I was wondering about the differences between hunting with a .460 Smith & Wesson verses the .500 Smith & Wesson. Is there really a lot of killing power between the two pistols?

For all you "big bore" Pistol Hunters! Thanks Tonk

My guess is the .460 would have the range and penetration advantage due to superior sectional density.

I agree with you. Similar results were garnered with the .475 and .500 Linebaugh rounds.

Sectional density would be absolutely dependent on what bullet is being used. One of the "standard" loads in .460 is a 200 grain bullet and it has particularly poor sectional density and also penetrates poorly. I have hunted with the .460 loaded with 395 grainers and even though they worked well, it's still no .50 cal. I have a number of .50 caliber handguns and a number of .45 caliber handguns, and I prefer the bigger hole produced by the .500s, but that's just me. The .460 was meant for reaching out and touching something at a longer range, and it works well at that task with the lighter bullets on lighter game. So, it really depends on what you intend to hunt and how you intend to hunt as to which one is more effective.

Also bullet/load dependent. I have .500 Linebaugh loads that will out penetrate my .475 Linebaugh loads, and vice versa. Nose profile is a much bigger and better determinent of penetrative ability than sectional density.

I just remember a test that Ross Seyfried (I believe) did, and determined with what he had at hand, the .475 out penetrated. I think his gist was that all being equal, i.e., sectional density, bullet profile,and velocity, the .475 would penetrate more. How much more, I can't remember.

I'm sure component choices could be made to favor either caliber.

Both will knock the snot out of big animals.

Amen to that! In the past (particularly at the Linebaugh Seminars) the .475 has often ended up on top with regards to penetration. The .475 has no flies on it, that's for sure!

If I were to go bigger than my .44 Magnum, The .475 would most likely be my choice.

At that level of power, I'd worry alot more about which gun you could shoot best. I've shot both. To me, the .460 has all I can handle.
Nobody i know of that ever hunted a .454 Casul has every complained that it lacked power on deer or elk. E

I think you'll be danged hardpressed to find an animal where the 500 lacks penetration, and bigger holes are always better.

Then again IMHO Ruger came out with the perfect big bore hunting handgun with the 480.

458 Lott.... You the man


+1

I've been fortunate to have had the opportunity to shoot many different configurations of 454, 475 and 500, as well as one of the first 480 srh's that came out of the factory. After shooting the 480, I had my own within a few months. In the nearly 8 years since, I've yet to want for more handgun. I would like to get a second one and cut it down to 5".

But aside from that, if 400gr @ 1200 fps isn't enough, it's time for a rifle.

And it is arguably the most powerful six shot revolver made, too.

The same kind of thing happened to em

My son bought one and after shooting and loading for his I bought one but mine has the 7.5 inch barrel.

The 9.5 inch barrel was just too long for me.


Hard to see why it did not make it in the market

The 500 is more powerful the 460 shoots flatter, would a Big Game animal know which it was shot with probably not. The bullet used would be the determining factor on which would be the best for the game you are hunting, no matter which cal use choose to hunt with. My pick would be the 500 if I'm going to carry a pistol that is as heavy as these two.

Actually, stepping up from a .45 to a .500 is a pretty significant step.

I too would choose the .500 over the .460 if I am going to be lugging around that humongous X-frame.

The predecessor to the .45-70 was the .50-70-450 cartridge, adopted in 1866 and used until 1873 in a variety of rifles. The .50-70 was popular among hunters, as the bigger .50 caliber bullet hit harder but the military decided even as early as 1866 that a .45 caliber bullet would provide increased range, penetration and accuracy. The .50-70 was nevertheless adopted as a temporary solution until a significantly improved rifle and cartridge could be developed. The result of the quest for a more accurate, flatter shooting .45 caliber cartridge was the 45-70.

After the Sandy Hook tests of 1879, a new variation of the .45-70 cartridge was produced, the .45-70-500, which fired a heavier 500 grain (32.5 g) bullet. The heavier 500-grain (32 g) bullet produced significantly superior ballistics, and could reach ranges of 3,350 yards (3,120 m), which were beyond the maximum range of the .45-70-405. While the effective range of the .45-70 on individual targets was limited to about 1,000 yards (915 m) with either load, the heavier bullet would produce lethal injuries at 3,500 yards (3,200 m). At those ranges, the bullets struck point-first at roughly a 30 degree angle, penetrating 3 one inch (2.5 cm) thick oak boards, and then traveling to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) into the sand of the Sandy Hook beach*. It was hoped the longer range of the .45-70-500 would allow effective volleyed fire at ranges beyond those normally expected of infantry fire.The .45-70 cartridge is still used by the U.S. military today.

I post this article to both corroborate Whitworth's input and play point/counterpoint. Sometimes bigger is better but not in every case. The military chose to downsize even in 1866 to 45 caliber over the 50's. But, though they chose the smaller caliber they still went with the heavier bullet which nearly tripled their lethal intent afield.

So, as Whitworth stated, the step up from 45 to 50 cailber is significant & likewise the reverse is true as well. It all depends on application I would say.

Nice post and worth quoting...

But

In a handgun your range is limited... and your bullets may not be intended to hold together at high velocities...

so the above analogy may not hold as true


Snake

Did not mean to compare handguns to rifles. Just meant to agree that it is a big step from 45 to 50 caliber especially in a handgun.

I always thought the advantage of the .460 was either A)you intended to take long shots and like the flat trajectory or B)you liked the ability to shoot the 45/454 also.

Espcially if you planned to shoot factory ammo the 2nd characteristic is a pretty nice bonus. (anybody got any feedback on how well a .460 shoots the other cartridges accuracy wise?) In the end I went with the .500 as I ran across a good deal on one and, as others have stated, if I'm hauling around an X-Frame it might as well be the big dog.

And, if you can't run with the big dogs you better stay on the porch.

To the OP. Like others have said, with the proper bullet either one will give you more than enough penetration. Neither package fit's the three p concept for me though, so I would be more apt to go a different direction.