The "novelty" caliber .. .500 magnum

[jdk1]

Indeed, the design isn't made for mass-manufactured reliability.
However it is the only handgun design I can think of offhand, with the exception of S&W revolvers, that is made by literally DOZENS of manufacturers. So comparing "the 1911" in general to "the Glock", for instance, isn't apples and oranges.

It's apples and cherries and pears and watermelons and lemons (haha) vs. oranges.

for instance, S&W revolvers vs. Taurus knock-offs....

More like 110 year old apples to modern apples I used Glock just because it's the perfect example of a modern firearm. From a production standpoint it's like legos. The complete armorer class is 1 day and that's almost overkill. It's so simple monkeys could build them and they are excellent in accuracy and reliability. They could be made, and made well, anywhere the technology exists and by any factory, but for legal issues. No hand fitting required. It's a simple design using simple and cheap materials. 1911s can be cranked out on 100 year old technology and function OK ish. That does add value to the design, but I don't believe it's really as much of an issue now as it was even 50 years ago. They were both state of the art handguns and each has it's place. But I don't believe MOST 1911s are made today for serious work. There are exceptions, for sure. Honestly, I think the 1911 has been knocked off the throne numerous time. Browning himself, along with Saive (sp?) pretty much did it in the1930s with the High Power. The CZ-75 followed, along with some really good S&W automatics in the early days. Notice the problem with all of these: they're all 9mms. I no longer feel that's a problem, but back in the day or limited to ball ammo, I would feel different. That issue alone likely kept the 1911 in holsters longer than it probably should've been. It's an interesting topic.

As we're getting all historical, I'm reminded of a most excellent article written by Skeeter Skelton. Being a .44 fan, he surprised many by stating if limited to one handgun it would be an S&W model 27 with 5" barrel. He laid out a strong argument for this type of .38/.357 combo being the best all-arounder. I can't argue against his choice even today. That's part of why that 4" model 28 is locked away for safe keeping Take care.

 

[orca8589]

...I think the 1911 has been knocked off the throne numerous time. Browning himself, along with Saive (sp?) pretty much did it in the1930s with the High Power.

***

As we're getting all historical, I'm reminded of a most excellent article written by Skeeter Skelton. Being a .44 fan, he surprised many by stating if limited to one handgun it would be an S&W model 27 with 5" barrel. He laid out a strong argument for this type of .38/.357 combo being the best all-arounder. I can't argue against his choice even today. That's part of why that 4" model 28 is locked away for safe keeping Take care.

I've read twice where Browning considered his P-35 Hi-Power design to be a much better design than the 1911 Colt pistol. Apparently he was able to make some changes and improvements that came to mind after the 1911 had been in production for a while. I've also read - I can't remember where - that his intention with the 1911 model was that it only be used with ball ammo.

I only own a .44, and I love it, but if it came down to only owning one pistol, it would be a .38/.357 caliber pistol. I know my wife & son can shoot the smaller caliber comfortably. I've been thinking about trading my .44 for a .38/.357; this thread reminds me that I need to get it done.

~Chris

 

[daizee]

More like 110 year old apples to modern apples I used Glock just because it's the perfect example of a modern firearm. From a production standpoint it's like legos. The complete armorer class is 1 day and that's almost overkill.

I should have said "modern mass-manufactured reliability". Of course the 1911 had to pass its own field tests back in the day, and certainly well-controlled batches of them are still in service in both law enforcement and the military.

One way in which the 1911 excels, unlike the .500 platform or Glock, is ergos, and I suspect that largely accounts for its ongoing relative popularity. Of course you can get a 1911 in many calibers between 9mm and .45 (sounds likea small set, but it's not!). In the various arenas where high capacity is not a practical advanatage, the single-stack designs have a huge role to play. There aren't that many of them available in full-size pistols that are so recognizeable.

I'm a big fan of the .38/.357 full-size revolver for similar reasons: great ergos, manageable power, moderate size, springs at rest, etc.. But there are only two brands I'd choose from the large field, dramatically reducing the set worth comparing. I think it would be great if it were possible to see a graphical depiction of 1911 reliability by brand, but there's probably no way of collecting such data.

 

[jdk1]

Orca, if limited to one, the .38/.357 combo is hard to beat. If not limited, have both. I love the .44 magnum/special. It is also a great combo.

Daizee, the 1911 has a special feel for sure. Though I must say it can't compare to the High-power. That gun fits like a glove! What the 1911 offered was a good gun in a great caliber which could be shot well enough by most people. I think that was ground breaking at the time and it offers the same still today. High capacity .45s are just too big and most of us want more than 7-8 rounds. That's where my affinity for the .40 S&W comes in. A slew of big bore slugs which would fit into a 9mm gun. That was genius!

All of this has reminded me of a revolver which came out quite a few years ago. it was made in Conroe, Texas IIRC and could chamber and fire almost anything in the 9mm/.38 size. It used a strange spring loaded extractor system. The idea being you could shoot .38 specials in the US and 9mm in other parts. Cool idea, but I don't know what became of it. Maybe it was called "Medusa"? Anyway, it was neat. Take care.

 

[daizee]

High capacity .45s are just too big and most of us want more than 7-8 rounds. That's where my affinity for the .40 S&W comes in. A slew of big bore slugs which would fit into a 9mm gun. That was genius!

hi-cap 9's and .40's have the same bloat problem.
And .40 is also a worst-of-both-worlds solution. It's a high-pressure round in a small case with no room for error, so it has the nasty snap & crack of the 9mm, without the full diameter of the .45. If I WANTED a .40 (ballistics are excellent), I'd probably get one in a single-stack platform anyway.

All of this has reminded me of a revolver which came out quite a few years ago. it was made in Conroe, Texas IIRC and could chamber and fire almost anything in the 9mm/.38 size. It used a strange spring loaded extractor system. The idea being you could shoot .38 specials in the US and 9mm in other parts. Cool idea, but I don't know what became of it. Maybe it was called "Medusa"? Anyway, it was neat. Take care.

Ah yes, I recall that one.
Too bad 9mm (.355") bullets shoot like crap in a .357 bore.
I like a strong, modern, single-action .45 revolver for this reason: swap out the Colt cylinder for a .45acp. That way you can get modern factory ammo, cheap or fancy, and handload whatever you want in .45Colt cases up to .44mag energy levels with less chamber pressure.

Back towards the original topic, one thing the .500 does offer as a revolver (and there are SO MANY big bore revolver choices) is handloading versatility. You can lob 750fps softballs with huge slugs or monsters at supersonic speeds if you can handle it. I'd take up bullet casting if I had one of these.

Personally I prefer subsonic handgun ammo. 158-180gr in .357 cases at 1000fps is my fav - huh, kinda sounds like 180gr .40 numbers but with better downrange ballistics...
If you're gonna restrict your velocity to subsonics, it makes sense to boost diameter, so .41mag, .45Colt, .454 and the exotics like .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, .500 Linebaugh etc. start to make sense. But the .460 S&W and full-power .500's don't appeal to me. Chasing velocity in a handgun is a literal headache. I can't justify an iron-sighted handgun shot past 100yds (even that far is a stretch), so why blast myself to oblivion on the operator-end to do a rifle's job? And of all of those, the only one that easily swaps for affordable factory ammo (defensive ammo too) is the .45acp/.Colt/.454.

-Daizee

 

[jdk1]

Back towards the original topic, one thing the .500 does offer as a revolver (and there are SO MANY big bore revolver choices) is handloading versatility. You can lob 750fps softballs with huge slugs or monsters at supersonic speeds if you can handle it. I'd take up bullet casting if I had one of these. -Daizee

Very true and why I love my Redhawk so much:thumbup:

 

[Psyop]

I have never fired a .500 I would like to see how it compares to my 329PD that one is a real handful with full power rounds. 26ozs of fun

 

[orca8589]

Ah yes, I recall that one.
Too bad 9mm (.355") bullets shoot like crap in a .357 bore.
I like a strong, modern, single-action .45 revolver for this reason: swap out the Colt cylinder for a .45acp. That way you can get modern factory ammo, cheap or fancy, and handload whatever you want in .45Colt cases up to .44mag energy levels with less chamber pressure.

Back towards the original topic, one thing the .500 does offer as a revolver (and there are SO MANY big bore revolver choices) is handloading versatility. You can lob 750fps softballs with huge slugs or monsters at supersonic speeds if you can handle it. I'd take up bullet casting if I had one of these.

Personally I prefer subsonic handgun ammo. 158-180gr in .357 cases at 1000fps is my fav - huh, kinda sounds like 180gr .40 numbers but with better downrange ballistics...
If you're gonna restrict your velocity to subsonics, it makes sense to boost diameter, so .41mag, .45Colt, .454 and the exotics like .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, .500 Linebaugh etc. start to make sense. But the .460 S&W and full-power .500's don't appeal to me. Chasing velocity in a handgun is a literal headache. I can't justify an iron-sighted handgun shot past 100yds (even that far is a stretch), so why blast myself to oblivion on the operator-end to do a rifle's job? And of all of those, the only one that easily swaps for affordable factory ammo (defensive ammo too) is the .45acp/.Colt/.454.

-Daizee

Daizee: one day I'm gonna buy you lunch & we'll talk guns. :thumbup:

The Medusa was KEWL! And expensive, and kind of solved a non-existent problem, but it was KEWL in every since of the word.

Regarding 9mm in a .357 bore: in 1991, I had a Ruger Blackhawk in .357 with the optional 9mm cylinder; I shot 9mm in it one time, and it shot so bad I never shot 9mm in it again. (It put .38 target loads into sub-1" groups at 25 yards. It had to be the gun - I wasn't that good of a shot.)

Subsonic: I have hot hunting loads from Cor-Bon and Garrett, but if I hunt with my Ruger I'll use 260-300 gr. bullets at less than 1,000 fps.

Higher velocity? I leave that to the rifle weinies - of which I'm one, but I enjoy my handguns more. The only reason I's get myself a .460 or .500 is if I seriously got into handloading and casting. The retail ammo cost for those calibers (here in CA) is astronomical. I have enough fun tinkering with my .44, I've never felt the need for something bigger. Although the nostalgia of the .45 Colt is appealing . . .

Very true and why I love my Redhawk so much:thumbup:

Yup. I love the Redhawk, in it's original form. The Super Redhawk is nice, but the original "retro" Redhawk, in blued finish, is on my list. Actually, a Hamilton Bowen Ruger Redhawk "Retro-1917" conversion in .45 Colt is my Grail gun.

~Chris

 

[daizee]

Daizee: one day I'm gonna buy you lunch & we'll talk guns. :thumbup:

...

Regarding 9mm in a .357 bore: in 1991, I had a Ruger Blackhawk in .357 with the optional 9mm cylinder; I shot 9mm in it one time, and it shot so bad I never shot 9mm in it again. (It put .38 target loads into sub-1" groups at 25 yards. It had to be the gun - I wasn't that good of a shot.)

...

I have enough fun tinkering with my .44, I've never felt the need for something bigger. Although the nostalgia of the .45 Colt is appealing . . .

It's a deal.

the .357/9mm blackhawk was exactly what I had in mind for that reference. I have a 50th anniversary model myself and decided not to commission a 9mm cylinder.

I love the idea of a .41mag... such a sweet balance, and I've shot two. A handloader's dream. But it's hard to justify another caliber and have no practical factory ammo fallback.

.38spl is pretty much one of the most enjoyable centerfire plinkers that also can do self-defense double-duty, but these things have different optimal configurations, IMO:

.38spl/.357mag: plinking, target, self-defense
.45acp/.45Colt: self-defense, big game hunting

Not that the .357 isn't a good hunting round within its limits - it's just that you have to push it hard to get there, and that means supersonic. (tho 180gr XTPs@1200fps is bad arse)

And not that the .45 isn't a great target and plinking round, but it wastes nearly twice the bullet metal to put a hole in paper.
(full disclosure: I've shot both .38 and .45acp in NRA bullseye AND IDPA)

-Daizee

 

[paperairplane]

If I read through the thinly veiled comments, I think I may be the poster in question. Regarding the term novel for the 500 SW Mag, I consider it appropriate. Specialty to me would be more of a particular round for a purpose, like a tracer or incendiary.

The 500 has some interesting potential as a large bore, especially for fans of the 444 or 45-70/90/120. In a single shot rifle or TC platform it has a ton of potential.

As a handgun cartridge, the gun is physically large - almost comically so - and massively heavy. Components to reload are very pricey and loaded ammunition is extremely expensive ~ $3/rd for fancy bullets. It is; however, the biggest of the big. It generates massive amounts of ft/lbs, velocity, noise and recoil. Certainly will gather attention at any range or gathering.

It's your hobby and your money - please enjoy what you do. For me, I will stick with my puny .44 Rem Mag Redhawk and my lukewarm handloads. Sure, I will know that out there the .500 owners are trumping me in size, power and velocity - but at least I won't have spinal compression from lugging that boat anchor around on my hip.

 

[daizee]

but at least I won't have spinal compression from lugging that boat anchor around on my hip.

I believe one carries a .500 in a harness rather than on the belt.

 

[Doc_Savage]

I believe one carries a .500 in a harness rather than on the belt.

A radio flyer wagon works well, too.

Doc

 

[jdk1]

The 500 has some interesting potential as a large bore, especially for fans of the 444 or 45-70/90/120. In a single shot rifle or TC platform it has a ton of potential.

This is what would excite me. It would make a cool single shot, but in a short lever gun it would be the shizzz in a place where humans don't own the food chain! I'm sure it's been done already by someone. Take care.

 

[daizee]

This is what would excite me. It would make a cool single shot, but in a short lever gun it would be the shizzz in a place where humans don't own the food chain! I'm sure it's been done already by someone. Take care.

Marlin Guide Gun in .500 FTW!
(Tho I'd be PERFECTLY happy with .45-70...)
I think there's an outfit that customizes those to one of the .500 wildcats like the WE or AE or something.

 

[jdk1]

45-70 = long, tapered case. Short and strait walled = short action and no lube (carbide dies)! Would be a thumper! To make this Becker related, I'd say that'd be the BK2 of the rifle world

 

[daizee]

45-70 = long, tapered case. Short and strait walled = short action and no lube (carbide dies)! Would be a thumper! To make this Becker related, I'd say that'd be the BK2 of the rifle world

Oooh, good point on the dies/lube.
(do they make one in .45Colt? )

 

[orca8589]

Oooh, good point on the dies/lube.
(do they make one in .45Colt? )

Rossi offers their Model 92 in .454 Casull. IIRC, you can use .45 Colt in the .454 chamber in a pinch, but make sure you clean it well before shooting .454 in it again.

The nice thing about the Rossi is that with the .454 being shorter than the .45-70, you can have 10 (+1 chambered) shots compared to a .45-70 with 5 or 6 (+1 chambered) shots. Load the magazine to capacity, and I don't think you'd need to carry any extra ammo.

~Chris

 

[Saymon]

Great machine!!!Unfortunately in my country magnum calibers are banned :grumpy:

 

[daizee]

that's too bad. what's a 'magnum'? just a marketing term.

here's my S&W .500 Alternative: http://www.wildwestguns.com/copilot.html
Hey, they'd do that to my .30-30... or my friend's .357 marlin!! dang, that would be awesome. I like my 20" barrel tho.