jdoc
.327 Meteor
Posts: 727 
|
Post by jdoc on Jul 12, 2016 9:14:04 GMT -5
I saw those. Was just wishing thier guns could be retro fitted with Ruger grip frame parts. You can use all kinds of Ruger parts. Just have to start with the predecessor, DMax. They bolt right on. |
|
|
|
Post by 2 Dogs on Jul 12, 2016 9:16:20 GMT -5
I saw those. Was just wishing thier guns could be retro fitted with Ruger grip frame parts. You can use all kinds of Ruger parts. Just have to start with the predecessor, DMax. They bolt right on. I have never come across one for sale. Were they available in 475?? |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jul 12, 2016 9:19:28 GMT -5
No, they never made a .475. They did make a long frame in .45/70 (the original BFR), and short framed revolvers that in essence are Rugers in that you can use many of the Ruger parts on them to include grip frames. I picked one up recently in .454 Casull.
|
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Jul 12, 2016 9:26:48 GMT -5
OK, my brain is working (too much) over this post. 50-110, that's a .510 caliber, yes? what powder do you intend using, given excessive case capacity? What bullet weight range do you plan on using? Is he just rebarreling and punching out your existing cylinder? And does he have the ability to replace the cylinder? Now I'm thinking about something like a 50-xxx and a 500 linebaugh in the same long frame BFR. That sounds fabulous, but is tricky based on the need for dual cylinders if I don't currently have a dual.... Magnum Research will not build a .510 of any sort. That said, it will be a custom proposition only. I would not recommend doing a .500 Linebaugh on a long cylinder gun -- the short cylindered BFR yes, but not the long one. I used to have a D-Max (the predecessor of the current BFR) in .50 Alaskan and it was WAY TOO MUCH of a good thing. The current BFR is considerably heavier and a better platform for such big cartridges. Why not a 500 linebaugh on a long cylinder, especially if it's a dual cylinder gun with a 50-XXx of some kind? If there is anything my 460 taught me, it's that a huge jump (from a <2" cartridge in a 3" cylinder) doesn't affect accuracy at at least 100 yards... The 500 linebaugh would allow for interesting bullet combinations and for potentially cheaper brass than an alternative (I haven't priced starline linebaugh vs 50-70 or 50-90 or 50-110, but I'm assuming for now it's a bit cheaper...) |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jul 12, 2016 10:04:51 GMT -5
I could never get the .460 XVR to shoot short ammo (.45 Colt and .454 Casull) accurately at all. The jump was too great in my opinion. Same thing will apply to the .500 Linebaugh in that long cylinder -- which is even longer than the Smith X-frame. You can always download the bigger rounds which makes more sense to me, then having a dedicated cylinder chambered in the smaller round. I just have trouble understanding the motive behind such a build. My .50 Alaskan didn't like the shorter rounds either, but the problem is easily solved by using the bigger cases. JMHO.
You can readily buy .50 Alaskan brass. Many of us have used it to make .500 Maximum brass.
|
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Jul 12, 2016 18:28:59 GMT -5
Actually, I disagree with that. The reason being, 45 colt in a 460 chamber has two jumps to make. One in the 460 chamber where the bullet will be all kinds of loosey goosey flopping around before it hits the proper throat. The second is in the throat which should be of the appropriate geometry. It's that appropriate geometry I was referring to when I dismissed bullet jump to the forcing cone.
Heck, if that were true, wadcutter ammo would be inherently inaccurate in all cases! But we know that is fundamentally not true (internal ballistics) even though the jump to the lands is great, because that jump is in the throat. Unlike a 45 colt or 454 in a 460 chamber, with that case-diameter size portion the bullet has to move through.
I have evidence to show the 460 is plenty accurate in a BFR at 100 yards at least, and the bullet jumps from ~1.9" full bore diameter length, all the way to the end of a 3" cylinder before it engages the forcing cone! Huge jump, but it is all in the cylinder throat. By my standards, plenty accurate at 100...
Thus, I imagine that a 500 linebaugh, in a 500 linebaugh chamber, with a good throat, should be OK. Even if a bit wasteful in theory via gun size and bulk. As long as we are not talking about shooting a 500 linebaugh in a 50 alaskan chamber!
|
|
|
|
Post by Encore64 on Jul 12, 2016 18:34:43 GMT -5
Actually, I disagree with that. The reason being, 45 colt in a 460 chamber has two jumps to make. One in the 460 chamber where the bullet will be all kinds of loosey goosey flopping around before it hits the proper throat. The second is in the throat which should be of the appropriate geometry. It's that appropriate geometry I was referring to when I dismissed bullet jump to the forcing cone. Heck, if that were true, wadcutter ammo would be inherently inaccurate in all cases! But we know that is fundamentally not true (internal ballistics) even though the jump to the lands is great, because that jump is in the throat. Unlike a 45 colt or 454 in a 460 chamber, with that case-diameter size portion the bullet has to move through. I have evidence to show the 460 is plenty accurate in a BFR at 100 yards at least, and the bullet jumps from ~1.9" full bore diameter length, all the way to the end of a 3" cylinder before it engages the forcing cone! Huge jump, but it is all in the cylinder throat. By my standards, plenty accurate at 100... Thus, I imagine that a 500 linebaugh, in a 500 linebaugh chamber, with a good throat, should be OK. Even if a bit wasteful in theory via gun size and bulk. As long as we are not talking about shooting a 500 linebaugh in a 50 alaskan chamber! I agree completely. Most experienced shoot will tell you the same about the 45 acp Blackhawks. They shoot great. The new RedHawks are a different story. They are held in a long Colt chamber by a clip. Not so great. |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jul 12, 2016 18:37:39 GMT -5
Actually, I disagree with that. The reason being, 45 colt in a 460 chamber has two jumps to make. One in the 460 chamber where the bullet will be all kinds of loosey goosey flopping around before it hits the proper throat. The second is in the throat which should be of the appropriate geometry. It's that appropriate geometry I was referring to when I dismissed bullet jump to the forcing cone. Heck, if that were true, wadcutter ammo would be inherently inaccurate in all cases! But we know that is fundamentally not true (internal ballistics) even though the jump to the lands is great, because that jump is in the throat. Unlike a 45 colt or 454 in a 460 chamber, with that case-diameter size portion the bullet has to move through. I have evidence to show the 460 is plenty accurate in a BFR at 100 yards at least, and the bullet jumps from ~1.9" full bore diameter length, all the way to the end of a 3" cylinder before it engages the forcing cone! Huge jump, but it is all in the cylinder throat. By my standards, plenty accurate at 100... Thus, I imagine that a 500 linebaugh, in a 500 linebaugh chamber, with a good throat, should be OK. Even if a bit wasteful in theory via gun size and bulk. As long as we are not talking about shooting a 500 linebaugh in a 50 alaskan chamber! My experience differs from yours significantly. I tested quite thoroughly a number of years ago and was unimpressed with the accuracy I experienced shooting the shorter rounds through the XVR. On this we will have to agree to disagree. And let me ask what you consider acceptable accuracy? Just curious, because no matter how hard I tried, the XVR just wasn't getting it done yet it was accurate with .460 ammo. |
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Jul 12, 2016 22:28:54 GMT -5
Whitworth, I think we need to re-clarify our positions before agreeing to disagree. On the idea that running a shorter case in a long chamber will likely negatively impact accuracy, I am in 100% agreement with you. Where I differ is the key point that, if the bullet ONLY engages with the throat, then jump is a non-issue. If we define jump as the distance the bullet travels between the brass case and the cylinder throat, then I am with you 100%. Do you not agree that a large jump is a non issue as long as the bullet travel is ALWAYS in the cylinder throat? It's a BIG distinction from running a 45 colt case in a 460 gun! 45 colt in a 460 chamber means the bullet goes wishy-washy on the way to the throat!To define what I believe is acceptable accuracy, this is one of my 100 yard targets:  This is me on a good day. I, personally, consider this very great accuracy at 100 yards. |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jul 13, 2016 7:44:49 GMT -5
We're not missing each other here. These are two separate issues or situations, definitely. My concern is that the bullet of a .500 Linebaugh, chambered in a 3-inch cylinder (a dedicated cylinder) still has a lot of ground to cover before making contact with the rifling. Now, it might make for an interesting test. I simply don't know how it will affect the bullet. I for one have not experimented with this, and don't really see a need to as I think it is more logical (and more economical) to simply load the larger case down. But, that's neither here nor there. Just for edification, these two pictures of BFRs will illustrate the cylinder length differences. The top photo is a standard (standard for a BFR) length cylinder for a 1.4-inch case, and the bottom photo is the stretch framed BFR.   |
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Jul 13, 2016 8:49:16 GMT -5
What is interesting, is that the 460 case is only 1.8 inches long. The 500 S&W case is only 1.625" long. Therefore, we compare a 1.4" case to a 1.625" case, and we are looking effectively at the difference between a linebaugh (or JRH) and the 500 S&W.
And yet, the 500 S&W is OK in a 3" cylinder, but cut the length down by .225", and we feel the need to cut the cylinder down by 1.1 inches? That's the difference from JRH to the 500 S&W.
I get the mentality of "no need to test", but when I look at it from a simple numbers perspective, I cannot see why not. Not if there's already a long frame BFR in the works, seems like a new cylinder would not be unreasonable, if a little ridiculous.
You have to admit, it would make for interesting bullet choices. For example, using m33 ball, which would fit in a linebaugh case in the crimp groove and still fit in a 3" cylinder. Could be loaded in a longer case, but there would be lots of case past the ogive, so it might look a little weird... But I don't think money can buy a cheaper .510 cal jacketed bullet than m33 ball, so it's still a compelling idea...
|
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jul 13, 2016 8:59:17 GMT -5
What is interesting, is that the 460 case is only 1.8 inches long. The 500 S&W case is only 1.625" long. Therefore, we compare a 1.4" case to a 1.625" case, and we are looking effectively at the difference between a linebaugh (or JRH) and the 500 S&W. And yet, the 500 S&W is OK in a 3" cylinder, but cut the length down by .225", and we feel the need to cut the cylinder down by 1.1 inches? That's the difference from JRH to the 500 S&W. I get the mentality of "no need to test", but when I look at it from a simple numbers perspective, I cannot see why not. Not if there's already a long frame BFR in the works, seems like a new cylinder would not be unreasonable, if a little ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Thunderjet on Jul 13, 2016 10:44:32 GMT -5
My choice would be a 30-30
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Jul 13, 2016 14:57:25 GMT -5
What is interesting, is that the 460 case is only 1.8 inches long. The 500 S&W case is only 1.625" long. Therefore, we compare a 1.4" case to a 1.625" case, and we are looking effectively at the difference between a linebaugh (or JRH) and the 500 S&W. And yet, the 500 S&W is OK in a 3" cylinder, but cut the length down by .225", and we feel the need to cut the cylinder down by 1.1 inches? That's the difference from JRH to the 500 S&W. I get the mentality of "no need to test", but when I look at it from a simple numbers perspective, I cannot see why not. Not if there's already a long frame BFR in the works, seems like a new cylinder would not be unreasonable, if a little ridiculous. You have to admit, it would make for interesting bullet choices. For example, using m33 ball, which would fit in a linebaugh case in the crimp groove and still fit in a 3" cylinder. Could be loaded in a longer case, but there would be lots of case past the ogive, so it might look a little weird... But I don't think money can buy a cheaper .510 cal jacketed bullet than m33 ball, so it's still a compelling idea... Some interesting points. Now you have me thinking about a dedicated cylinder in 500 Linebaugh for my 50-110. |
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Jul 13, 2016 17:16:47 GMT -5
yeah right. you have ME thinking about trying to "stumble" upon a 45/70-450 marlin combo gun so I can have a smith bore 2x cylinders and replace a barrel!  (BTW I have shot 740 grain bullets in the 460, so m33 ball doesn't phase me a bit. Now, my 850 grain .510 cal mold, that does kinda terrify me in a revolver! But at 900 fps, shouldn;t be too much of a bear to shoot...  By the way, I do have to wonder what it would look like to push an m33 ball (forwards or backwards) into a 50-110 case until OAL was 2.95". No crimp of course but I imagine the loaded round would look ridiculous. No linebaugh brass needed, assuming the taper was light enough not to stop the cartridge from chambering. Loaded with 4198 I imagine it would be quite mild to shoot. Might save the cost of a new cylinder... |
|
