# Did you know they existed??



## mccoy (Dec 31, 2007)

This is about big bores, I know most of you don't like'em and even to me the .500 is a bit overboard.
But I couldn't help to remain astonished at the sight of such an awesome collection, picture shared at teh S&W forum. First tiem I saw some of'em.


----------



## Teuthis (Apr 9, 2008)

*Agreed*

That is an impressive array of overkill. What is fascinating is the PC model that I guess is Scandium and is so light it almost floats in air. Can you imagine shooting that? I had asked in another thread if anyone has experience with the 44 mag version. I am intrigued by it. Even if I would consider the 44 mag version, I think the 500 would be almost impossible to shoot. I like big bores, but...


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

Teuthis said:


> That is an impressive array of overkill. What is fascinating is the PC model that I guess is Scandium and is so light it almost floats in air. Can you imagine shooting that? I had asked in another thread if anyone has experience with the 44 mag version. I am intrigued by it. Even if I would consider the 44 mag version, I think the 500 would be almost impossible to shoot. I like big bores, but...


Actually, it's not scandium. It's blackened stainless and very heavy. It only becomes airborne if you don't have a firm grip on it when you shoot it!


----------



## Teuthis (Apr 9, 2008)

*Steel*

Thanks! Just knowing that makes me sleep better.


----------



## aryfrosty (May 15, 2008)

Teuthis said:


> That is an impressive array of overkill. What is fascinating is the PC model that I guess is Scandium and is so light it almost floats in air. Can you imagine shooting that? I had asked in another thread if anyone has experience with the 44 mag version. I am intrigued by it. Even if I would consider the 44 mag version, I think the 500 would be almost impossible to shoot. I like big bores, but...


I would never, on a good day, shoot some of those .. Scandium or not. I bought a S&W Centennial in scandium and fired the lightest loaded, lowest bullet weight .38Spls I could find... I had, like a dummy, put a set of fake pear grips on it the day I took it to the range. The first round shattered the grips into a dozen pieces and gashed my shooting hand. Don't blame the grips they were the same Ajax fake pearls I have on a Ruger Vaquero in .45C. I shoot it often and the grips are still new looking and unbroken.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

They will be worth their weight in gold when the Klingons finaly find us. :smt028 :smt028 :smt028 :smt028 :shock:



:smt1099


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Anything that big I want a rifle and not a pistol. I stopped at .44mag. i know my limitations.:numbchuck:


----------



## mccoy (Dec 31, 2007)

At the range I recently saw a 460 XVR shot, for the first time.

About 5 yards behind the shooter, the airblast was so intense to be felt in the cranial bones. Even if I wore very heavy hearing protection, it made me yearn for more shielding.

Aside from hunting, I could find little practical use for such a noisy device. 

In a self defense situation, you may loose your hearing and equilibrium after the first round. All to the advantage of the perpretrator. In nightime, the blast would sure blind you and make you an easy target.

I used to like that model but after I saw it in action I lost all the interest. 

Like Baldy says, there are good short rifles in .223 remington and even .44 mag which also yield pretty reasonable to very good accuracy.


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Those are most certainly not self defense handguns. They are meant for hunting, range shooting, and perhaps pistol silhouette.

If you really need that kind of firepower for anything, buy a rifle. You can have a light-kicking rifle in a cartridge that would nearly kill you in a pistol. You'll also have more than double the sight radius.


----------



## Blkhawk73 (Sep 2, 2006)

Such testosterone boosters do so very little for me. I love the idea of handgun hunting but at some point it's rediculous with what's used. 

:watching:


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Blkhawk73 said:


> Such testosterone boosters do so very little for me. I love the idea of handgun hunting but at some point it's rediculous with what's used.
> 
> :watching:


Very true. I shot a guy's .460 and in talking to him he boasted that he could shoot deer and elk out to a couple of hundred yards with it. He got kind of offended when I told him how irresponsible that was to the wildlife.


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

PanaDP said:


> Very true. I shot a guy's .460 and in talking to him he boasted that he could shoot deer and elk out to a couple of hundred yards with it. He got kind of offended when I told him how irresponsible that was to the wildlife.


Aw come on. Irresponsible?? Is it irresponsible to bow hunt? I know a lot of hunters that have harvested antelope, deer, and elk with a bow. How about muzzle loaders, is that irresponsible?

The 460 is not exactly like trying to kill game with a daisy red rider, you know? The 460 has more energy at 100 yards than the 223 at the muzzle. The 460 has more muzzle energy than a 243 or a 30-30. It takes the 30-30 100 yards to begin to catch up to the energy of the 460. A properly sighted in 460 (scoped) has a 200 yard kill zone on large animals with *Zero* hold over.

A skilled marksman using a bow or a 460 is *more* than capable of a humane kill on most animals in the US, including Elk.

But throw Bubba out there with the newest super duper magnum, listen to what sounds like the beginning of WW III, and that's somehow responsible.

If someone chooses not to bow hunt, that's fine. Don't won't to handgun hunt? No problem. But why be critical of someone who chooses to participate in one of these activities?


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

It's not a matter of energy. It's a matter of marksmanship and practice. I don't think taking a shot, with a handgun, at more than a hundred yards or so is responsible. Just the same, I wouldn't condone even a fine bow marksman taking a shot at more than 60 or 70 yards. Perhaps there is an exception, but I have never seen it. Those situations are just too easy to screw up and wound an animal.

The guy I was talking to was f-ing up shots at 50 yards with cross sticks, and he tells me he'll take shots out to 200+. That is not responsible. Not even close. Just because the gun will do it doesn't mean the person should try it. 

I would feel very different if he gave me any indication that he was capable of making any of those shots.


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

PanaDP said:


> ...I don't think taking a shot, with a handgun, at more than a hundred yards or so is responsible...


Well let me say this. The 460 was designed to be a long range handgun hunting cartridge. As I stated previously, when sighted in properly it has a Zero hold over from 0 to 200 yards for big game. For long range hunting, that's very significant.

I know people who humanely harvest deer with a 223, and Elk with a 243. The 460 has about the same effective kill zone range, roughly 200 yards (though this distance is somewhat subjective and depends on other factors), as these rifle cartridge/animal combinations. And the 460 holds its own against the 223, 243, and the granddaddy of all deer cartridges, the 30-30.



> The guy I was talking to was f-ing up shots at 50 yards with cross sticks, and he tells me he'll take shots out to 200+. That is not responsible. Not even close. Just because the gun will do it doesn't mean the person should try it


Your earlier post didn't mention any deficiencies of the shooter. Some shooters make poor hunters regardless of their choice of weapons and caliber. Just because Bubba has a big bore magnum rifle doesn't mean he is any better shot than your guy at the range. Being a responsible hunter isn't just for handgun or bow hunters. It sounded to me like you were saying the 460 was deficient.

This thread wasn't about hunters who are bad shots. It was about the S&W 460 & 500's. If someone doesn't like them or see's no use for them, I've got no problem with that. But to say the 460 isn't up to taking big game at 200 yards is factually incorrect.:smt023


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

I never made any claim that the gun isn't capable. I still hold my belief that the vast majority of hunters aren't practiced enough to be capable of responsible shots up to the maximum range of the gun.


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

Blkhawk73: "Such testosterone boosters do so very little for me. I love the idea of handgun hunting but at some point it's rediculous with what's used."

PanaDP: "Very true. I shot a guy's .460 and in talking to him he boasted that he could shoot deer and elk out to a couple of hundred yards with it. He got kind of offended when I told him how irresponsible that was to the wildlife."

I don't know, PanaDP, you said you "never made any claim that the gun isn't capable." But that's the way I took your above quote. So I guess we agree, the 460 _is_ capable of humane 200 yard hunting.

But 200 yards isn't the "maximum range of the gun." 200 yards is a distance where the 460 can be sighted in for a zero hold over kill on large animals. The "maximum range" of the 460 is further than 200 yards.

Big bore long range hunting handguns aren't for everyone.............I get it.
I'm just constantly surprised how many negative comments I see about them on the *Handgun* Forum.


----------



## blankcheque (May 27, 2008)

Sometimes, it's just better to grab a rifle and call it a day.

It reminds me of the scene in Batman with Michael Keaton, the Joker reaches in to his waistband and starts pulling out a revolver a long as his torso.

I'd love to get a chance to shoot one though, the kick must feel like standing beneath a 60mm cannon on a gun boat.


----------



## Mosquito (Mar 11, 2008)

I can't even imagine how someone would be able to afford shooting those regularly!


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

blankcheque said:


> Sometimes, it's just better to grab a rifle and call it a day...


Some people _like_ to handgun, bow, and/or black powder hunt. It's not about what's "better". It's what they like to do. It's easier to kill an animal with a super/duper magnum rifle, but "easier" is not what handgun/bow/black powder hunting is about. Just the opposite, in fact. Handgun/bow/black powder hunting is about the challenge. It takes a lot more skill and practice to harvest an animal with these type weapons. Most hunters who hunt this way have killed a lot of game with a rifle, and no longer find it challenging or exciting.

As to the cost of shooting the 460, most serious shooters will reload and thus the cost is reasonable. As for factory ammo, Hornady sells a 200gr SST that runs about $25 per box of 20. That's _about_ the same cost as good quality rifle ammo.


----------

