainers for my Casull as they shoot more accurately from my SRH. I've only had my .475 Linebaugh for about 6 months and haven't hunted with it yet, but have witnessed kills with the .475, and it's quite effective. JMHO, of course!

quote:

Originally posted by PWS:
Ken, thanks for the reply on cartridge comparisons. Although a .50 probably won't do much more than my .454 already will, I may just start saving for one.

I do like the fact that FA investigated the relationship of powder column/caliber/bullet weight before settling on a design. Those boys are serious about making quality revolvers.

Seems like a belt vs. a rim is more of a manufacturing issue and not one of design.

That's like saying the 454 Casull probably won't do much more than my .44 Mag already will.

And then the next guy will say, the .44 Mag probably won't do much more than my .41 Mag already will.

And then the next guy will say, the .41 Mag probably won't do much more than my .357 Mag already will.

So what we all ever need is a good 357 Mag...

Time to sell all my 460 and 500 Mags.

+1....What Redhawk1 said...

This is why I'm buying a .32 mag and just being done with it all.......

I'm a firm believer that the way the reacts to the gun is a large determinant of the shooter's impressions of it's killing power. There's much more to the equation than a handfull thousandths of an inch in diameter, +/-200 fps velocity, or grains of bullet and game is much more impressed with placement than power.

As far as a .357 being an equal replacement for a .50? It certain is when reduced to the absurd .

I got complete penetration with the 500 Linebaugh on this bad boy and several friends have used the 44 Mag and NO BULLET exited not even 320 grainers at over 1300 FPS

One shot kill and blood was pouring out of the entrance hole, never seen that happen with a 44




I got this exit on a Bull Elk with a 500 JRH with a 440 grian flat point at 950 FPS, I have never seen an exit this large with a 44 at any power level






A hog shot with a 400 grain flat point hard cast out of a 454 Casul. The leg just pulled off during skining, I have never seen this amount of damage on a hog with a 44 and I have shot quite a few





I live in Alaska for 7 years and I thought that a 44 Mag was the Cats Ass until I used it on a few Bull Carribou and once I moved up to the 475 I saw a DRAMATIC improvement on Large Game such as Carribou, Moose, and Bears

JWP475,

Although what you're repeating is valid, you're not revealing anything new or profound. And, repetition is not validation.

Cheers,

Mike Fairbanks

Ok, that was a cheap shot.

My apologies JWP475.

I do agree with your basic premises. In my experience of about 50head with a .454 and 30 with a .475, I didn't notice nearly the difference on game as I did between the .44 and a .454 so I naturally wonder if there's a noticable difference between a .454 and a .50.

I guess I'll have to find out for myself? - And probably learn what you already know.

Mike