I experimented a little with those. I think I’ve still got half a box of Cor on 500 S&W Special.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.Ever try the .500 Special?
I can handle a lot of recoil but the 700 grain cast bullet loads are not pleasant to shoot.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.
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.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.
The 1 in 10" twist is supposed to be better for those long, 700-grain projectiles.1 in 10" twist
Somewhat.Those loads DID cause top strap cutting.
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.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.
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....NO compensator at all! Probably a tough one to shoot.
I don’t like the look of it.
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.it just doesn't look right