S&W has short barrel 44 Magnum N frame revolvers but nothing at all in 454 Casull. Yes I know you can fire 454 Casull cartridges in the 460 Magnum but that's a huge X frame revolver!

I'm just wondering why S&W doesn't chamber a revolver in 454 Casull?

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I think it's because S&W considers that caliber range covered by both the .460 and .500.
Sure the X-frames have long cylinders and weigh more but they deliver oh so much more!

Much as I appreciate the versatility of the .460 chambering, at the end of the day, the .500 4" is really the "If I can only have one" choice because it easily outpowers everything else in a fairly compact unit. While hand loaders cand load up or down as they desire, even on the commercial market one can find all sorts of loads ready-made for different power needs.

I'm not saying the .460 Mag and .500 Mag are good or bad. I'm just wondering why no 454 Casull in an N frame. There was no 454 Casull well before there were X frame Magnums so I'm not so sure those coveting the 454 is the reason.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

The 44 mag operates at 36,000 psi, the 454 at 65,000. Many believe the N frame is at its pressure limit with the 44 mag.

I believe the 454 is also too long in oal for the N frame. The 454 was around well before the X frame.

Larry

N frame cylinder is to small in OD for one thing. Can't make it a 5 shooter. The 44 mags and 45 colts already scallop into the ratchet area a bit, but between the actual teeth on a 5 shot the rim cut would hit the teeth. Making a 5 shot N frame cylinder alone would not change thickness between outside wall and chamber and can't move them in because of said problem with ratchet in a 5 shot Then 45 colts with longer lead 45 colts almost reach end of cylinder. Plus, the frame is a much a limiting factor as cylinder size. It has a side plate cut out where Ruger Redhawks and various single actions do not. So would need a longer, wider frame window and a wider top strap for a larger cylinder and more pressure. Instead of making an O frame S&W went all the way and made the X frame and the 460/500.

Why make a forging die and setup machining specs, tooling and jigs for a frame that would only have a small increase in frame size to be able to handle the 454 Casull and the 480 Ruger instead of really going all the way to the X frame.

Super Redhawk Casull and 480 cylinders are 5 shot have an OD 1.79 with a offset from chamber cylinder notch and a length of 1.750.
S&W N frame 6 shot OD 1.710 with notch centered on chamber and a length of 1.705.

The technical experts have offered some great replies, and I have no doubt they are 100 percent correct.

A more subtle reason S&W might not have been willing to retool any of its frames solely for the .454 might be that it couldn't say:

.454 S&W CTG

on the barrel!

The company seems to have a penchant for proprietary calibers. I could only attach five photos, but I think you'll see my point.

Just thinking out loud, here.

Attached Images

	32 S&W CTG.jpg (33.5 KB, 150 views)
	.32 S&W Long.JPG (159.1 KB, 190 views)
	.38 S&W Special CTG.jpg (29.2 KB, 143 views)
	.357 S&W Magnum.jpg (55.1 KB, 149 views)
	500 S&W Magnum.JPG (77.9 KB, 147 views)

__________________
Wrangler of stray Chiefs
Bob

It is the issue of pressure and cartridge length that prevent N-frame 454 Casull revolvers from existing, not Ego over the cartridge name

After all Smith and Wesson makes lots of 41 Remington Magnum revolvers and plenty of pistols chambered in 9MM Parabellum or 45ACP or 357SIG or 380ACP or even 22LR and 22 Winchester Magnum . How about the 327 Federal Magnum or the 45 Long Colt

I feel the reason they never built a revolver specifically for the 454 Casuall was a political and business decision.

Why support and promote a cartridge that dethroned your previous king of the mountain- the 44Magnum?

By not supporting the cartridge it decidedly reduced the cartridges popularity and allowed continued sales of their 44 Magnum- no additional manufacturing cost burden to the bottom.

Just my thought

be safe
Ruggy

I think S&W did the right thing by leapfrogging the .454 with the .460. If you're forced to design a new frame to get into that power range, why not reclaim the title? It's not as if the .454 is super popular. There are guys on this forum and elsewhere that will happily bang away with their .44s all day but don't care for the snappy recoil of a .454.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

Thank you for the thoughtful answers. I'm sure the full answer is a combination of several.

While I did know the pressures were much higher for the 454 Casull over the 44 Magnum for some reason I just didn't think of factoring that into the equation. Sorta a slip of mind but a serious reason.

I guess there us no S&W 454 Casulp in my future unless I want to buy a Super Redhawk.

Thank you all...

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

The full & only answer why S&W never chambered the .454 in an N-Frame is very simply that the N-Frame can't handle it.
You don't need to look any further.
Denis

I've seen the theory stated that the 44mag is a smidge more than the N-frame can handle over the long run.

454 Casull operates at the same pressure as the 460 S&W but the 460 outruns it due to more case capacity. 60k+ is ALOT of pressure, especially in a handgun. That's in magnum rifle pressure territory.

Alot of 454 are offered in platforms significantly lighter in weight than the X-frame and I can understand why many folks can't deal with it's recoil when considering that fact. Now when you consider that those Rugers and others offered in 454 are generally heavier than a Smith N-frame with comparable barrel lengths, it makes me wonder how much nastier to shoot the 454 would be from an N-frame (if it could be done).. and additionally, why anyone would want to.

Myself, I think the X-frame is THE BEST platform for such powerful cartridges as they introduce a much higher level of shootability for those cartridges. I get that the short barreled Alaskans are designed and intended to be a more compact close defense weapon, but how effective can it be if quick follow-up shots are extremely difficult in the best of circumstances? Not everyone can be Jerry Miculek, LOL! And in a package like that with the intended purpose, what can the 454 do that a 44 mag cannot? I'm no bear defense expert, heck, where I live black bears are rarely sighted. But I do pay attention when those who live that life offer advice on the subject. Most of that advice centers around well placed shots, and as many of them as possible when it comes to a bear defense sidearm.

Sorry, didn't mean to go down the "bear defense" road... talking about some of the 454 platforms kinda brought me there.

The N Frame metallurgy could have be made to handle the Casull pressure.

The cost of doing so at the time would have been substantial, Review the time line of Casull's and it design delivery platform and you will see it took almost 20 to get a manufacture to produce a production gun.

Moving to a double action platform would have presented numerous challenges with little market. If you think of all the hubbub about 500 S&W recoil you need to shoot a 454 Casull out of the early gun and you see why it didn't develop wide purchase appeal. Yes the were and are fun for those who can actually handle the recoil and control the roll but that audience is and was small. For the average shooter the N frame would more than a handful and have very small sale compared to the cost of developing the correct metallurgy.

I don't know what Freedom Firearms sales numbers are but would wager the 454 makes up the smallest amount of their sales.

Today two excellent manufactures produce a 454 revolver, Freedom and BFR, both producing high quality guns.

Taurus produced a 454, not sure if they still do, but quality was not up to snuff for the few I seen and shoot.

This is not a knock on the cartridge just that is was and will always be a small niche market gun and cartridge.

A little of topic here-----I personally don't think comparing single actions to double action revolvers is reasonable or practical, even when shooting the same cartridge, they just a two very different experiences and the differences become more pronounce as the cartridge becomes more potent.

be safe
Ruggy

I shot a Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in 454 and it was kind of painful. 44 mag out of the same pistol chambered for 44 was really fun by comparison. Look at the energy difference between the two cartridges and you’ll see why. If a bear was about to maul me to death, I would find the recoil worth the reward. Otherwise, it’s not much fun. The X frame 460xvr shoots 454 a lot better. I think it’s that simple.

To the OPS question

What you guys need to remember the Casull was announced back in 1957 and first production guns finally produced in mid 1990's long before the X-frame came to life in 2005

be safe
Ruggy

So if a 44 (actually .429) with a operating pressure of 36k psi is bored out to .454 with a pressure of 65k psi, unless some new metalurgy comes up and S&W moves the bolt notches off the thin side of the chamber, leave me out. Maybe a 5 shooter!

I never knew the 454 is as old as it is until a few years ago. For the longest time I thought it came out when Taurus made the Raging Bull revolver chambered in it back in the mid 90s.

What were people shooting Casulls out of before a couple manufacturers started producing them?? Customs????

Dick Casull was a co-founder of Freedom Arms. This company was the first commercial producer of a revolver chambered in the .454 Casull cartridge. It came out in 1983 as the model 83. ( from Wikipedia.)

__________________
Accuracy supercedes Speed

Casull was experimenting with guns & duplex loads in that caliber in single-actions for years before it became either standardized or mainstream.
Denis

I agree the X frame, or something larger than the N frame, is what makes the round tolerable. Not sure metallurgy could solve that problem on an N frame. The strength of the metal and the round pressure is part of the issue but the total mass of the revolver has a lot more to do (IMO) with why they don’t make an N frame 454. It just sucks to shoot it out of a lighter weight gun.

^^^I agree. I don't mind recoil, but I shot .454 outta various Ruger SAs and did not enjoy the experiences at all. Brutal is the best word I can use to describe it. While it might be a viable option for SD against Dangerous Game as a BUG, I could not imagine them as regular shooters at the range or even a decent deer handgun. While many Ruger fanboys scoff at the size and weight of the X-Frames, it is a much more manageable and accurate platform for the really big boomers.

I also wish S&W would fill their gap between the moderately strong 44 mag N frame and their monstrous X frame. However, I wish they'd build it simply as strong as the ruger redhawk or super redhawk to shoot 45 colt +p and 480 ruger, or better yet, their old 500 S&W Special. Don't bother with designing for the crazy pressure of the Casull and 460/500 magnums. Going higher than 'moderate' magnum pressure just isn't worth it. The handgun hunting experts all extoll the importance of bullet weight and caliber over velocity. The ridiculous cylinder length of the X frame can also be shortened. I am sure there is a goldilocks frame design in there, sort of like what the model 69 did on the L frame, this would do for the N frame or something slightly beefed up. Essentially, the exact average of a model 69 (37oz 4.25") and model 460/500 (63oz 6.5") for a 50oz well behaved S&W that can do everything that a super redhawk can do.

Kinda begs the question "have we seen the top threshold of handgun calibers with the 460/500 X frames" or is something bigger and faster forthcoming....

Groo here
If you want in an N-frame,,, look at the Taurus Raging Bull[got one]

While fantasizing, i’d Rather see the X frame get put to use in an 8 shot .44 mag cylinder.

Why not take the governor and chamber it for .454? I mean make it out of steel for cryin' out loud, but it has the dimensions for the cartridge. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that some enterprising Bubba hasn't tried it yet.

__________________
Forum consigliere

It's not just a matter of taking the Governor & re-chambering it for the .454. Even in steel.
Much more to it.
Denis

Current Redhawks are six shots. An extremely small number of 480 Superhawks were made with five shot cylinders. I don't remember any 454 Super Redhawks with five shot cylinders.

Ruger used a special steel to make their Redhawk cylinders. I wonder if S&W could use a similar steel on a beefed up frame to make a 454.

Interestingly, I read that a major reason for the X frame's cylinder being so long was to fit the 223/556 round.

M69 on the left, a 5 shot .429 for 36,000psi. M500 on the right, a 5 shot .500 for 60,000psi. Simply scale the later down towards the former and it would walk all over a redhawk/super redhawk all day in 44 mag, 454, 480, 475 linebaugh, 500 jrh . . . , and in a package easier to carry too.

Attached Images

IMG_3078.JPG (92.7 KB, 16 views)

Had a buddy at our local gun club who loved his 454 casul so one day he hands me his redhawk in 454 and the last two rounds and says "try it out".Since basically a paper puncher I figured what the heck. Much fire and thunder and recoil. Opened the cylinder and popped out the two spent cases and a thanks. Up until that time I thought my redhawk in 44 mag was bad as to recoil. The 454 had it all over the 44mag. Frank

The 454 is a comfortable and enjoyable round to shoot in my 5" 460, I went threw a bunch yesterday. The 460's are fun too, but the percussion wave has a tendency to cause the the ceiling tiles to rain down stuff on me, I had brass drop down on me a couple of weeks ago. A standard 45Colt is no fun at all but the hotter TC and Redhawk loads are nice.