My buddy and I are looking into hunting with hand guns… We are currently looking at the 460 XVR and the 500. Dose anyone have any experience hunting with either of these guns or possibly other options? The primary game that we will be hunting is deer, pigs, elk and the small antelopes in Africa (up to a kudu). Any recommendation for a scope will also help in making our decision complete.
Thanks, John

I have both and have used the 500 in Africa on small and medium antelope with the light loads and Cape Buffalo with the heavy loads. For your purposes I would suggest the 460 as the better choice. Look at the Bushnell 3200 scope as it will hold up under severe recoil with heavy loads. Warne makes a very good mount and rings for the X-Frames.

BTW, a Kudu is not a small African antelope. It weighs around 600 lbs and is similar to an Elk in size. It is considered a large antelope.

I don't know about the .460 unless you are going to shoot very long ranges. It is made for light bullets at very high velocities and is extremely destructive on game at closer ranges. I have a friend that shot a deer in PA at 140 yards using factory loads. The entire off shoulder was GONE and the rest of the meat was a mess.
The .500 would be a better choice in my opinion.
Too much velocity can be too much of a good thing, or bad by the way you look at it.

For me the .500 would get the nod over the .460. When all is said and done, the .460 is still a .45 despite the enormous case and velocity potential. The .500 just makes a bigger hole, so it makes more sense to me. That said, I think they are both too big from a case standpoint, necessitating a large handgun to house them. JMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by 375John:
My buddy and I are looking into hunting with hand guns… We are currently looking at the 460 XVR and the 500.

John, if you and your buddy have never hunted with handguns I'm not sure a 460 or 500 is the best first step. As many here can assure you all the game you describe has fallen to revolvers and pistols chambered for the 44 magnum, 45 Colt, or 480 Ruger. Before the X-frames even a 454 Casull or 475 Linebaugh was regarded as a serious hunting pistol Most revolvers chambered for these cartridges are much handier than an X-frame. I know a 460 can be fed the lesser loads but you're still lugging around a 4-5 pound handgonne to do it. $0.02

get a taurus "hunter" or tracker or raging bull , in either 45LC or 44 Mag .. and, if you don't reload, get a lee loader KIT and a digital scale ... and a cheap chrony.

Start with 44 special/45LC cowboy loads, and figure out if this is really for you .. You can get a reddot or other aiming device, fairly cheaply, and figure out how well you can shoot.

THEN, when you have worked out what you can really shoot, ask someone at the range if you can buy 10 rounds, shooting, of the 500 SW .. I shot THREE rounds out of the 500 today ... I think I shot 6 or 8 from a 2" 454 as well .. the 454 was 1/2 or LESS of the recoil, and none of the punishment of the 500.

and i STILL prefer my SW 635-9 45LC mountain gun, 240gr at 1000fps .. it'll ill what could cure you!

starting off with the 500 is like a 16year old starting off with a pro-stock quarter mile car ...

I own both and have hunted with both. I'll tell you my choice AFTER I agree with LionHunter. I think when you step up into the Magnum magnums, the 460XVR will be much more easily "grown into" than the .500. BFRShooter is correct about the long range, high velocity factory bullets and that's why I don't use them anymore. I prefer a hardcast 300 grain bullet that doesn't vaporize at those speeds like the 200 grain SST from Hornaday will.

The true beauty of the XVR is that you can also shoot .45 Colt and .454 Casull ammo. Though muzzle flash is significant, the recoil is nothing like the .500. Since you're starting, you might want to start out with those lower loads to get the "feel" of the trigger and sear. The big X frame will make that stuff feel like .38 and .357 loads.

My PREFERENCE, however, is still the .500. I love it. You can just feel the raw power you can feel when you touch that sucker off. You just have to accept that it's going to rock your world and hold on when you squeeze the trigger. Don't ever expect to pull a Jerry Miclik with rapid firing a hunting load in that gun. If you do, you're better have a planet or star picked out for the follow up.

I agree with the general info in the previous posts.

If I wanted a revolver that would be scoped, and I lanned on shooting game at longish handgun ranges I would go with the 460.

If I was going to shoot mostly BIG stuff at normal handgun ranges I would go with the 500.

When I wanted to step up from a 44 Mag, I went with a FA in 475 Linebaugh.

Go with the 460. It really will take any game that can be had with the 500. Load it with 395 gr Cast Performance leads and it'll run with the mightiest 400 grain 500 loads. That is more than enough to take any game animal anywhere. Beyond that, you're either a glutton for punishment or looking for a surrogate penis.

The 460 is much more versatile. It can be filled with Trail Boss and capped with a 185 grain slug for cowboy style plinking on the cheap. The heavy 45 Colt loads can be duplicated in the 460 case for typical deer and hog hunting. When you anticipate heavier game, drop in the fatties and let 'er rip.

Best of all, it's FAR cheaper to feed than the 500. Components are cheap. 45 caliber bullets are easy to find.
If you're going to hunt deer or similar game for meat, I'd step the loads down to heavy 45 Colt velocities (250 grain at 1600 fps) for best results. They will anchor the critter and preserve meat.
Big bear, moose, and nasty things that bite back need a solid load of heavy lead. Skip the jacketed bullets and go straight to the hard cast heavies above 300 grains. That's where your performance will be found. A good hard cast bullet won't explode inside the game. They flatten out but keep right on pushing. Expect in-and-out performance on most anything you oshoot.

Have owned and hunted with both, the 500 Mag is a better choice. Bigger holes.

I never bought into the 45 Colt and 454 Casull in the 460 Mag, even though you can shoot them, why buy a 460 Mag and shoot 454 Casull's and 45 Colts.

If you get the 460 Mag, forget them POS Hornady 200 gr. bullets, load up some 300 or 370 gr. hard cast bullets and have a blast.

But once again, the 500 Mag makes bigger holes.

As far as cheaper to feed the 460 over the 500 Mag, not when you reload, the cost is about the same.

quote:

Originally posted by feets:
Go with the 460. It really will take any game that can be had with the 500. Load it with 395 gr Cast Performance leads and it'll run with the mightiest 400 grain 500 loads. That is more than enough to take any game animal anywhere. Beyond that, you're either a glutton for punishment or looking for a surrogate penis.

Bullet weight doesn't compensate for the diameter difference. The .500 makes a bigger hole -- a significantly bigger hole. I don't find the X-frames all that punishing considering the brake and the sheer weight. Call me crazy, but I will take the bigger bullet every time. JMHO.

quote:

Posted 03 May 2009 22:24 Hide Post
Have owned and hunted with both, the 500 Mag is a better choice. Bigger holes.

I never bought into the 45 Colt and 454 Casull in the 460 Mag, even though you can shoot them, why buy a 460 Mag and shoot 454 Casull's and 45 Colts.

If you get the 460 Mag, forget them POS Hornady 200 gr. bullets, load up some 300 or 370 gr. hard cast bullets and have a blast.

But once again, the 500 Mag makes bigger holes.

That's true, none of the shorter cases will have the accuracy of the parent case.
It's also true that the .460 can be made better but I did not know if John loaded his own.
But then again, good cast loads can be bought instead of the light factory stuff.
I also have to question at what boolit weight the twist of the Smith will fail to stabilize.
How about some of you posting group pictures shot with very heavy boolits so a more informed answer can be made? Need some longer range stuff to see if a heavy boolit goes to pot.

No experience w. the 460, but I really like my 500 -- and am planning on picking up another one. I've shot lighter loads out of it, w. 275 gr. bullets, that aren't as loud as my 454 Casull, but have similar ballistics, w. a bigger hole.

For the animals you mention - no need for any hardkicking tools.
.44 Mag is more than enough.

I have shot different size of animals in Africa - with different calibers/bullets.
Last zebra (8 days ago) - was a clean kill with a 300 gr. HC/1000 fps.. Penetration straight through. And in my opinion: Zebra is much "harder" than a kudu.

quote:

Originally posted by shadob:
For the animals you mention - no need for any hardkicking tools.
.44 Mag is more than enough.

I have shot different size of animals in Africa - with different calibers/bullets.
Last zebra (8 days ago) - was a clean kill with a 300 gr. HC/1000 fps.. Penetration straight through. And in my opinion: Zebra is much "harder" than a kudu.

I think what you need to realize here is, he posted about the 460 or 500 mag, and I am sure most people know what the 44 Mag is capable of. It is not a matte of need here.

There are some of use that want bigger holes, and more power. It is just the nature of the beast.

To me a 44 Mag is like vanilla ice cream, the 500 Mag is like a banana split.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1: To me a 44 Mag is like vanilla ice cream, the 500 Mag is like a banana split.

Like a banana split and a medium-rare ribeye.....

.429-inch hole or .500-inch hole -- I'll take the 1/2-incher thank you very much!

Now you got me hungry Whitworth.

375 you have received some good advice above. Have you handled either of the Smiths that you mentioned? They are VERY big and VERY heavy. If you want a crew fed handgun, these would qualify! Aside from the wow! factor neither of them interest me personally. As as been said above, the 460 is a high velocity long distance round compard with the 500 Smith. Having said all that, "true" handguns (ie. ones that can be carried easily) can be bought in some very capable calibers like the 44mag, 45 Colt, 475 Linebaugh, 500 Linebaugh etc. etc. Some of these, loaded up, will still impress your buddies, and no, you won't be going to the range to "pop 50 or 100 caps"! Good luck with your decision. If you are serious about one of the Smiths that you mentioned, you will find plenty of "lightly used" ones.
Peter.

Peter, I don't know where that's coming from, but I don't think I agree with any of it. The X-Frames are big and probably not for the feint of heart, but the Elmer Keith thinkers of us simply adore the idea of a FACTORY pistol shooting the most powerful bullet on the market (Hell, Clint Eastwood made Smith Famous with his .44 mag which, at the time I heard exactly the same things out of the wimps using .357's) "Crew fed handgun". LMAO If you need a "crew" then you'd probably need a sling to get the .44 on the line.

Now I understand those pistols "don't interest" you, but he asked specifically about those two pistols. Obviously he doesn't share your preferences, so lighten up a bit here. Those two have given explicit meaning to the words "Hand Cannon". I like that about them too. LOL

I'm not an X-frame fan, but if these interest anyone; more power to them. I agree with george, the reason we have the large number of different revolvers is due to the large difference is preferences.

Yeah, some of us just love the big guns.
There is another reason too, I find the big ones are easier to make shoot accurate.
The .41 and .44 can be a bugger because of the brass. Seems like the large cases are easier to keep even tension with.

No doubt the X-frame is a chunky monkey, but Smith did their homework and they don't kick particularly hard -- at least the loads I've shot. Hell, Peter, that FA in .475 will put more sting in your hand than a .500 (excluding some extreme loads some of these guys are shooting).

The X-frame even makes my SRHs look small. I too prefer something more packable, but to each his own. If you can carry it, and put lead on target at crunch time, what more do you need?

Well George, which of the statements below do you not agree with?
375 you have received some good advice above.
They are VERY big and VERY heavy.
the 460 is a high velocity long distance round compard with the 500 Smith
"true" handguns (ie. ones that can be carried easily) can be bought in some very capable calibers like the 44mag, 45 Colt, 475 Linebaugh, 500 Linebaugh etc
If you are serious about one of the Smiths that you mentioned, you will find plenty of "lightly used" ones

Peter.

I guess I don't agree with the "handgun" one most. It's surely never going to be a "rifle" and I don't think it's particulary "big" or "heavy" since I'm just a big old fat man, but again, to each his own.

And you are correct that there are some "lightly used" ones out there, but none are "lightly priced". I just bought a .460 Performance Center last week in just such a deal. Since they only made 500 of them and the guy let it go for $200 less than he'd paid for it, I figured it was one helluva buy and an investment on top of it.

Any of us who shoot either rifles or pistols or shotguns know that there are two extremes in the users. There are those who like to shoot but don't want to feel much of it and those of us who just like to shoot and feel it all. I'm not sure there's that many in between. LOL

Well George, I cannot disagree with anything you just said! I recently went through a decision process similar to 375. I dearly wanted a 460 just because of the "cool factor", popping Kudu at 200 yards etc. etc. I eventually settled on an FA in 475 Linebaugh. Yes, with max loads. it is a "handful', but it doesn't weigh 5 pounds either and just seems to be a smaller "package". I take great joy in looking at it, handling it and shooting it. If 375 gets the same enjoyment out of his S&W 500 then who can ask for anything more?
Peter.

Yea there are a lot of slightly used 460 and 500 Mag out there. But I have found a lot of slightly used 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 454 Casull's etc.

But there are some of us that have well over 4000 rounds fired in out 460 Mag and 500 Mag, and I happen to be one of them.

The one good thing about the X-frame is the weight, it aids in the recoil department, and rightfully so.
I own other handgun that are lighter, and the recoil is felt a lot more then my 500 Mags. So there are pro's and con's to all.

quote:

The one good thing about the X-frame is the weight, it aids in the recoil department, and rightfully so.
I own other handgun that are lighter, and the recoil is felt a lot more then my 500 Mags. So there are pro's and con's to all.

Absolutely! I think the main factor is the use to which the gun will be put. If you will spend most of your time taking it to and from the range, or to and from the tree stand, that is one thing. It is slightly different if you have to carry it while walking all day (and perhaps every day!). Still the main thing is the shot. If you view it with trepidation then you need a heavier gun!
Peter.

used and enjoyed the .500 for several years.

Got the first series .500 in 2003, long barrel,fixed muzzle brake great gun have since traded for the .460 long barrel for Hunting.
Three possible ammunition (calibre) choices.

The .460 at longer distances penetrates better by all published accounts.

Two years ago got the 2/34" .500 as my "GET OFF ME" gun wear it in a mid chest rig.
Four for IT and one for me as my friends callously quip.

Wow… This is fun. I never expected such advice. Let me help with some of your questions and concerns.
I have shot a 500, I currently own and have shot 44 mag’s, 30-30 TC, 308 XP 100 in silhouette competitions. I competed for two years in IPSC and I do reload. I’m 6’1” and weight 230.
Owning and hunting with a large bore pistol sounds like fun! How about scopes?
Thanks,
John

quote:

Originally posted by 375John:
Wow… This is fun. I never expected such advice. Let me help with some of your questions and concerns.
I have shot a 500, I currently own and have shot 44 mag’s, 30-30 TC, 308 XP 100 in silhouette competitions. I competed for two years in IPSC and I do reload. I’m 6’1” and weight 230.
Owning and hunting with a large bore pistol sounds like fun! How about scopes?
Thanks,
John

Red dot!!

Red Dot WILL work on the 460, but the 500 scrambles it's brains really quickly (been there, done that). I went to the Ultra-Dot on both. The used .460 came with one of the older TASCO Pro-Points and it SEEMS to be a good sight though I have this gnawing feeling about owning a $1200 gun with a TASCO anything stuck on top of it.

Myself, the Ultra-dot is the way to go on the 500 Mag. Again well over 3000 rounds on mine.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Red Dot WILL work on the 460, but the 500 scrambles it's brains really quickly (been there, done that). I went to the Ultra-Dot on both. The used .460 came with one of the older TASCO Pro-Points and it SEEMS to be a good sight though I have this gnawing feeling about owning a $1200 gun with a TASCO anything stuck on top of it.

Ultradot is a red dot -- that is what I was suggesting. Mine has survived MANY full-tilt .475 loads and it is alive and well.

I have both a Bushnell 3200 scope and an EOTech 511 that I interchange on my 500. No problems with either using heavy loads. I also use the Warne mount, which allows the use of open sights when the optics are dismounted.

Whitworth, I understand. My TASCO and I had a Bushnell that were "red dots", but I thought you were talking about name brands. I had a Red Dot on my .500. It took about 50 rounds and then the insides "scrambled" to a completely red screen and the tube in front of the housing actually disconnected. Red Dot refused to repair it under warranty and told me that they would not warranty their optics if used on the .500. Just my experience.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Whitworth, I understand. My TASCO and I had a Bushnell that were "red dots", but I thought you were talking about name brands. I had a Red Dot on my .500. It took about 50 rounds and then the insides "scrambled" to a completely red screen and the tube in front of the housing actually disconnected. Red Dot refused to repair it under warranty and told me that they would not warranty their optics if used on the .500. Just my experience.

No doubt. This is why I am such a big fan of Ultradot.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Whitworth, I understand. My TASCO and I had a Bushnell that were "red dots", but I thought you were talking about name brands. I had a Red Dot on my .500. It took about 50 rounds and then the insides "scrambled" to a completely red screen and the tube in front of the housing actually disconnected. Red Dot refused to repair it under warranty and told me that they would not warranty their optics if used on the .500. Just my experience.

No doubt. This is why I am such a big fan of Ultradot.

Me too.

George you 500 Mag has an Ultra-dot on it.

If I can't do it with my Ruger Bisley in .45 lc then I want a rifle with a real stock that I can depend on out past 400 yds, not some oversized "pistol" that is to heavy to hang on my belt.

quote:

Originally posted by shorthair:
If I can't do it with my Ruger Bisley in .45 lc then I want a rifle with a real stock that I can depend on out past 400 yds, not some oversized "pistol" that is to heavy to hang on my belt.

Then why in the heck did you open this thread. If it does not interest you?