|
|
Post by Mark Terry on Jan 6, 2013 22:40:00 GMT -5
I agree.  |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jan 6, 2013 23:00:14 GMT -5
Very nice, Mark!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Terry on Jan 6, 2013 23:46:01 GMT -5
It is, after all, your fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Jan 7, 2013 0:34:39 GMT -5
I'd be on a 4" .480 like a duck on a junebug!
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunderjet on Jan 7, 2013 2:15:36 GMT -5
There is already a 4 inch S&W 500 so the Ruger would be competing with it. Granted, the Ruger would weigh less but the S&W has the edge on power. Not very important to a lot of people but for an Alaskan packing fisherman I'll keep my 4 in S&W 500.
Still, I am intriqued by the Alaskan and think I'll pick one up when they are in the pipeline and prices have stabilized.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jan 7, 2013 7:04:37 GMT -5
There is already a 4 inch S&W 500 so the Ruger would be competing with it. Granted, the Ruger would weigh less but the S&W has the edge on power. Not very important to a lot of people but for an Alaskan packing fisherman I'll keep my 4 in S&W 500. Still, I am intriqued by the Alaskan and think I'll pick one up when they are in the pipeline and prices have stabilized. True, but then you are stuck with Smith & Wesson's .460 or .500. Personally, for a packing gun, I think the shorter cased rounds are a better choice. For protection I would opt for a properly loaded .45 Colt over a .460. I don't think you gain much going to a 1.8-inch case and the subsequent muzzle blast and fireball from the increased payload. I just think the S&W cartridges are too much of a good thing. I would love to see a 4 or 5-inch SRH, personally. |
|
|
|
Post by hammerdown77 on Jan 7, 2013 7:45:57 GMT -5
And as beefy as it is, the SRH is like a J frame compared to the Smith X frame guns...
|
|
|
|
Post by tek4260 on Jan 7, 2013 9:59:18 GMT -5
And as beefy as it is, the SRH is like a J frame compared to the Smith X frame guns... Which is a good thing  |
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Jan 7, 2013 11:42:30 GMT -5
Despite its looks, the SRH is much lighter and easier to pack than an X-frame. A big 420-430gr LBT at 1100-1200fps is all you need. The .500S&W is a lot of wasted powder and pressure. You don't need blistering velocity, you need a big heavy bullet. A .480 SRH weighs an ounce less than a Bisley Hunter .44. They're not really as heavy as they look. Of course, I've been playing with and carrying a 66oz Dragoon for the past year so everything seems small to me......except an X-frame. I'd like to see Ruger offer this. An SRH with the frame extension removed and a 4" standard Redhawk barrel. This sixgun in a 5-shot .480 or .500JRH would be one of the finest big bore packin' pistols ever devised.  |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jan 7, 2013 13:25:31 GMT -5
Despite its looks, the SRH is much lighter and easier to pack than an X-frame. A big 420-430gr LBT at 1100-1200fps is all you need. The .500S&W is a lot of wasted powder and pressure. You don't need blistering velocity, you need a big heavy bullet. A .480 SRH weighs an ounce less than a Bisley Hunter .44. They're not really as heavy as they look. Of course, I've been playing with and carrying a 66oz Dragoon for the past year so everything seems small to me......except an X-frame. I'd like to see Ruger offer this. An SRH with the frame extension removed and a 4" standard Redhawk barrel. This sixgun in a 5-shot .480 or .500JRH would be one of the finest big bore packin' pistols ever devised. I agree completely. And yes, that would be one fine factory offering! |
|
|
|
Post by Seasons44 on Jan 7, 2013 14:35:53 GMT -5
Great looking 480's all around...
|
|
|
|
Post by skipper49 on Jan 9, 2013 13:21:14 GMT -5
Despite its looks, the SRH is much lighter and easier to pack than an X-frame. A big 420-430gr LBT at 1100-1200fps is all you need. The .500S&W is a lot of wasted powder and pressure. You don't need blistering velocity, you need a big heavy bullet. A .480 SRH weighs an ounce less than a Bisley Hunter .44. They're not really as heavy as they look. Of course, I've been playing with and carrying a 66oz Dragoon for the past year so everything seems small to me......except an X-frame. I'd like to see Ruger offer this. An SRH with the frame extension removed and a 4" standard Redhawk barrel. This sixgun in a 5-shot .480 or .500JRH would be one of the finest big bore packin' pistols ever devised. I'd sure sell whatever I needed to, to have that. What a perfect package. The .480 is just right for this. |
|
|
|
Post by 98redline on Jan 9, 2013 14:09:37 GMT -5
I'd sure sell whatever I needed to, to have that. Up to and including a kidney |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Jan 9, 2013 14:26:59 GMT -5
I'd sure sell whatever I needed to, to have that. Up to and including a kidney Does a person really "need" two kidneys?? ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bigbores on Jan 9, 2013 16:15:43 GMT -5
They really need to market the .480 to eat into S&W's X-frame sales. As ugly as the SRH is, it's better looking and much more practical than those things. The problem is that it came out at an unfortunate time, between the .500 Smith and the .460. The .480 couldn't brag at being the most "powerful" nor the fastest, combined with the rather milquetoast loads that were initially offered. The public likes getting dazzled with BS, meanwhile, guys like you and me saw the .480 for what it really was and what it could be. +1 I think the 480Ruger has got a uphill battle. Anyone looking for a backup/fishing gun in Alaska who doesn't know first hand what a 400+grain hard cast bullet @1000 to 1200FPS is capable of will op for the more powerful 500S&W. Same for the guy just wanting the biggest and baddest. Then there are guys that post here, we are just as likely have a nice custom Bisley made up rather than carry big SRH. I really like the SRH when chambered in 480Ruger but I don't think it will ever be a great seller'...Hope I'm wrong. |
|
