Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska 500 Smith&Wesson to carry in AK?

I have absolutely no experience with big bears but have used the 240 gr XTP's over 150 grs of P pyrodex back in the day in an old Knight MK-85 muzzle loader, must have been pushing that bullet to over 2K.

It knocked some really nice big and deep odd shot angle holes in a lot of deer and pigs, only remember recovering one or two at most, figured at a more sedate 1200 from a revolver would allow it to retain more of it's integrity, enough I'd hope, to at least turn or kill a bear.

A heavy WFNGC cast bullet would surely penetrate more, just hoping it would impart enough trauma/pain to convince the bear to go elsewhere and let go of my face.

On something like a bear, I"ll take penetration every time.

I don't think you can shock a bear best I can tell. For the most part I"d expect it to be like shooting a druggie thats high... CNS or go home or you have to wait till they bleed out and thats not alwyas good..

Re the glock, watching Carolyn punch numerous holes in a chrome bumper the 10mm impresses me. That with hard plated 180s only... it destroyed a few other things in an old truck that was shot to hell already in AK a few years ago. Sure my 329PD would do the same, but the extra rounds and controllability were nice

I have the Smith 500 and I personally don't think the recoil is all that bad, but it is heavy and when hunting I usually carry my Freedom Arms 454 or Smith 629 because they are so much easier to pack. If you can handle the weight and the recoil then by all means use the 500 the 5 inch would be the one to buy. Your choice of holster will make all the difference in carrying this heavy pistol for any extended period of time.

You will only get one shot. Better make it count.

Don't let Whitworth's prejudice against the 500 sway you. You've already got the 4" 500 and it's really not much heavier than his Toklat suggestion. You're going to notice carrying either one. The difference is negligible with a good holster. And that extra 12 oz will let you send a heavier wider bullet as fast or faster with similar recoil.

With that said, your best bear gun is the rifle your partner has, and his is your's.

If one is handgun hunting, I'd take the one I was most accurate with.

Due to recoil or time constraints... yes i know both are somewhat the same.


Would be interesting to know the thinking, if its time, then 16 rounds of 10mm are worthless, and you would be better with the biggest round you can get....

Didn't Phil get 6 rounds off at some insane close distance like under 10 steps?

Several years ago at SHOT I watched Phil shooting the running boar target at the Blaser booth...

Would not want to be a thing if he was shooting at it!

My prejudice? Really? I would suggest that if a revolver is to play the role of backup, it doesn't need to weigh 4 1/2-lbs. If that is "prejudice" than so be it.

Whitworth, what do you consider using false information to discount a fine option?

The OP's 4" 500 weighs 56 oz, or 3.5 lbs. Your suggested revolver that he go out and spend ~$1,000 getting set up instead weighs 47 oz, or just under 3 lbs. That makes his revolver much more similar to your suggestion than what you assume it to be (4.5 lbs).

I wouldn't consider saving 9 oz to be a game changing difference compared to saving the money. Then there's the fact that the 9 oz heavier revolver opens the door to better performance.

But, if we go along with the "it's just a backup gun" and worthwhile to shop for a new revolver to save weight idea, we'd see lot's of steel 44 mag options in 37-40 oz range, and then the titanium and/or scandium 44's in the mid 20's oz range. Or, like others have noted, there's a good argument for his Glock 20.

It's all up to the OP to reason his best decision. Our best contribution is to give accurate facts for him to use.

As the AK guys said while hunting your rifle is best. I packed a pistol some but when slogging through muskeg it would slow me down and make my hips hurt. Good for the tent or late night latrine visits but otherwise just a boat anchor. If you do bring it definitely a shoulder holster is the way to go.

A shotgun with slugs and 00 buck is better in the tent or at night. Also much better for Ptarmigan and Snowshoes.

Make sure you don't have a layover in Canada as the pistol will be a pain to clear.

The question was what do people think of the 500, and most responded too big and heavy as a backup gun. If you have one and like it, great. Many of us have concluded, it's too much of a good thing. I've personally concluded if a revolver needs to be that heavy and requires a muzzle brake to be shootable, I'm not interested. I've shot and carried most configurations of 44, 45, 475, 480 and 500's in SA and DA. I've concluded a 4-5" DA in a 44, 45, 454 or 480 has the best balance of packability, shootability and power. There are certainly lighter guns, easier guns to shoot, and more powerful guns. But they all make compromises to gain in one area and give up in one or two others.

You're right in that I am not a fan of the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum. I have used them in the field on game and all that recoil, muzzle blast, heavy weight doesn't buy you anything over other .50 cals from a terminal standpoint, negating any "advantage" claimed or otherwise. I have trouble believing the accuracy of some of the weights posted on Smith & Wesson's website, given the overall girth of the .500. My 6 1/2-inch Model 29 weighs 51.2 ounces empty. I have real trouble believing the 4-inch X-frame is only 4 ounces heavier. Seriously. Considering the cylinder of the X-frame is 1.920-inches in diameter, length is 2.3-inches. The frame from the top strap to the midsection of the action bar ahead of the trigger guard is a whopping 2.85-inches, the same measurement the Ruger .454 SRH Toklat is 1.8-inch diameter, cylinder length is 1.750-inches and the same measurement of the frame is 2.650. The Toklat weighs 47 ounces -- 2.93 lbs versus the what 56 for an empty revolver? My .460 XVR weighed 76 ounces empty so I have some trouble believing the posted weights on Smith & Wesson's site. I assume since you are carrying it for bear defense you will probably load heavy hardcast loads and what will that add to it's rather impressive weight. All that girth makes for an unwieldy revolver and rather clumsy. I had a 6 1/2-inch that I let go of a few years ago and have never looked back.

Not to mention the horrendous muzzle blast of a 62,000 PSI round. I know, you will argue that you can load it down which then begs the question, why bother with a .500 Smith if not loading to potential. One could make a similar argument against the .454 Casull, I suppose. A 4-inch Redhawk in .45 Colt would be the cat's meow for the task at hand and they weigh only 46 ounces. There are some really good boutique loads in .45 Colt that I know work well on really big animals, like Garrett's 405 grain RHO (Redhawk Only) load.

Like .458 Lott said, the OP asked us our opinions on the .500 Smith collectively and many have taken a similar position to mine. If that is the only revolver the OP has access to, then by all means he should use it if he can shoot it well. I have had the benefit of using a whole slew of different revolvers and calibers on living and breathing targets, and have drawn my conclusions based on my experiences. Some, I suspect, have decided they like something and no amount of contrary information is going to sway them. So be it.

I'm not suggesting he goes out and buys anything, I'm only suggesting he consider other options as short X-frames are less than optimal in my experience. And having actually shed blood with the .500 Smith, that extra velocity potential isn't buying you much of anything terminally, but it does kick harder.

I disagree on the shotgun in the tent. Unless you have an awful big tent... The handguns lay at our head area at night... shotgun would be a 2 handed struggle while getting out of a sleeping bag... nope.

I'm not against em other wise, though if I"m carrying that much weight, its going to be a centerfire rifle with some extra umph behind it and a GOOD bullet...

The X S&W is too big and bulky for me. Phil stopped a charge with a compact 9mm with the right bullets. No need for such a bulky package.

BINGO!


.

I just brought out my digital cooking scale and weighed a few known weights and the scale looks to be pretty accurate. Then I weighed my John Ross edition 5" 500 in at 57.5 oz. If anything, the 4" is no more than that.

I agree, full pressure 500 loads have questionable advantage over other 50 calibers, and you're right I can make a good argument for loading it down a bit. I personally load my 500 to be to the 475 Linebaugh like what the ruger-only 45 Colt loads is to the 44 Mag. A fatter heavier bullet going still around 1,000 fps with relatively low pressure. The added weight of the platform simply reduces felt recoil. Whether the total weight of the system is prohibitive, is up to the user.

By the way, if I were in the OP's position, I'd base my decision for the backup on his partner situation and the camping, and hunting style. His 500 only represents one end of the spectrum of prudent decisions.

"I disagree on the shotgun in the tent."

We had the really stubby Mossberg Riot guns or alley clearer as we called it. Came real close to using it while still in the bag with a bear 30 feet from me at night. We were camping cold no tent and the only bare ground was a bear trail. Fortunately one of the dogs ran the bear off before I had to shoot. One with a light mounted on it would have been the ticket in that situation. A friend had his 44 drawn and pointed at the bear but he was shaking like Barney Fife I told him don't shoot we may need every bullet we have. If he had gut shot the bear there probably would have been two or three dead fishing guides.

Where did the OP say he already had a 4" 500?

Based on his question, I thought he was asking whether or not to buy a 4" or a 6"?