The raw firepower of Indiana Jones!

IndyFrench · Post by **IndyFrench** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:27 pm

Hey all,

Took my brand new S&W M1917 (the newly manufactured reproduction version) to the range last night. I brought along my vintage S&W .38 Special revolver (I call it my Barney Fife as it looks identical to Don Knott's gun in Andy Griffith) for comparison.

After a few rounds with the .38 to warm up, the first loaded moon clip was dropped into the cylinder of the massive N frame and aim was taken. KABOOM!

Using the hair trigger, I confess I still wasn't properly braced for the raw power of this weapon. Being a Tennessee boy, I've fired pretty much everything short of an M-60 at one time or another, but it's been a LONG time, admittedly.

I understand now why Indy wore those gloves most of the time, as the texture of the grips chafes ones palms between the thumb and index finger when the monster bucks! Also, the size and savage nature of the holes the .45 ACP put though the paper target in direct comparison to the .38 Special rounds was staggering.

I was so stunned, it took me to the fourth round to somewhat tame the beast and peg the bullseye. All I could think of was the Ravenwood Bar fight and that second shot he fires as he runs for the cover of the back door. The kick and the power of the shot. Intense.

Yes, I was wearing ear and eye protection AND my Adventurebilt! Next time I go, which will be soon, I plan to bring the camcorder and post a YouTube video of the Raiders gun in action.

Now if I can just figure out a good way to get these empty cases out of these moon clips without ripping my thumbs off...

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:32 pm

Come on, bro,,it's only a .45 acp.

It's a rather mild round, and that particular revolver weighs a ton. Ya better stay away from a .44 magnum or 454 casull (my favorite large bores ;-) ) . I've got a 3 inch .44 mag, now THAT'S a little more discomfort (to some people), not to mention a Ruger Alaskan with a 2 inch barrel in 454. The kick on that baby has you ending up with the pistol aimed straight up to the sky..LOL

TR

IndyFrench · Post by **IndyFrench** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:40 pm

Like I said, it's been a while since I've shot a few rounds. I fired .44 Magnums and .357s in my youth often. And as I said, there was also the mystique of it being "the Indy gun" when I stepped up to the plate.

Post by **Michaelson** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:22 pm

I've fired a 12 gauge magnum shotgun with 3 inch slugs with one hand, TR.....it's not something I would recommend to any sane person, let me tell you.

Considering the 1917 was NEVER created to be a 'comfortable' shooting gun in the first place, the .45 ACP IS a punishing round in those old Smiths. The trigger guard tends to beat the knuckles pretty hard, even when you're expecting it. Considering it was built to be used in a battlefield situation, I'm sure no one ever paid much attention to that recoil.

It doesn't have the pure raw horsepower of the .44 mag or the .454, that's a plain fact.....but if you factor in the turn of the 20th Century engineering of the grip frame and trigger guard to the human hand...THEN fire a .45 ACP in that thing, the actual weight of the revolver doesn't help much in saving the punishment the hand receives.

They're fun to shoot. You just have to get used to them, as they take no prisoners in the design of the gun.

Regards! Michaelson

Regards! Michaelson

dr. tyree · Post by **dr. tyree** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:57 pm

Congrats on your new iron!

Go to demooner.com and follow the links. For about twenty bucks you can get their demooning tool, it's sort of like reverse pliers and it works great. Makes the whole experience of playing with full moon clips much more fun and easy.

I got mine from MidwayUSA along with two boxes of .45 auto rim and a pack of Cylinder and Slide full moon clips. Enjoy...

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:25 am

Hey, Michaelson, actually those older grips did have a lot of thought put into them. They're a generation away from the classic single action revolvers which are quite anatomically correct and let the gun roll up as it's fired. It's kind of like motocrossing, you don't hang on to the grips with white-knuckled, hang-on-for-your-life death grip, you let the gun (or bike) do what it does. The tighter you hang on, the worse the shock to your hand. It's the rubber hogue grips and the like that really DO help the resonance of the recoil thru the frame. Then the combat grips came on the later N frames,,not a whole lot different, just thicker,girthier, a little more wood between the steel and your hand. I suppose hand size comes into the mix as well, but we don't want to get into all that...... ;-)

I'm sure you already knew all this, boss, but thought I'd mention it. ;-)

I've fired my old SPAS 12 guage with one hand, and yer right, it ain't easy! The pistol grip helped.

It's those old "Witness protection shotguns" and short barreled 12 gauges that just kick your arse! Now there's a grip that doesn't feel good, those 'birds head' or 'chickens head' grips,,with a 12 guage,,ouch.

anyhoo,,that's my 2 sense ;-)

TR

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:25 am

Understood, and from an old single action shooter like me, as you pointed out, grabbing the original 'skinny' wood grip of an original 1917 DA is definitely a different experience. They'll jar your teeth out if you try and shoot them like the naturally rolling SA revolver!

Pistol grip on your shotgun? Wish I had them on the shotgun I fired!

My elbow was sore for a WEEK! That was done when I was younger and didn't know better. When it's cold, I STILL feel some of those events I tried back then.

By the way, why a 2 inch barrel on your .454? That seems to be a HUGE loss of power due to the short length of tube to the amount of powder behind that bullet. Most of your powder is being burned in front of the gun. I'm surprised I don't see the muzzle flash clear over here when you're target shooting!

As a last ditch weapon, the .454 can't be beat, but a 2 inch barrel? Wow! Well, if you miss your target, you'll burn 'em to death with the flame!

Regards! Michaelson

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:02 am

The 1917 is a fighting handgun. It's sole purpose is to keep the shooter alive. Shooter comfort is a non-issue.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:59 am

Considering the 1917 was NEVER created to be a 'comfortable' shooting gun in the first place, the .45 ACP IS a punishing round in those old Smiths. The trigger guard tends to beat the knuckles pretty hard, even when you're expecting it. Considering it was built to be used in a battlefield situation, I'm sure no one ever paid much attention to that recoil.

Yep, that's what I said, but you said it better pigiron!

Regards! Michaelson

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:29 pm

Michaelson wrote:
Considering the 1917 was NEVER created to be a 'comfortable' shooting gun in the first place, the .45 ACP IS a punishing round in those old Smiths. The trigger guard tends to beat the knuckles pretty hard, even when you're expecting it. Considering it was built to be used in a battlefield situation, I'm sure no one ever paid much attention to that recoil.

Yep, that's what I said, but you said it better pigiron!

Regards! Michaelson

The 1917, the 38/44 Heavy Duty, the 1911 and for the modernists the Glock 21, can all be considered good fighting handguns. Naturally, there are many other fine choices, but for me, it's got to be something on a N-frame or a caliber that begins with the number 4.

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:31 pm

As an aside, S&W has reintroduced the Model 27 as part of its Classic line.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:34 pm

They have? Man, shows you how long it's been since I've looked at the S&W catalog! I wasn't aware it had been gone!

Regards! Michaelson

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:28 pm

Michaelson wrote:They have? Man, shows you how long it's been since I've looked at the S&W catalog! I wasn't aware it had been gone!

Regards! Michaelson

If you drive through California and see someone wearing Aldens by the roadside, picking up aluminum cans. That will be me, saving up for the Model 27.

As much as the .45 ACP is a fight stopper, and it most certainly is, the .357 Magnum is just a tad better.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:44 pm

I'll keep an eye out for you, my friend!

HIGH regards! Michaelson

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:09 pm

I'm thinking of picking up one of these:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/Sm ... _large.jpg

It's a model 22, not the exact 1917 replica, but it is 4" barrel instead. I'll post some pics if I get one. Yeah, I know, I'm skimping on the whip and probably going a little overboard on the firepower. No resin props for me though, even though some are quite convincing they are still just props.

IndyFrench · Post by **IndyFrench** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:43 pm

Hey bigrex,

Yeah, I debated between the 1917 and the Model 22 as well. I ultimately decided on the actual 1917 for two reasons - The fact that it IS the 1917, complete with the lanyard swivel and the accurate ejector shroud and, well, because Todd's makes a holster in the Raiders style for the 5.5 inch barrel.

Best of every world!

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:09 pm

You made a good choice IndyFrench, I just already have the 4" holster. I also just recently realized the 4" barrel gun was not a 1917 replica. I also like the smaller gun just as a personal style preference. The full length 1917 does look like a classic western gun but I personally prefer that my Indy gun look somewhat "apart" from the usual western gun. It's true the non-1917 won't look as much like a gun of the time period though. Sort of a trade off either way, they need to produce a 4" converted 1917 reproduction IMHO. Can't wait to see your Youtube production.

Rook · Post by **Rook** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:35 am

I fired a friends old 1911 commander and came to the realization that .45 is NOT the round for me. That same day at the range I got to try out another guys .44 magnum (Ruger blackhawk or redhawk I think...).

I fired 3 rounds and handed it back to him. I'm man enough to admit when I've met my match.

Russ

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:16 am

Texas Raider wrote:Come on, bro,,it's only a .45 acp. It's a rather mild round, and that particular revolver weighs a ton. Ya better stay away from a .44 magnum or 454 casull (my favorite large bores ;-) ) . I've got a 3 inch .44 mag, now THAT'S a little more discomfort (to some people), not to mention a Ruger Alaskan with a 2 inch barrel in 454. The kick on that baby has you ending up with the pistol aimed straight up to the sky..LOL

TR

I kind of think as the 45 ACP as a mid-sized round. A Ruger Alaskan with a 2 inch barrel in 454? Good lord, bet that hurts (both the shooter and the "shootee").

Just for some comparison:
9mm about 115-147 grains
38 special 110-158 grains
357 mag 130-180 grains
40 S&W about 135-180 grains
38 S&W 158-200 grains
45 ACP about 165-230 grains
44 mag about 180-240 grains
454 casul 240-300 grains

Rifle comparisons:
22 long rifle 31-40 grains
7.62x39 mm (ak-47 round) about 123 grains
7.62x54R (mosin nagant, dragunov, etc. round) 150-180 grains
308 Winchester 150-180 grains
300 Winchester magnum 165-200 grains
30-06 Springfield 130-220 grains
50 caliber BMG 647-800 grains

*Grains in proportion to bullet weight helps to determine velocity. Too much velocity can limit accuracy and other factors such as bullet shape can affect penetration.

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:51 pm

Here's some shots of my Smith Model 22

viewtopic.php?t=25267&highlight=

TR

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:55 pm

MAN, that's a pretty thing!

Regards! Michaelson

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:45 pm

By the way, why a 2 inch barrel on your .454? That seems to be a HUGE loss of power due to the short length of tube to the amount of powder behind that bullet. Most of your powder is being burned in front of the gun. I'm surprised I don't see the muzzle flash clear over here when you're target shooting!

Well, it's actually 2.5 inches technically. It's for close quarters protection, although the 454 loses some power in this short barrel it's still awesome! Overall, the average velocity generated by the .454 Casull loads in the 7 1/2-inch barrel is 1742 fps with 1823 ft-lbs energy. In the 2 1/2-inch barrel the average velocity was 1497 fps with 1346 ft-lbs energy. That amounts to a 14.1 percent reduction in average velocity and a 26.2 percent reduction in average energy caused by the 66.6 percent reduction in barrel length. But still 1346 ft-lbs of energy!! OUCH!

Here's a pic-

[img][img]http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7011/454cc7.th.jpg[/img][/img] And here's a pic of some dude touc ... .jpg[/img][/img][/url]

TR

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:47 pm

LORDY!!! THAT'S a TRUE monster!!

Makes my hand hurt just looking at the photo!

Regards! Michaelson

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:49 pm

And trust me, that hearing protection don't help much!

I usually double up,,ear plugs AND muffs!

TR

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:51 pm

Whew, TR! Give me my .44 mag over THAT thing ANY day!!

It may be 'last resort', but I'm wondering if the punishment you get from behind the gun would make it even worth the effort!

Regards! Michaelson

IndyFrench · Post by **IndyFrench** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:07 pm

Yeah - after seeing that pic- classic 45 ACP is fine with me. If it was good enough for our boys in WWII, I have no complaints...

IndigoJuliet · Post by **IndigoJuliet** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:24 am

Excellent, last time I saw someone fire a .454 cas the guy got more than he bargined for, new gun first shot, did not hold it properly.... lets say 12 stitches in his thumb later... teach him to hold it movie style...

loe the .45 sad to had to have handed it back, as for the glock par rubbish... copy of the oringinal composite pistol a HK...

cooncatbob · Post by **cooncatbob** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:40 pm

Here's a picture of S&W's .500 emergency bear buster.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/Sm ... ase_lg.jpg

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:44 pm

Good grief.

Regards! Michaelson

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:13 pm

Excuse me, Mr. Bear, but could you hold on a minute while I open up this orange case?

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:45 pm

cooncatbob wrote:Here's a picture of S&W's .500 emergency bear buster.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/Sm ... ase_lg.jpg

I've heard about those emergency bear busters, comes with a first aid kit, not for the bear, but for you after you fire it,

couldn't resist. Bet those come in as handy insurance especially in some parts of Alaska.

cooncatbob · Post by **cooncatbob** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:32 pm

binkmeisterRick wrote:Excuse me, Mr. Bear, but could you hold on a minute while I open up this orange case?

By the time your stranded in Big Bear country you might want to have it out of the case.

I've seen the .500 and the S&W .460 with yellow grips at the gun shop for between $900 and $1000.
It might hurt to shoot but not as much as a 1000 lb bear getting a hold of you.
can't imagine that it would be good for much else, kind of the modern version of a howdah pistol.

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:55 pm

The reason the bear guns are short barrels is because it's been decided that most bear attacks (obviously) are close contact, meaning the bear is on you fast, no time or more importantly ROOM to get a rifle or shotgun. So what they are saying is that you are actually touching the bear or he has hold of you, and you need a gun that just comes out and can get aimed into the bear in very tight positioning,,a long barrel of 6 inches or whatever would make this difficult, hence the 2 inch barreling of these monster guns

So, even with your hands pinned at your side, you can just pull out the short barrel pistol, tilt your wrist and bang,bang (maybe exagerating ,but you get the idea)

The Smith 500 guns are cool, but that X frame is just TOO big. The beauty of the Ruger is that it is not really THAT much bigger than an N frame and the 454 rivals the power and is actually more efficient than the 500 Smith.
TR

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:25 pm

Hello folks,

I ended up getting the S&W model 22 with the 4" barrel (sooner than I figured I would purchase one). Now I'll have to save up for quite awhile before making any other major purchases...Anyway, this first photo is the most true to color, the others turned out rather yellow so I had to compensate in Photoshop.

I really liked the finish on the metal of this revolver, the guy who was the transfer dealer opened up the box and exclaimed, "Whoa, that's fancy, I don't know how they do that" (meaning the finish). Enjoy the pics, this thread seems like the perfect place to post them. One of them shows the comparison with a non-functional 38 special with a sloppy re-nickel job. The model 22 is a little larger than I pictured in my mind, so that's also a plus as long as I'm not lugging it in a holster up a mountain canyon on an extended hike.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... sw22vi.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... sw22iv.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... w22vii.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... w22iii.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... sw22ii.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... 22viii.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237 ... /sw22v.jpg

carebear · Post by **carebear** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:46 am

The fancy finish is "case coloring", a surface treatment designed to resemble the old case hardening treatment gunmakers would use on steel.

It's just a finish and will scratch and buff off if you get to aggressive in your cleaning.

But it is pretty.

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:11 am

Yep. You can tell the fellow doing the transfer wasn't a gunsmith.

Colt used to do it to all their model 1873's before 1900.

That is one nice looking revolver, my friend. Hang onto it! It's a treasure!

HIGH regards! Michaelson

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:38 pm

Thanks for the info. and additional history lesson on the finish everyone. To me it looked like metal that had a lighter put to it or metal that has been in contact with a flame or smoke. Really neat design, especially in person. I'm "pleased as punch" with the gun. It's even better than I imagined, which is not always the case when you purchase something online.

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:55 am

IndyFrench wrote: Yes, I was wearing ear and eye protection AND my Adventurebilt! Next time I go, which will be soon, I plan to bring the camcorder and post a YouTube video of the Raiders gun in action.

Any update on this one?

IndyFrench · Post by **IndyFrench** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:17 pm

Look for it sometime within the next two weeks.

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:29 am

$\:D/$ thanks it would be great

belfastman · Post by **belfastman** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:02 pm

I have shot both revolvers the 500 454 and 460 I get to go once a year and play the the gun producers new toysThese guns generate alot of felt recoil,but are controllable.I just wouldn't want to shoot hem a whole lot

dr. tyree · Post by **dr. tyree** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:19 pm

Man, that model 22 is sexay!!

Careful with your casehardening, though, it tends to fingerprint more easily than the standard blue finish. But, dang, it is pretty.

ddibling · Post by **ddibling** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:38 pm

IndyFrench wrote:Now if I can just figure out a good way to get these empty cases out of these moon clips without ripping my thumbs off...

Try this: http://mooncliptool.com/

I bought one of these reissue M1917 last fall and I love it. Actually, it's the same as the Model 22 with the exception of the barrel length, the non-shrouded ejector rod, and the lanyard swivel. I went with the M1917 because I thought it had more of the right look than the shrouded ejector rod on the 22. Smith and Wesson calls it the Model 22, M1917. Anyway, I agree with you...the checkering on both the grips and the hammer are very crisp (read sharp!). I've been toying with the idea of hitting them lightly with a file or something, just to take some of the edge off.

I bought the mooner/demooner shown above and it's awesome. I recently mooned and demooned 220 rounds with absolutely no hassle whatsoever. It was absolutely worth the money. Mooning is almost "push button" and demooning is just a simple twisting motion. No bent clips, either. And, no, I don't get any money from the guy that makes them! They're just that good.

BTW, the guy that hold the world record for fastest shooting (on target

) of 12 rounds with a reload in the middle set the record with a Smith and Wesson .45ACP revolver with moonclips...2.99 seconds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI So lets not hear any more talk about automatics being faster!

Happy Mooning!
Dean

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:32 pm

dr. tyree wrote:Man, that model 22 is sexay!!

Careful with your casehardening, though, it tends to fingerprint more easily than the standard blue finish. But, dang, it is pretty.

dr. tyree,

Thanks for the compliment, er, I think.

Anyway, I finally fired it and am suprised that it seems to kick and rise up less than my Springfield XD40 which uses S&W 40 ammunition. Maybe it's just that I was wearing gloves, or maybe my grip position was better or maybe it just seemed that way since I was doubling up on earplugs with ear mufflers to reduce the sound. Really nice to fire though.

IndyFrench,

I know it might be annoying to give another friendly reminder, but please let us know when your video comes out. Then we can critique it for screen accuracy

IndyFrench · Post by **IndyFrench** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:59 pm

Just have to get a good demooning tool and then the video will be online...Gimmie another week or so

carebear · Post by **carebear** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:42 am

bigrex wrote:Anyway, I finally fired it and am suprised that it seems to kick and rise up less than my Springfield XD40 which uses S&W 40 ammunition. Maybe it's just that I was wearing gloves, or maybe my grip position was better or maybe it just seemed that way since I was doubling up on earplugs with ear mufflers to reduce the sound. Really nice to fire though.

That's a pressure issue, it has almost nothing to do with caliber. The fact that a round has a "bigger bullet" isn't that important when you are discussing energy. The .45 is a large, heavy bullet for a handgun round but, being older, operates at very low pressure and velocity compared to modern ammo in the standard loadings. Because of those characteristics it's kind of a pussy cat, recoil wise. Many recoil-sensitive folks actually find it easier to shoot than the "smaller" 9mm and .40 S&W rounds in my training experience.

Remember that recoil energy is a reflection of muzzle energy and energy is mass x velocity squared. Velocity is the more important number for felt recoil.

That .40 S&W is pushing a 165 - 180 grain bullet (not that much lower in mass than the .45's 230 gr) but at around 1000 feet per second or faster. That's over 200 FPS faster than the standard .45 ACP loading (850 fps). It has correspondingly greater muzzle energy, thus typically more recoil.

The other factor in recoil is time, given two equal energy rounds, the one that exerts that energy against your hand over more time is going to feel like more than a "push" than a "slap", thus being more comfortable, and will also tend to have less perceived muzzle flip as your hand and arm muscles have milliseconds more time to react to the motion. .45's "push".

The .40 S&W has a smaller case than the .45 both in length and diameter, that means it has to use faster burning powders that cause steeper pressure spikes and transmit the felt recoil to you in a much shorter amount of time. Thus your perception (which is common) of increased kick and rise.

That doesn't even take into account the usual difference in gun weight and the .45's typically lower muzzle flash and blast, which can have psychological effects.

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:26 am

Michaelson wrote:
Whew, TR! Give me my .44 mag over THAT thing ANY day!!

It may be 'last resort', but I'm wondering if the punishment you get from behind the gun would make it even worth the effort!

Regards! Michaelson

I'm selling my .44, Michaelson ;-) . I had a 6 inch version of this gun that I bought in '89-90, I had it up until a few months ago, sold it and bought this 3 inch version of the same gun, MINT, new and unfired. Now I just don't need two huge snubbies ;-) . I'm keeping the 454 Ruger, it matches a 454 lever action Puma I have, and I'm selling this sweet ride-

TR

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... m=95063440

PyramidBlaster · Post by **PyramidBlaster** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:45 am

I myself have been looking at the S&W .460. Sure, it's overkill...But it's also a 3-cartridge gun: .460, .454 Casull, AND .45 Long! I gotta have at least ONE good 'hand cannon'...And this seems far more practical than the .500...

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:51 am

Yeah, I was thinkin' about one of those for awhile, the versatility thing is cool, but I'm not that impressed with the 460 to get that huge, and I mean HUGE X frame Smith,,it's just too big. And it's only 5 shots.

The Ruger is a smaller gun actually quite concealable if need be, so I stayed with it ;-)

TR

PyramidBlaster · Post by **PyramidBlaster** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:10 am

For what it does, 5 shots is fine with me. This is something I'd never dream of concealing---It's a tool, one that's designed to knock the snot out of its intended target---even at the expense of doing same to its owner. Not something I'd regularly carry, nor causally practice with.

Besides, after lugging it to he range and touching off 5 of those powder-filled-trash-cans, I'm sure I'd be more in the mood for a break than a 6th dose...

I was originally looking at the Super Redhawk in .454, but when I saw that the Smith could chamber the round as well as TWO others, and I liked the form factor, that was pretty much it for me....As long as I can still get it in the 6" ported 'Hunter' configuration....

Oh, and I'm glad someone brought up the Howdah!!! Kudos!

The raw firepower of Indiana Jones!

The raw firepower of Indiana Jones!

Re: The raw firepower of Indiana Jones!

500 454 460

Re: The raw firepower of Indiana Jones!