Need Help from anyone who has a .500 Magnum -- Ready to Purchase one but have a couple questions!

[.460V & XVR Magnum Man]

Need Help from anyone who has a .500 Magnum -- Ready to Purchase one but have a couple questions!

Just about ready to round out my S&W Collection with a .500 Mag. Before I get it I wanted to know should I go with the 4" Compensated or the 8 3/8" Compensated? As with my .460's I have both the 5" V & the 8 3/8" XVR. I am only able to get one of these and I need to know from someone who has both or at least one of them to get some feedback. End of the year extra bills and things I will have to put it on a layaway plan for three months and pay a bit at a time. Being that I will only be getting one or the other this is where you guys come in to help me with the choice. As I said I have both the .460 models and a .500 would be my crown jewel so to speak. So any imput will be appreciated. Also I have one other question. Is the recoil and blast that much more than the .460's, or are they pretty close to being the same? Thanks for all your help!

 

[MTKTM]

I've shot both 500s but never a 460, so can't comment on that latter point. But I suppose which 500 you get would depend a lot on what you intend to use it for. I find the longer barrel considerably more accurate, and it packs a much greater punch too as chronographed velocities are between 200-300 fps faster out of the longer barrel. The 4" is really a 3". Recoil is comparable. Blast is greater out of the shorter barrel. The only advantage to the shorter gun is compactness, it can be carried on a belt holster whereas the 8 3/8" really cannot, requires a shoulder holster. That's my .02 worth.

 

[JD 500]

What MTKTM said !

The only thing I might add, is that I find I am able to put higher power rounds through the 8 3/8" bbl 500, than I am the 4" 500. But that may just be me.

 

[jbouwens]

Don't forget the 6" 500 mag. It has the half lug and is ported. I love mine and it goes so good with all of the other 6 inchers in my collection. I find the velocities are a few hundred off from the published data for the 8 3/8" barrels but it still will let you know you are shooting the KING of revolvers.

 

[txpitdog]

I've got just the basic model 500 with the 8 3/8" barrel and vertical-only compensator. I freaking love it! I got it for a song from an older gentleman who's arthritis simply wouldn't take the recoil anymore. I probably could not have afforded it otherwise, so my decision wasn't based on a review of the other models. However, here are a few things to consider in favor of the plain jane model.

First, the longer barrel adds more weight to the muzzle end to help reduce recoil, muzzle rise, and getting blast away from your face and hands.

Second, I believe the interchangeable compensator on the 4" and 6.5" versions are specific for jacketed or lead bullets. One each. I don't think that you'll ever shoot enough ammo at one sitting to make changing out the compensator inconvenient, but there's no changing compensators required with the base model. No parts to lose. I don't know if the fancier compensator is more effective or not, but I will give it this: it looks cool. The integrated compensator on the plain model however has a more classic look.

Third, regardless of marketing, and regardless of whether its practical, the only reason anyone honestly buys a 500 is for raw power and brute force. Why not capitalize on all the power the cartridge is capable of and get the longer barrel? With a caliber so powerful and in a frame this big, is portability really your primary concern?

Finally, the 500 is the biggest most powerful revolver there is, and in my opinion, it should look that way. The longer barrel balances the appearance of the huge frame, long cylinder, and massive 440gr slugs.

Mine is a range toy. There just isn't anything that I hunt that can't be dropped on the spot with a 44 magnum. Even if you plan to hunt with the 500, the longer barrel will give you more velocity and a longer sight radius. It would be an injustice to put a scope on this gun, so let's not discuss that.

 

[ladder13]

Got the 500 with 4 inch barrel, it's a bear with 440 Corbons, I prefer the 350 or 275 grainers.
The 8 3/8th's to me is too long, may as well have bought a rifle. The 6" sounds interesting though.

Question for you...how's the 460, I was thinking of getting one to complement my FA 454.

 

[.460V & XVR Magnum Man]

About the .460's for Mike

They are both great, the "V" 5" has a huge muzzle blast and fireball. It is really accurate and has a bigger recoil rise than the 8 3/8" XVR. I use 200gr Hornady's and they are both fun to shoot. The longer barrel is more accurate, but both are close on a rest. Until you get over 100 yards the the XVR wins on accuracy. Hope this helps, I like them both the same and would not part with either.

 

[ladder13]

Another question for Craig

Either of those guns scoped or red dotted? My eyes s##k, I need some help.
Would love to use the 460 for hunting, my Freedom Arms is too purty to mess up Not that the Smith is lacking in the looks dept mind you.

 

[Springfield Bob]

500 revolver

I have the 2 3/4" model 500 and love it. It is part of the 500 ES survival

kit. When I bought it S&W gave me a belt holster for it along with a
nice pair of binoculars.

 

[625smith]

I had the 500 in 8⅜" first. The 460 XVR in 8⅜" came later. I now would like to find a 500 with the interchangeable break. I prefer the longer barrels as I think that they give the powder more time to burn! As for your recoil question I would say the 500 has more depending on the bullet weight. I shot some Corbon 440gr Hard cast loads that came with my 500 (bought it used) and I see why the previous owner did not shoot them. The recoil was heavy but not unbearable.

 

[kennyb]

i would disagree as to not scoping it...i have a performance center 500...why not take advantage of a handgun that can really reach way out there?i use mine to hunt and so far have taken a 4-horn ram as well as boar....i also have the 2 3/4" 460...if you can handle the 460...you will not have a problem with the 500

 

[DonD]

My vote would be for the 8 3/8th barrel whether you scope it or not. With iron sights, the much longer sight radius makes shooting more precise.

If you wanted two, then the 4" er would be good. It does have a nice balance. Don

 

[500 Magnum Nut]

If you want to carry it, go 4 inch, otherwise the 8 incher is better for range plinking or hunting.
Remember, you aren't going to light one off without ear protection so CCW is not practical.

 

[MTKTM]

I own both the 8 3/8" and the 4" 500. I use the short one only when I am hiking in griz country, or huckleberry picking. It is compact and rides relatively nicely on a heavy belt. But for hunting or pure accuracy, the long one cannot be beat. Plus, I've chronographed a lot of factory and handloads out of both guns for comparative purposes, and the long barrel really hustles them out there. To scope or not to scope is up to the individual, I personally prefer to not make one of these already massive guns any more big and bulky and heavy than it presently is, and with the longer barrel I find that I can get decent accuracy out of it......heck, I'd be more inclined to put a scope on the shorter gun, truth be known. I do think a 5" John Ross, or 6" gun (actual barrel length as opposed to combined barrel and comp measurement) would be sweet. I really want a John Ross gun as I'd like to experiment with some ultra heavy bullets. My favorite load is the Cor-Bon 440gr, and I've managed to come up with a "factory duplication load" using CastPerformance bullets and a lot of WW296/H110.

 

[500 Mag. Dave]

500 P/C 10 1/2"

I have a 500 P/C 10 1/2" barrel and love it wouldn't want it anyother way.

 

[7P's]

I do think a 5" John Ross, or 6" gun (actual barrel length as opposed to combined barrel and comp measurement) would be sweet. I really want a John Ross gun as I'd like to experiment with some ultra heavy bullets. My favorite load is the Cor-Bon 440gr, and I've managed to come up with a "factory duplication load" using CastPerformance bullets and a lot of WW296/H110.

There's nothing magical about the John Ross Model - whatever bullet you can shoot from the JR can be shot from the Smith 500 - no difference. The JR model has a tad more felt recoil than the Smith but if you want a little more pain at the top end, look at the 500 Linebaugh Maximum or the 500 Alaskan and you'll find it.

 

[DonD]

There's nothing magical about the John Ross Model - whatever bullet you can shoot from the JR can be shot from the Smith 500 - no difference. The JR model has a tad more felt recoil than the Smith but if you want a little more pain at the top end, look at the 500 Linebaugh Maximum or the 500 Alaskan and you'll find it.

I don't think that is correct. The John Ross model has a different twist rate to allow it to better stabilize heavier slugs.

The .500 S&W operates at higher pressures than does the .500 Max and can outperform it. Don

 

[7P's]

I don't think that is correct. The John Ross model has a different twist rate to allow it to better stabilize heavier slugs.

The .500 S&W operates at higher pressures than does the .500 Max and can outperform it. Don

You're right Don, I forgot about the twist rate. It might make a difference depending upon velocity. The heaviest I've shot in both revolvers is the 600 grain and the only difference I noted was a little more felt recoil in the JR. Both shot about the same groups at 50 yards, which amounted to minute of deer with iron sights off-hand and slightly better benched. The only inference I was making between the Linebaugh Max/50 Alaskan and the Smith was in felt recoil - The Smith with the huge X-frame seems to "soften" the recoil a little better than the lighter Linebaugh Max and the 50 Alaskan. As to performance - ya, the Smith will send the big slugs down range faster but the other calibers deliver a larger diameter bullet, thus making all three revolvers a handful, which makes one wonder just how much punishment a person's wrist can take over a decade or two - unless that is, one just reloads mouse loads for 99% of his shooting. Finding a cure for bigboreitis is difficult but if powder and lead prices keep rising a cure may not be needed.

 

[Pisgah]

I prefer the 3' barrel, along with the optional wheel set, towing package, and remote-firing device.

 

[DonD]

The only inference I was making between the Linebaugh Max/50 Alaskan and the Smith was in felt recoil - The Smith with the huge X-frame seems to "soften" the recoil a little better than the lighter Linebaugh Max and the 50 Alaskan. As to performance - ya, the Smith will send the big slugs down range faster but the other calibers deliver a larger diameter bullet, thus making all three revolvers a handful, which makes one wonder just how much punishment a person's wrist can take over a decade or two - unless that is, one just reloads mouse loads for 99% of his shooting. Finding a cure for bigboreitis is difficult but if powder and lead prices keep rising a cure may not be needed.

Can't disagree there at all. I think shooting a large number of very heavy rounds out of the .500 will, over time, cause the vast majority of people some physical problems. I suspect shooting the .500 Linebaugh out of SA revolvers will be a great deal worse as they're typically much lighter than the X-frames.

While I don't use a scope, mounting a relatively heavy scope will further moderate recoil. To me, shooting offhand, a scope just makes me feel like I have the jitters.

It doesn't bother my ego to say that I normally restrict my heavy load use to 2-3 cylinder fulls a range day and since I rotate the firearms I shoot, it isn't a lot of exposure. Then I go to Trail Boss ammo. Don