500 Smith & Wesson loads

[Mrvmax]

Ever try the .500 Special?

I experimented a little with those. I think I’ve still got half a box of Cor on 500 S&W Special.

 

[Mrvmax]

I like the part of one of the John Ross articles where he describes how the length of the X-frame was determined. It's was pretty offhand. The guy in charge just said, to paraphrase, "Oh, by the way, make the cylinder long enough to accept a .223 in case we ever decide to chamber for that round."

If it hadn't been for that, there's no way that those incredibly long 700-grain bullets would work.

I can handle a lot of recoil but the 700 grain cast bullet loads are not pleasant to shoot.

 

[LOCKHART]

Yeah, gun writer John Taffin took those 700 grain monsters to task in one of his articles. Said the gun was never intended for those, blah, blah, blah. Bob Milek did the same thing to the .357 Maximum because he wasn't consulted in it's development. Wah,wah,wah! He and other gun scribes killed that cartridge for mass use by the public because they got their lace panties in a wad because Bill Ruger and Remington didn't consult THEM! It didn't matter, silhouette shooters did take to it, and still use it to this day.

 

[Kosh75287]

There is a group of authors in the shooting community whose opinions I use as NEGATIVE indicators of what I should do. Milek is on that list.

It was MY impression that the "flame cutting" of the frame right above the cylinder gap is what killed the .357 Maximum. Even though it was later determined that the problem was self-limiting and did not constitute a hazard, the fact that the flame-cutting happened at all was enough to disaffect many would-be buyers. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if Milek & others did what they could to kill the round out of spite.

I don't know if I'd want to tackle a Cape Buffalo with a .500 S&W, but in full-power form, it's certainly capable of taking anything NOT on the "Big 5" list. The fact that its fearsome recoil induces most owners to opt for reduced loads kinda makes me wonder (again) the point of the round. Could the same thing(s) accomplished by the reduced .500 S&W rounds ALSO be accomplished by a full-house .44 Mag or .454 Casull, and in a more manageable platform?

The mission of the 700 gr. projectiles ALSO evades me, since they outweigh the dangerous game projectiles of the .505 Gibbs by over 16%, and its soft-point projectiles by a factor of 4/3. A holster-borne method of penetrating an M113 APC is about the only purpose I can devise for them, but again, I don't have to like them, for them to sell.

PERSONALLY, I think I can get all the magnum-revolver performance I'LL ever need from my 7.5" barreled .45 Colt Ruger RedHawk, using ~30,000 PSI loads, and I rarely go THAT hot. Most of my "hot" loads for it consist of a 250gr. LRNFP at 1200 + 50 f/s, and probably develop pressures closer to 25,000 PSI.

 

[Mrvmax]

There is a group of authors in the shooting community whose opinions I use as NEGATIVE indicators of what I should do. Milek is on that list.

It was MY impression that the "flame cutting" of the frame right above the cylinder gap is what killed the .357 Maximum. Even though it was later determined that the problem was self-limiting and did not constitute a hazard, the fact that the flame-cutting happened at all was enough to disaffect many would-be buyers. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if Milek & others did what they could to kill the round out of spite.

I don't know if I'd want to tackle a Cape Buffalo with a .500 S&W, but in full-power form, it's certainly capable of taking anything NOT on the "Big 5" list. The fact that its fearsome recoil induces most owners to opt for reduced loads kinda makes me wonder (again) the point of the round. Could the same thing(s) accomplished by the reduced .500 S&W rounds ALSO be accomplished by a full-house .44 Mag or .454 Casull, and in a more manageable platform?

The mission of the 700 gr. projectiles ALSO evades me, since they outweigh the dangerous game projectiles of the .505 Gibbs by over 16%, and its soft-point projectiles by a factor of 4/3. A holster-borne method of penetrating an M113 APC is about the only purpose I can devise for them, but again, I don't have to like them, for them to sell.

PERSONALLY, I think I can get all the magnum-revolver performance I'LL ever need from my 7.5" barreled .45 Colt Ruger RedHawk, using ~30,000 PSI loads, and I rarely go THAT hot. Most of my "hot" loads for it consist of a 250gr. LRNFP at 1200 + 50 f/s, and probably develop pressures closer to 25,000 PSI.

My Freedom Arms 7.5” barrel revolver in 454 Casull is harder to shoot than my 4” S&W 500 revolver. The FA feels like it has more recoil, I was actually surprised by it. I will be sending it to get Magnaported.

 

[LOCKHART]

My super Redhawk in .454 sure feels alot sharper in recoil than my .500 Smith, have to agree with you there. But, the Redhawk is much lighter, too. I really don't care to shoot it much because it can be really painful. Some of the first African animals shot with the .500 Smith were Cape buffalo. They were shooting the 440 grain Cor-bon 1650 fps load. The fellow shot his buffalo and also shot one standing on the other side! Bullet went through first one and hit the second, too. That is real penetration!

 

[Kosh75287]

That IS real penetration! Did both animals shut down quickly after being shot, or did they get up a head of steam & try to run over everyone in sight? A 440gr. projectile at 1650 f/s is a hot .45-70 load, and well short of the .458 Winchester, which a number of African PHs consider marginal for Cape Buffalo. The larger bore of the projectile and the resulting wound channel PROBABLY has SOMETHING to do with things, if the animals quit on the spot. But it's difficult to know how much value may be assigned to that.

I'd forgotten about the .454 Casull having sharper recoil than a .500 S&W. I'm not sure what the working pressure(s) of the .500 S&W may be, but I seem to recall the Casull round operating at or near 60,000 psi. I'm betting the difference(s) between the two have a lot to do with the Casull being perceived as sharper, not to mention the (probably) lighter weight of the weapon chambered for .454. GOOD POINT!

 

[LOCKHART]

I read that Cape buffalo article on the Smith & Wesson, think it was back in 2006. The first one dropped pretty quickly, the second one was foundering around. That's when they realized the first shot had went through and struck the second one. It seemed the article stated the PH finished the unintended second buff.

 

[LOCKHART]

I meant to say "Smith & Wesson forum", somehow that didn't come out.

 

[LOCKHART]

The John Ross .500's that he had made up by Smith's custom shop, have 1 in 10" twist rifling, compared to stock 1 in 18.5". Kent Lomont hit a 55 gallon drum at 700 yards, in front of about 8 witnesses, 50 times in a row, once he got the range! I've always thought the factory twist was way too slow.

 

[benenglish]

1 in 10" twist

The 1 in 10" twist is supposed to be better for those long, 700-grain projectiles.

When the John Ross model came out, I considered it for long range target shooting. With such a fast twist rate, I figured it would stabilize a .30 caliber 240 grain SMK held by a sabot. However, I never could find .50-to-.30 sabots anywhere. They were once available as surplus but supplies had dried up.

That's a good thing. If I had found the sabots, I would have spent an idiotic amount of time and money experimenting with something that probably would never work. It was a fun thought experiment, though.

 

[LOCKHART]

When Dan Wesson brought out the Mk 40 .357 Supermag revolvers they used a 1 in 16" twist barrel. They later made a run of 1 in 14" twist, and they were MUCH better able to stabilize the 180 to 200 grain bullets the cartridge was designed for. Why Remington brought out the 158 grain factory loads in the first place is one thing I've never been able to fathom. Those loads DID cause top strap cutting. If they had made them in 180 grain or heavier, top strap cutting would have never been an issue, and the .357 Maximum or Supermag would be a more well known and used cartridge. I hope that Smith & Wesson eventually goes to a much faster twist for the .500, too.

 

[benenglish]

Those loads DID cause top strap cutting.

Somewhat.

In my opinion, though, the primary cause of strap cutting was a bunch of dumbass gun writers who did everything they could to push 110-grain bullets to "bragging rights" numbers on their chronographs.

Gun writers range widely. Our own Mr. K is a good one, for example. But some of them get out of their lane, so to speak, and try to write about things they don't understand. It's hard to believe some pieces make it past any editor. Then you meet them in person and are shocked to find yourself interacting with a walking, talking Dunning-Kruger effect.

<insert favorite facepalm graphic>

 

[LOCKHART]

LOL!

 

[Mrvmax]

The John Ross .500's that he had made up by Smith's custom shop, have 1 in 10" twist rifling, compared to stock 1 in 18.5". Kent Lomont hit a 55 gallon drum at 700 yards, in front of about 8 witnesses, 50 times in a row, once he got the range! I've always thought the factory twist was way too slow.

I ordered one of the John Ross guns for a friend. I wanted one but as stupid as it sounds, I don’t like the look of it. I like the look of a full underlug.

 

[LOCKHART]

Ben, I didn't have a damn clue as to what you were talking about until I looked it up. Sounds like the condition just describes LIBERALS to me! LOL!

 

[LOCKHART]

Mrvmax, I'm with you on the looks of the John Ross .500, it just doesn't look right, and it has NO compensator at all! Probably a tough one to shoot.

 

[benenglish]

...NO compensator at all! Probably a tough one to shoot.

The white paper John Ross wrote on the genesis of that revolver said it was intended to be easier to shoot. It trades off increased recoil for decreased blast. I know that sometimes when a gun is loud enough it interferes with my shooting. OTOH, I also know that a compensator can be a Godsend on some pistols.

I think the trade-off in the John Ross .500 are almost certainly worthwhile for a holstered gun used in a working environment. I even agree that it would be an even better gun if S&W had taken the advice of making a short-frame version. The 700 grain bullets wouldn't fit the cylinder any more but the weight savings for a gun carried regularly would have been significant.

I'm beginning to hate this thread. It makes me wish I had gotten one of those John Ross .500s and there's no way that will ever happen. I can't imagine what they cost on the secondary market now. ATM, Gunbroker has a serial-number-matched pair for a minimum bid of USD$6K!

 

[benenglish]

I don’t like the look of it.

it just doesn't look right

I don't think they look too bad. Like all X-frames, they look like the frame and cylinder are out of proportion with the barrel and grip. Once you accept that, though, I find them sorta trim and lacking tacky add-ons.

To each his own.

 

[LOCKHART]

Just got back from lone Star rifle range. Took my Oehler 33 chrono to finally chrono my SR-4759 .500 Smith load. The 415 grain load is averaging 1036 fps, with extreme spread of 56 fps. Recoil is 20 ft. Lbs. Taylor Knock out is 30.1. I shot the tightest group I've ever shot at 25 yards, with all shots touching! This will definitely go through any hog or whitetail. I'm pleased as punch!