3 months new to versatile 460 X-Frame is a lot of guns

[dwever]

When I carried an S&W 44 Magnum in the wilderness it was good protection in the South Eastern US. I moved to Alaska and found sometimes more power is needed; but, I also discovered the 460 X-Frame revolver which can become a mild mannered 44 Magnum simply by loading 45 Colt +P Heavy (see pictures), or for some thing warmer a light 454 Casull Underwood Xtreme Penetrator (250 grain 1512 ft. Lbs.), or for something hot, a 454 Casull Heavy at 1800 ft. lbs, or for big bear protection, .460 Buffalo Bore Dangerous Game at 2,455 ft. lbs.

In other words, starting at 300 grains and 1100 ft. Lbs., you can walk right up to 2,800 lbs in as small of increments as you want. I stop at the Buff Bore 300 grain 2,455 ft. Lbs. as that is as hot as I can shoot the snub without punishment. I’m loaded with a milder .460 300 Grain Underwood 2,040 ft. Lbs. XTP JHP now that the bears are asleep. I also often wear in ear electronics on foot.

Pretty amazing platform this .460 XVR. Functionally more than one weapon without having to swap cylinders like with a Korth .357/9mm.

I alternate between a Galco Great Alaskan, Diamond Guide’s Choice (shown), and a cross draw with dedicated 1 3/4” inch belt for quick on and off. Nill grips. The 3.5” barreled X-frame stays with me. Now have a second .460 with 8 3/8” barrel with Galco Kodiak. It doesn’t get out much.

While S&W delivered the weapon initially w/the wrong front site and I swapped it at my own cost, the weapon has been a delight since.

L to R:
*44 Magnum Heavy for comparison
*45 Colt +P, 454 Casull .46O S&W
*Three .460 S&W Bullets L to R: Hornady 460 200 Grain FTX, Underwood 460 250 Grain XTP JHP, Buff Bore 460 Dangerous Game Mono-metal
*S&W PC 460 with Nill Grips
*Diamond Guide’s Choice

 

[dwever]

New Addition.

Surprisingly, long a** compensated barrell does not reduce recoil over the shorter barreled non-compensated X-Frame as much as I’d of thought. But then the 460 X-Frame platform in general does not recoil as bad as I expected either.

While pictured with the OEM rubber, the closed back walnut Nill grips look better and give some recoil relief by distributing contact over a larger area I guess. The Nills though cost $240, or about the same as 3 boxes of 454 Casull ammo .

 

[__steve__]

Nice collection of X’s sir, kinda have the same theme here, a PC 3.5” and a comp’d 4”.

I have read the compensator advantage relies on charge to bullet weight ratio. Those 300 gr buffalo bore loads with perhaps over 40gr of powder (which still is a lot of powder for a handgun) have a bullet to powder ratio of 8:1. Now compare to the 50 bmg 650 gr loaded with 270 gr of powder. Never shot one but I would bet the comp makes a difference there.

One thing the X frame comps are good for are being really, really loud. I have yet to bring the comp’d 4” to the indoor range for this reason.

 

[vipermd]

New Addition.

Surprisingly, long a** compensated barrell does not reduce recoil over the shorter barreled non-compensated X-Frame as much as I’d of thought. But then the 460 X-Frame platform in general does not recoil as bad as I expected either.

While pictured with the OEM rubber, the closed back walnut Nill grips look better and give some recoil relief by distributing contact over a larger area I guess. The Nills though cost $240, or about the same as 3 boxes of 454 Casull ammo .

The 83/8 will give you more velocity and more recoil. The 460 has the many caliber options but I like the 500 S&W at different barrel lengths, I prefer the snub then the 4" without compensator. I can dial my energy by bullet weight. I do not like the comps, seems like more noise without significant decrease in recoil. Will be out with the 700gr in the rifle looking for a T-Rex for Christmas dinner. I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Safe and Healthy New Year! BE SAFE.

 

[Imissedagain]

Loud is not a problem with the 8.375" 460 at our local range.
But UGLY is.
They make me wrap silver duct tape
over the muzzle area.

 

[John_M52]

I love how manufacturers round off bullet diameters to confuse people like me.

 

[ruger 22]

I like the looks of your wood grips and did try a set of Hogues on my 500 Magnum. Two shots was more than enough and I went right back to the rubbers.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Bald1]

When you say you found out sometimes more power is needed, did you have an “incident” ? Also what is the real world difference between carrying an X and N frame? Do you even notice in a quality chest rig?

 

[dwever]

When you say you found out sometimes more power is needed, did you have an “incident”? Also what is the real world difference between carrying an X and N frame? Do you even notice in a quality chest rig?

Not an incident, but in Alaska grizzlies can weigh up to 1,500 pounds. Females are about 20% smaller, and 30% lighter than males (compare that with Colorado Male black bears who average 275 lbs.; females average 175 lbs.). Alaskan Grizzlies are known to prey and feed on Alaska black bear and will dig the black bear out of their dens.

In Alaska, Grizzly density can be one per 0.7 miles (and that does not include the far more populous black bear population). When on Admiralty Island in May, we saw multiple brown bears every day where there are 1,600 browns for the one million acre island. While they looked at us but never came to check us out, you want to be armed.

Of course the massive size of Alaska bears alone arguably makes a case for additional stopping power. In bear country I carry the .460 with Buff Bore 460 300 grain mono-metal with 2,400 lbs.+ of energy at the muzzle adjusted for barrel length. The same Dangerous Game mono-metal version by Buff Bore in 44 Magnum has less than half the energy and is a smaller bullet. There is a more powerful Buff Bore .460 available exceeding the 2,400 lbs. 460, but that exceeds my needs.

In Interior Alaska I may step down to a Buff Bore 454 Casull Dangerous Game 300 grain mono-metal at 1,800 ft. lbs. Also in the Winter I step down.

I comfortably carry all day in either a Galco or Diamond D chest rig; or for on and off carry, a Diamond D cross-draw with a dedicated 1 3/4" Galco belt. The chest rigs make easy work of all-day carry, and the cross draw goes on and off extremely fast if I'm going to be getting out of my truck and on the six-wheeler or on foot.

I feel safest when I've got the two German Shepherds with me because I can watch them and know what's happening, and because they don't freak out and run and start a chase like some other breeds can do. I also have a .375 H&H DGR in my truck or in a rifle sleeve on the six wheeler. But you'll never get the rifle out in an unexpected charge.

While this may seem like a lot of vigilance, it is being properly prepared that allows you to enjoy the Alaska outdoors without being overly concerned. Your prepared if something happens, and in Alaska, you will encounter a bear. This past Summer Kari walked over a hill only to see a large black bear. Bruce Wayne, the large GSD pictured stood his ground between her and the bear and barked, and the bear went up a tree. Bruce is fearless to a fault. Thank God.

Finally, you'll read arguments on here about a semi-auto 10mm for Alaska bear. That is a failure to realize one, how tough a brown bear's hide is to penetrate well; and two, how blindingly fast a bear charge is over as if magazine capacity will make up the difference with 600 ft. lbs. Three, if you need to squeeze one off while being held by a bear, semi-autos can jam when the slide makes contact.

 

[DonD]

You're exaggerating the energy levels you'll see with a snubbie probably close to a 200fps loss going from a 8 3/8" barrel to a 3.5" barrel.

Heaviest load on Hodgdon's website goes 2846 ft lbs but that's in a 10.7" unvented pressure barrel so in total probably a 300 fps velocity loss or more.

The 460 has great flexibility but you have to accept lower power and worse muzzle blast with a snubbie along with a shorter sight radius. Don

 

[otis24]

Like anything that one is not familiar with, we tend to ignore it. Such is the case of the .460 and myself. I had no knowledge of the .460. Pretty much the heaviest hitter that I ever thought I might need was a .357. I do like handguns that can handle more than one cartridge, like the .357/9mm convertible. I was reading about the .460 recently and discovered its versatility. It would be awesome to own a revolver that can handle so many different cartridges. Perhaps some day!

 

[Bald1]

OP, my son is a Tech Sargent in AF. He spent 4 yrs at Elmendorf in Anchorage. He sent me pics of his fishing excursions with Brown bears on the creeks and rivers. They were huge, scary, and beautiful. He told me Diamond D was the popular rig for fishermen. I have a similar rig I carry my 6” 629 in. He plans to return to Alaska when he retires.

 

[dwever]

You're exaggerating the energy levels you'll see with a snubbie probably close to a 200fps loss going from a 8 3/8" barrel to a 3.5" barrel.

Heaviest load on Hodgdon's website goes 2846 ft lbs but that's in a 10.7" unvented pressure barrel so in total probably a 300 fps velocity loss or more.

The 460 has great flexibility but you have to accept lower power and worse muzzle blast with a snubbie along with a shorter sight radius. Don

In some Buffalo Bore tests, more than once with the 460, an S&W LONGER barrel length tested tested SLOWER than a shorter barreled brother. This happened at least twice.

From buffalobore.com regarding their 460 load in this thread, "You’ll note that THE LONGEST BARREL DOES NOT ALWAYS GIVE THE FASTEST VELOCITIES . . . ." A 7.5" barrel S&W 460 with this ammo was 220 FPS FASTER than a LONGER 10.5" barrel S&W w/the same ammo.**. Also, see Buffalo Bore's article, Velocity vs. Barrel Length.

Here's the thing. Barrel length is virtually never the sole determinant of FPS unless everything else is equal between the weapons (e.g., both ported, barrel/cylinder gap the same, chamber dimensions, chamber throats, barrel throats, rifling depth and dimensions, rifling style or type). These factors may likely far supersede the effects that barrel length alone has on velocity as evidenced by the reverse numbers above.

While generally shorter barrels will be slower than longer ones, to look at two different firearms, and based on barrel length alone, to then start prognosticating FPS numbers is ill advised as evidenced by the results reported above by Buffalo Bore where in this case exactly opposite of your predictions, shorter was faster and longer was slower even when the weapons were produced by the same manufacturer on the same frame.

Use a chronograph and call it a day.

**In Buffalo Bore's tests documented on their website, a 7.5" barrel S&W 460 shoots this ammo at 2,140 FPS while the 10.5 Barreled S&W counter-intuitively gives a significantly slower 1,920 FPS even though w/a 3" longer barrel.

 

[dwever]

OP, my son is a Tech Sargent in AF. He spent 4 yrs at Elmendorf in Anchorage. He sent me pics of his fishing excursions with Brown bears on the creeks and rivers. They were huge, scary, and beautiful. He told me Diamond D was the popular rig for fishermen. I have a similar rig I carry my 6” 629 in. He plans to return to Alaska when he retires.

AWESOME. My first time in Alaska was active duty USAF refueling at Elmendorf coming from Travis AFB en-route to Okinawa (Kadena AB). I won't say the year, but Alaska was about a half million people then.

We fish the Russian River mostly. Outside of Cooper's Landing.

 

[__steve__]

They make me wrap silver duct tape
over the muzzle area.

We called that “speed tape” in the AF

 

[DonD]

In some Buffalo Bore tests, more than once with the 460, an S&W LONGER barrel length tested tested SLOWER than a shorter barreled brother. This happened at least twice.

From buffalobore.com regarding their 460 load in this thread, "You’ll note that THE LONGEST BARREL DOES NOT ALWAYS GIVE THE FASTEST VELOCITIES . . . ." A 7.5" barrel S&W 460 with this ammo was 220 FPS FASTER than a LONGER 10.5" barrel S&W w/the same ammo.**. Also, see Buffalo Bore's article, Velocity vs. Barrel Length.

Here's the thing. Barrel length is virtually never the sole determinant of FPS unless everything else is equal between the weapons (e.g., both ported, barrel/cylinder gap the same, chamber dimensions, chamber throats, barrel throats, rifling depth and dimensions, rifling style or type). These factors may likely far supersede the effects that barrel length alone has on velocity as evidenced by the reverse numbers above.

While generally shorter barrels will be slower than longer ones, to look at two different firearms, and based on barrel length alone, to then start prognosticating FPS numbers is ill advised as evidenced by the results reported above by Buffalo Bore where in this case exactly opposite of your predictions, shorter was faster and longer was slower even when the weapons were produced by the same manufacturer on the same frame.

Use a chronograph and call it a day.

**In Buffalo Bore's tests documented on their website, a 7.5" barrel S&W 460 shoots this ammo at 2,140 FPS while the 10.5 Barreled S&W counter-intuitively gives a significantly slower 1,920 FPS even though w/a 3" longer barrel.

Interesting, provide some chronograph numbers out of your snubbie and everyone will learn something. Don

 

[ruggyh]

In some Buffalo Bore tests, more than once with the 460, an S&W LONGER barrel length tested tested SLOWER than a shorter barreled brother. .....

The 7.5" BFR used in the test has a cylinder that is 3" long compared to 2.3 inches. adding .7" of length to to the "pressure under the curve" which resultants in velocity, which accounts for some a difference in the velocity. The Twist rate of the BFR is also considerably different.

I have performed numerous chronograph tests on all the available S&W barrel lengths and published a summary here in the past.

The velocity difference will change the calculated KE numbers but the reality this has little to do with how effective the projectile is going to perform, especially in this velocity range and bullet weight.

Terminal performance is what counts. While momentum is an important component of penetration, bullet construction determines if the bullet is up to the job assigned.

Off coarse this this depends on the shooter being able to put in the right spot, especially under the proposed premise of use- bear protection.

I would suggest you chose a round which you can empty the gun in 4 to 5 seconds and get the rounds on target.

You don't need the baddest hunting round, you need get to vitals with the biggest permanent wound channel. A 300 grain wide nose hard cast at 1200-1300 fps will go thru the largest bear.

One of the most offered pieces of advice I received about brown bears was to continue shooting until there is no movement or your gun is empty. It provided to be good advice.

 

[dwever]

Interesting, provide some chronograph number out of your snubbie and everyone will learn something. Don

Well, maybe I'm nit picking when someone wrongly calls a magazine a clip, but can we agree on some terms?: You're calling a 3.5" inch barreled revolver a snubbie when that barrel length is more commonly accepted as a service revolver. In fact I can't find a gun site that calls a 3.5" a snubbie.

gunnersden.com, "Before we discuss the guns themselves, let’s talk about what a snubby revolver even is. What is a snub nose revolver? A snub nose revolver, also known as snubby or snubbed nose revolver is a 5 or 6 shot revolver with a barrel that is two inches in length or less."

revolverguy.com says a snub is "short barrel under 3 inches." and defines 3" and up as a "service gun."

usconcealedcarry.com says, "A snub-nosed revolver is any small, medium or large frame revolver with a short barrel, which is generally 3 inches or less in length."

"It varies from 2.5″ to 1.66″ with 2″ the most common in the 20th Century."

guns.com, "The definition of a snub nosed revolver is any such gun with a barrel of 3-inches or less."

Gun Digest says, "The snubnose revolver, often affectionately called a snubby, or simply snub, is usually defined as having a barrel of two inches or less."

The highroad.com, "Ruger likes 2.75-inch while S&W favors the 2.5-inch although pushing some out to 2.625".

One could go on.

 

[dwever]

Ruggy H says: "I would suggest you chose a round which you can empty the gun in 4 to 5 seconds and get the rounds on target.

[Ruggy H continued] You don't need the baddest hunting round, you need get to vitals with the biggest permanent wound channel. A 300 grain wide nose hard cast at 1200-1300 fps will go thru the largest bear."

1. Agreed, control is why I don't shoot the hottest .460, I load the 300 grain Buff Bore moving at something less than 1,920 in the 3.5" barrel, but given your recommendation, even the 300 grain 454 Casull 300 grain running at something less than the 1,650 printed on the box would do the work, and that is a fairly easy round to send down range in the X-Frame in view of emptying the gun in a controlled way in four to five seconds.

2. You mention hard-cast bullets. As you likely know, Buff Bore claims in their testing that, "We’ve long ago learned that flat nosed, lightweight, mono-metal bullets penetrate far deeper (in a straight line too) than the typical lead-based bullet of similar weight!" Do you agree w/Buff Bore?

3. As an aside, the mono-metal bullet are very large because they're lighter. Buff Bore says, "Mono-metal bullets made of copper or brass alloys are lightweight for their length. As an example, the 380 gr. bullet used in our DG 45-70 load is as long as a 500+ gr. hard cast bullet, depending on its alloy.

 

[ruggyh]

...

[Ruggy H continued] You don't need the baddest hunting round, you need get to vitals with the biggest permanent wound channel. A 300 grain wide nose hard cast at 1200-1300 fps will go thru the largest bear."

1. Agreed, control is why I don't shoot the hottest .460, I load the 300 grain Buff Bore moving at something less than 1,920 in the 3.5" barrel, but given your recommendation, even the 300 grain 454 Casull 300 grain running at something less than the 1,650 printed on the box would do the work, and that is a fairly easy round to send down range in the X-Frame in view of emptying the gun in a controlled way in four to five seconds.

These round will not doubt dispatch a bear.

300 gainer at 1900 fps is a 62kPSI load- definitely at the top of the cartridge capability with out regard to barrel length.

The overhead is recoil and noise.

I would suggest you take up reloading so you can tune the round to use and gun, and provide you with lower cost option for practice.

...

2. You mention hard-cast bullets. As you likely know, Buff Bore claims in their testing that, "We’ve long ago learned that flat nosed, lightweight, mono-metal bullets penetrate far deeper (in a straight line too) than the typical lead-based bullet of similar weight!" Do you agree w/Buff Bore?

Yes I agree with the general statement about monolithic. I use them almost exclusively when hunting. But they do come with overhead; they require velocity- additional noise,recoil, and cost.

You are talking protection not hunting; shoots to be taken at relatively close range and most likely limited to one or two if any.

If a 300/325 WFN HC @ 1200-1300 fps will go thru a bear how much more penetration do you need?

Choose a loading that will get the job done with the least amount of overhead.

REQUIRED
1. Penetration to the vitals
2. Large wound channel
3. Accurate

WOULD BE NICE
4. low muzzle flash
5. minimum recoil
6. hearing friendly

They do make 300 grain monolith solids with similar nose profiles to the WFN HC - performance would be similar at like velocity - the difference is cost.

3. As an aside, the mono-metal bullet are very large because they're lighter. Buff Bore says, "Mono-metal bullets made of copper or brass alloys are lightweight for their length...

Yes, another reason to pick your bullet carefully, you need enough twist to ensure bullet stability, while this is not a problem with current .451/.452 bullet offering used in 460 S&W Magnum.

I like mono-metals because they reduce they design issues that may occur with jacketed bullets. Current designs are improving and they produce large wound channels.

All this said, I personally load for the intended use, starting with the bullet.