User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 6:58:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Laughs in 410 grain bullets Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Sectional density is ballistics 101. A 320gr 44 mag would and will out penetrate a 320gr .454. Here's a comparison of the 300gr Underwood 44 mag XTP vs the 300gr .454 Cassul XTP against 48" of ballistics gel: https://youtu.be/DeGveytigQk?t=239 Underwood Specs: 44 Mag = 300gr @ 1300fps / 1126 ftlbs .454 = 300gr @ 1650fps / 1814 ft/lbs Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. .44 = 37" penetration .454 = 31" penetration This is due to the higher sectional density of 300gr/.429 vs 300gr/.452. As such, a 325-400gr .452 will out penetrate a 325-410gr .475." Especially once we consider the fact that unlike the .44 vs .454 test, the .45 LC+P vs .480 have the same energy. http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=125_202&product_id=148 https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/MichaelBartmess/Sectional+Density |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 7:11:32 AM EDT
[#2]
Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. 1. Virtually no one looking for significant penetration is doing so with a hollow point bullet. 2. 1rd each sample size proves absolutely nothing. 3. Firing multiple rounds into compromised ballistic gel its more anecdotal than scientific. 4. 9.5" unported barrel benefits the .44 Mag more than an 8 3/8" ported Casull barrel (velocity-wise). Why not chrono the actual load in this super-scientific test? 5. Compare the wound channels, and notice that the Casull's is certainly more pronounced throughout the length. Know why that is important? 5a. Did you miss that the Casull bullet shedded a decent amount of its jacket? That means less weight to drive the bullet. 5b. Did you also miss the Casull bullet has lost 10% of its weight, whereas the .44 lost 4%? That makes a difference. 6. Even when measuring the expanded diameters of the bullets, he doesn't even measure the widest point on the Casull bullet. More expansion, less penetration. Repeat the test with hard cast lead in individual blocks, then I'll be interested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 7:21:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 7:29:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Thats the point though - it was not designed to fire 400gr+ bullets. It is capable of being loaded with 400gr+ projectiles, which is an entirely different matter.
Likewise, when the .480 was drafted, put into production, and released to the public, it was designed by Ruger & Hornady to fire 325gr projectiles. Thats what the .480 was built to do. 4 companies - Hornady, Underwood, Buffalo Bore, and Grizzly make a total of 10 loads for the .480 Ruger. Of those 10, only 2 are 400gr and above. The remaining 80% of .480 ruger loads on the market are 275-380gr; comfortably within the 325-400gr weight class of .452" projectiles.
Even now, by and large, .480 is not a "400+gr" cartridge. And it certainly wasn't when it was introduced. It really seems like your are comparing popularity with utility, and you clearly have some axe to grind. Once again, we get it...you don't like the .480 Ruger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 7:31:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why didn't Ruger make the Black Hawk in .475 Linebaugh? You could still shoot .480 Ruger through it. I've also read you can have a gunsmith ream a 480 to Linebaugh and it will handle it no problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 7:44:31 AM EDT
[#6]
but I had always heard that Ruger makes the freedom arms (or maybe it's magnum research?) frames and as part of the agreement can't make pistols that compete in the caliber. I've also read you can have a gunsmith ream a 480 to Linebaugh and it will handle it no problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 8:50:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sectional density is ballistics 101. A 320gr 44 mag would and will out penetrate a 320gr .454. Here's a comparison of the 300gr Underwood 44 mag XTP vs the 300gr .454 Cassul XTP against 48" of ballistics gel: https://youtu.be/DeGveytigQk?t=239 Underwood Specs: 44 Mag = 300gr @ 1300fps / 1126 ftlbs .454 = 300gr @ 1650fps / 1814 ft/lbs Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. .44 = 37" penetration .454 = 31" penetration This is due to the higher sectional density of 300gr/.429 vs 300gr/.452. As such, a 325-400gr .452 will out penetrate a 325-410gr .475." Especially once we consider the fact that unlike the .44 vs .454 test, the .45 LC+P vs .480 have the same energy. Let me make this easy. True or false- "A 410gr .480 will outperform a 325gr 45lc, while producing less blast and recoil than a .454 Casull." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 8:55:47 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are several things you are completely missing with that video. 1. Virtually no one looking for significant penetration is doing so with a hollow point bullet. 2. 1rd each sample size proves absolutely nothing. 3. Firing multiple rounds into compromised ballistic gel its more anecdotal than scientific. 4. 9.5" unported barrel benefits the .44 Mag more than an 8 3/8" ported Casull barrel (velocity-wise). Why not chrono the actual load in this super-scientific test? 5. Compare the wound channels, and notice that the Casull's is certainly more pronounced throughout the length. Know why that is important? 5a. Did you miss that the Casull bullet shedded a decent amount of its jacket? That means less weight to drive the bullet. 5b. Did you also miss the Casull bullet has lost 10% of its weight, whereas the .44 lost 4%? That makes a difference. 6. Even when measuring the expanded diameters of the bullets, he doesn't even measure the widest point on the Casull bullet. More expansion, less penetration. Repeat the test with hard cast lead in individual blocks, then I'll be interested. .... It really seems like your are comparing popularity with utility, and you clearly have some axe to grind. Once again, we get it...you don't like the .480 Ruger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. 1. Virtually no one looking for significant penetration is doing so with a hollow point bullet. 2. 1rd each sample size proves absolutely nothing. 3. Firing multiple rounds into compromised ballistic gel its more anecdotal than scientific. 4. 9.5" unported barrel benefits the .44 Mag more than an 8 3/8" ported Casull barrel (velocity-wise). Why not chrono the actual load in this super-scientific test? 5. Compare the wound channels, and notice that the Casull's is certainly more pronounced throughout the length. Know why that is important? 5a. Did you miss that the Casull bullet shedded a decent amount of its jacket? That means less weight to drive the bullet. 5b. Did you also miss the Casull bullet has lost 10% of its weight, whereas the .44 lost 4%? That makes a difference. 6. Even when measuring the expanded diameters of the bullets, he doesn't even measure the widest point on the Casull bullet. More expansion, less penetration. Repeat the test with hard cast lead in individual blocks, then I'll be interested. .... It really seems like your are comparing popularity with utility, and you clearly have some axe to grind. Once again, we get it...you don't like the .480 Ruger. And I'm unable to find any reputable gel test at all of the .480 Ruger, much less a head to head comparison of comparable quality. As far as 'axe to grind,' the facts are the facts. And I have provided plenty - both on the history of the .480, as well as its logical competitors, both those that were around at the .480's development, as well as what is available to the OP in 2019. Given that you own a .480, it seems like you are more invested in justifying that purchase vs looking at the data. I have provided plenty (I suspect, far too much) data on why the .480 doesn't make sense, and really never should have been developed. At this point, what is the argument for .480 vs .454/.45lc+p? It's 0.023" wider? It has a 10gr heavier projectile option made by 2 manufacturers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 9:09:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me make this easy. True or false- "A 410gr .480 will outperform a 325gr 45lc, while producing less blast and recoil than a .454 Casull." A 325gr .480 (SD .206) would underpeform against a 325gr .45LC+P (SD .225.) A 410gr .480 (SD .26) would outperform a 325gr LC +P (SD .225) A 410gr .480 (SD .26) would slightly outperform 360gr LC+P (SD .252) A 410gr .480 (SD .26) would underperform against a 400gr LC+P (SD .28) a 410gr .480 @ 1200fps (SD.26) would substantially underperform against a 400gr .454 @ 1400fps. If your takeaway from that is "gee, gotta get me one of those .480's" then more power to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 9:18:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sadly, this is the only .454 vs .44 Gel test I could find on Youtube. And I'm unable to find any reputable gel test at all of the .480 Ruger, much less a head to head comparison of comparable quality. As far as 'axe to grind,' the facts are the facts. And I have provided plenty - both on the history of the .480, as well as its logical competitors, both those that were around at the .480's development, as well as what is available to the OP in 2019. Given that you own a .480, it seems like you are more invested in justifying that purchase vs looking at the data. I have provided plenty (I suspect, far too much) data on why the .480 doesn't make sense, and really never should have been developed. At this point, what is the argument for .480 vs .454/.45lc+p? It's 0.023" wider? It has a 10gr heavier projectile option made by 2 manufacturers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. 1. Virtually no one looking for significant penetration is doing so with a hollow point bullet. 2. 1rd each sample size proves absolutely nothing. 3. Firing multiple rounds into compromised ballistic gel its more anecdotal than scientific. 4. 9.5" unported barrel benefits the .44 Mag more than an 8 3/8" ported Casull barrel (velocity-wise). Why not chrono the actual load in this super-scientific test? 5. Compare the wound channels, and notice that the Casull's is certainly more pronounced throughout the length. Know why that is important? 5a. Did you miss that the Casull bullet shedded a decent amount of its jacket? That means less weight to drive the bullet. 5b. Did you also miss the Casull bullet has lost 10% of its weight, whereas the .44 lost 4%? That makes a difference. 6. Even when measuring the expanded diameters of the bullets, he doesn't even measure the widest point on the Casull bullet. More expansion, less penetration. Repeat the test with hard cast lead in individual blocks, then I'll be interested. .... It really seems like your are comparing popularity with utility, and you clearly have some axe to grind. Once again, we get it...you don't like the .480 Ruger. And I'm unable to find any reputable gel test at all of the .480 Ruger, much less a head to head comparison of comparable quality. As far as 'axe to grind,' the facts are the facts. And I have provided plenty - both on the history of the .480, as well as its logical competitors, both those that were around at the .480's development, as well as what is available to the OP in 2019. Given that you own a .480, it seems like you are more invested in justifying that purchase vs looking at the data. I have provided plenty (I suspect, far too much) data on why the .480 doesn't make sense, and really never should have been developed. At this point, what is the argument for .480 vs .454/.45lc+p? It's 0.023" wider? It has a 10gr heavier projectile option made by 2 manufacturers? The 480 makes a big fucking hole, goes deep enough, and is PLEASANT to shoot, in a small Ruger. THAT is it's niche, and why I want one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 9:19:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's how they stack up: A 410gr .480 (SD .26) would outperform a 325gr LC +P (SD .225) If your takeaway from that is "gee, gotta get me one of those .480's" then more power to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let me make this easy. True or false- "A 410gr .480 will outperform a 325gr 45lc, while producing less blast and recoil than a .454 Casull." A 410gr .480 (SD .26) would outperform a 325gr LC +P (SD .225) If your takeaway from that is "gee, gotta get me one of those .480's" then more power to you. I got a kick out of you listing a .45lc 400gr load against the .480 though. I can't find any of that ammo for sale. Not saying it isn't available, but you made a point out of the fact that you could only find 4 different 400+ grain loads for sale for the .480. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 9:19:56 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's the thing. 460, 454 and 500 are too fucking big, and the recoil is harsh. The 480 makes a big fucking hole, goes deep enough, and is PLEASANT to shoot, in a small Ruger. THAT is it's niche, and why I want one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 9:43:31 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's the thing. 460, 454 and 500 are too fucking big, and the recoil is harsh. The 480 makes a big fucking hole, goes deep enough, and is PLEASANT to shoot, in a small Ruger. THAT is it's niche, and why I want one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. 1. Virtually no one looking for significant penetration is doing so with a hollow point bullet. 2. 1rd each sample size proves absolutely nothing. 3. Firing multiple rounds into compromised ballistic gel its more anecdotal than scientific. 4. 9.5" unported barrel benefits the .44 Mag more than an 8 3/8" ported Casull barrel (velocity-wise). Why not chrono the actual load in this super-scientific test? 5. Compare the wound channels, and notice that the Casull's is certainly more pronounced throughout the length. Know why that is important? 5a. Did you miss that the Casull bullet shedded a decent amount of its jacket? That means less weight to drive the bullet. 5b. Did you also miss the Casull bullet has lost 10% of its weight, whereas the .44 lost 4%? That makes a difference. 6. Even when measuring the expanded diameters of the bullets, he doesn't even measure the widest point on the Casull bullet. More expansion, less penetration. Repeat the test with hard cast lead in individual blocks, then I'll be interested. .... It really seems like your are comparing popularity with utility, and you clearly have some axe to grind. Once again, we get it...you don't like the .480 Ruger. And I'm unable to find any reputable gel test at all of the .480 Ruger, much less a head to head comparison of comparable quality. As far as 'axe to grind,' the facts are the facts. And I have provided plenty - both on the history of the .480, as well as its logical competitors, both those that were around at the .480's development, as well as what is available to the OP in 2019. Given that you own a .480, it seems like you are more invested in justifying that purchase vs looking at the data. I have provided plenty (I suspect, far too much) data on why the .480 doesn't make sense, and really never should have been developed. At this point, what is the argument for .480 vs .454/.45lc+p? It's 0.023" wider? It has a 10gr heavier projectile option made by 2 manufacturers? The 480 makes a big fucking hole, goes deep enough, and is PLEASANT to shoot, in a small Ruger. THAT is it's niche, and why I want one. 
And the actual goldilocks sized Super Redhawk - the 5" barrel - is only available in .454: 
As far as 'pleasant' to shoot, you're still talking a round with a good bit more recoil then .44 magnum... And if recoil was a concern, you'd think the option that could also chamber a wide variety of widely available, low recoil ammo would also be desireable... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 9:43:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
almost 0% of Alaskans carry a 2.5 inch bear revolver, 4" and 6" were normal until the lightweight S&W short barreled guns came out Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: My central point is that .480 Ruger is a silly cartridge - it didn't make sense when it was released in 2003, and it especially doesn't make sense now in 2019. To begin with, we need to first look at the .454, as this is highly relevant to the development of .480: While the .454 was invented in 1959, it was only introduced in factory handguns (the Ruger Redhawk) in 1997, and did not become an official SAAMI cartridge until 1998. .454 is capable of firing projectiles from 240-400gr, and there are a wide variety of suitable .454" projectiles on the market.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=125_202&product_id=148 Given that Ruger had just introduced the .454 in 1997, and SAAMI had certified in in 1998, it's highly unusual that Ruger would decide to introduce a new and competing cartridge just 6 years later, with the .480 Ruger in 2003... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.480_Ruger .480 Ruger was developed to be an intermediary caliber between .44 Magnum and .454. The original and still most common load was a 325gr @ 1350fps out of the Ruger Redhawk. Given that a) .454 can fire 325-400gr projectiles and b) Ruger had just released the .454 Redhawk only 6 years prior, creating a new, lower power 325gr Redhawk cartridge didn't make any sense. If Ruger/Hornady wanted a lower recoil .454....they should have just made a lower recoil .454, tailor made for bear defense. "Light Magnum" loads were already common and popular with .357 and .44 Magnum at the time, so it would have only been natural (and logical) to create a ~80% power .454 load, which is what the .480 ruger offers. The subsequent discontinuation of the .480 Ruger in 2010- just 7 years after its introduction - bears out this assessment. Flash forward to 2019, and .480 Ruger makes even less sense, because now 3 different manufacturers offer ".45LC +P / .454 lite" loads that equal the ballistics of .480 Ruger. While .480 Ruger didn't make much sense in 2003, now it truly makes no sense at all. http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=125_201&product_id=434 Here's a look at the Ruger Alaskan - a gun designed for Bear Defense - in .454/.45LC +P vs .480 Ruger. Due to the wider swept bore volume of the .475" bore, this is the barrel length where the .480 would most likely to manifest a ballistic advantage over .45 LC+P/.454, as wider bullets get up to speed faster then their equivalent weight, narrower competitor. .454/.45LC +P 2.5" barrel: https://i.ibb.co/KsM0L0L/Screen-Shot-2019-12-17-at-9-34-07-PM.png .480 Ruger 2.5" barrel: https://i.ibb.co/TW6MNrn/Screen-Shot-2019-12-17-at-9-37-21-PM.png Now if someone already has a .480 Ruger, more power to them. But for the OP in 2019, looking at 2 identical Ruger Redhawks, one in .454, and one in .480? The choice, I hope at this point, is clear. I am still deciding what I want, 480 or 454. I am leaning towards the Alaskan with the 2.5” barrel. I like the versatility of the 454, but the purpose built 480 appeals to my inner engineer. That said I already own one orphan cartridge (.375 Win), and don’t want to end up with another. I do reload, and one of the more fascinating aspects of this project to me would be to optimize a load for the short barrel guns. Everything I have read so far, beyond a handful of chronograph tests has been aimed at >5” barrels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 10:00:15 AM EDT
[#15]
I like the cartridge. Only real downside to it is the lack of variety of loadings for it as well as a lack of variety of bullets at that diameter if you do plan to reload for it. To me, I would have to get into bullet casting before I considered that cartridge.
OP might want to consider a 500 Linebaugh or a 500 JRH in a BFR if they're really interested in a big bore revolver and price isn't too much of an issue. Larger variety of loadings to choose from, slightly bigger diameter, and they still come in the short cylinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 10:41:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is relevant to my interests, just had a holster thread to figure out what to carry one of these in. I am still deciding what I want, 480 or 454. I am leaning towards the Alaskan with the 2.5” barrel. I like the versatility of the 454, but the purpose built 480 appeals to my inner engineer. That said I already own one orphan cartridge (.375 Win), and don’t want to end up with another. I do reload, and one of the more fascinating aspects of this project to me would be to optimize a load for the short barrel guns. Everything I have read so far, beyond a handful of chronograph tests has been aimed at >5” barrels. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: My central point is that .480 Ruger is a silly cartridge - it didn't make sense when it was released in 2003, and it especially doesn't make sense now in 2019. To begin with, we need to first look at the .454, as this is highly relevant to the development of .480: While the .454 was invented in 1959, it was only introduced in factory handguns (the Ruger Redhawk) in 1997, and did not become an official SAAMI cartridge until 1998. .454 is capable of firing projectiles from 240-400gr, and there are a wide variety of suitable .454" projectiles on the market.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=125_202&product_id=148 Given that Ruger had just introduced the .454 in 1997, and SAAMI had certified in in 1998, it's highly unusual that Ruger would decide to introduce a new and competing cartridge just 6 years later, with the .480 Ruger in 2003... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.480_Ruger .480 Ruger was developed to be an intermediary caliber between .44 Magnum and .454. The original and still most common load was a 325gr @ 1350fps out of the Ruger Redhawk. Given that a) .454 can fire 325-400gr projectiles and b) Ruger had just released the .454 Redhawk only 6 years prior, creating a new, lower power 325gr Redhawk cartridge didn't make any sense. If Ruger/Hornady wanted a lower recoil .454....they should have just made a lower recoil .454, tailor made for bear defense. "Light Magnum" loads were already common and popular with .357 and .44 Magnum at the time, so it would have only been natural (and logical) to create a ~80% power .454 load, which is what the .480 ruger offers. The subsequent discontinuation of the .480 Ruger in 2010- just 7 years after its introduction - bears out this assessment. Flash forward to 2019, and .480 Ruger makes even less sense, because now 3 different manufacturers offer ".45LC +P / .454 lite" loads that equal the ballistics of .480 Ruger. While .480 Ruger didn't make much sense in 2003, now it truly makes no sense at all. http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=125_201&product_id=434 Here's a look at the Ruger Alaskan - a gun designed for Bear Defense - in .454/.45LC +P vs .480 Ruger. Due to the wider swept bore volume of the .475" bore, this is the barrel length where the .480 would most likely to manifest a ballistic advantage over .45 LC+P/.454, as wider bullets get up to speed faster then their equivalent weight, narrower competitor. .454/.45LC +P 2.5" barrel: https://i.ibb.co/KsM0L0L/Screen-Shot-2019-12-17-at-9-34-07-PM.png .480 Ruger 2.5" barrel: https://i.ibb.co/TW6MNrn/Screen-Shot-2019-12-17-at-9-37-21-PM.png Now if someone already has a .480 Ruger, more power to them. But for the OP in 2019, looking at 2 identical Ruger Redhawks, one in .454, and one in .480? The choice, I hope at this point, is clear. I am still deciding what I want, 480 or 454. I am leaning towards the Alaskan with the 2.5” barrel. I like the versatility of the 454, but the purpose built 480 appeals to my inner engineer. That said I already own one orphan cartridge (.375 Win), and don’t want to end up with another. I do reload, and one of the more fascinating aspects of this project to me would be to optimize a load for the short barrel guns. Everything I have read so far, beyond a handful of chronograph tests has been aimed at >5” barrels. https://gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm https://gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan480.htm "The recoil of the .480 Alaskan was about on par with the .454 version. The .480 recoil did not seem as quick as the .454, but with similar loads, little difference could be detected. The padding on the Ruger grip at the web between the thumb and trigger finger is superb. While the gun does jump a bit upon firing, there is no pain involved. These loads are pretty impressive from such a short-barreled belt gun. I would be hard-pressed to choose between the .480 Ruger and .454 Casull versions of the Alaskan for my own use. The .454 is more versatile, but the .480 throws a bigger bullet. Either should serve its purpose very well." As far as reloading experimentation, there are 57 different .452 projectiles at Midway, vs 7 .475 projectiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 11:30:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You realize the .454 and .480 are chambered in the exact same 2 guns right? https://i.ibb.co/w0h9YRG/Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-5-34-49-AM.png https://i.ibb.co/tPzTk17/Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-5-34-32-AM.png And the actual goldilocks sized Super Redhawk - the 5" barrel - is only available in .454: https://i.ibb.co/V2pd4qH/Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-5-35-43-AM.png As far as 'pleasant' to shoot, you're still talking a round with a good bit more recoil then .44 magnum... And if recoil was a concern, you'd think the option that could also chamber a wide variety of widely available, low recoil ammo would also be desireable... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Despite the .454 having 38% more muzzle energy, the .44 offered slightly higher penetration due to its higher sectional density. 1. Virtually no one looking for significant penetration is doing so with a hollow point bullet. 2. 1rd each sample size proves absolutely nothing. 3. Firing multiple rounds into compromised ballistic gel its more anecdotal than scientific. 4. 9.5" unported barrel benefits the .44 Mag more than an 8 3/8" ported Casull barrel (velocity-wise). Why not chrono the actual load in this super-scientific test? 5. Compare the wound channels, and notice that the Casull's is certainly more pronounced throughout the length. Know why that is important? 5a. Did you miss that the Casull bullet shedded a decent amount of its jacket? That means less weight to drive the bullet. 5b. Did you also miss the Casull bullet has lost 10% of its weight, whereas the .44 lost 4%? That makes a difference. 6. Even when measuring the expanded diameters of the bullets, he doesn't even measure the widest point on the Casull bullet. More expansion, less penetration. Repeat the test with hard cast lead in individual blocks, then I'll be interested. .... It really seems like your are comparing popularity with utility, and you clearly have some axe to grind. Once again, we get it...you don't like the .480 Ruger. And I'm unable to find any reputable gel test at all of the .480 Ruger, much less a head to head comparison of comparable quality. As far as 'axe to grind,' the facts are the facts. And I have provided plenty - both on the history of the .480, as well as its logical competitors, both those that were around at the .480's development, as well as what is available to the OP in 2019. Given that you own a .480, it seems like you are more invested in justifying that purchase vs looking at the data. I have provided plenty (I suspect, far too much) data on why the .480 doesn't make sense, and really never should have been developed. At this point, what is the argument for .480 vs .454/.45lc+p? It's 0.023" wider? It has a 10gr heavier projectile option made by 2 manufacturers? The 480 makes a big fucking hole, goes deep enough, and is PLEASANT to shoot, in a small Ruger. THAT is it's niche, and why I want one. https://i.ibb.co/w0h9YRG/Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-5-34-49-AM.png https://i.ibb.co/tPzTk17/Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-5-34-32-AM.png And the actual goldilocks sized Super Redhawk - the 5" barrel - is only available in .454: https://i.ibb.co/V2pd4qH/Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-5-35-43-AM.png As far as 'pleasant' to shoot, you're still talking a round with a good bit more recoil then .44 magnum... And if recoil was a concern, you'd think the option that could also chamber a wide variety of widely available, low recoil ammo would also be desireable... I also shoot a 375 h&h magnum, it recoils heavily, but it doesn't beat the shit out of me, its more of a heavy push. To be honest I enjoy it very much, and from hat I understand the 480 is like it, heavy recoil, but it's not punishing like the other big bore magnums. I want something I enjoy shooting, that makes a big hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 12:35:48 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I shoot the lightweight 44 S&W 4" Mountaingun at the range with one hand and full 240gr factory loads because it bores me afer a couple of minutes and so too does my 6" nickle model 29 I bought in 1974 that i still have. But I fired some guy's S&W 460 one day at the range....yawn. Then a year later some other guy let me fire his full power 454 Cusulll; held it with a firm 2 handed grip and that SOB twisted my wrist back enough that I'd never attempt it with one hand. It left my hand stinging! My conclusion was that if you want a brute gun to begin with, then why carry anything other then the 454? If I'm looking to protect myself from bear attack, or knock a deer on its ass, the 454 is best! Heavy guns with less power make no sense to me? If one wants a mild plinking 454, then one should enter the wonderful world of handloading. Then you can have it both ways. What if you needed to defend yourself using only one hand? Injured or holding your kiddo? That's my line of thought, after watching (years ago) a friend of mine shoot an animal that had it's teeth sunk into his left forearm with a revolver in his right hand. While I was attempting to move into a position to shoot it with my rifle, without hitting my buddy. Both he and the critter were moving around a lot at the time. I'm not being snarky, or arguing, just a factor that I take into account. This thread has a very odd argument going on. I don't quite understand the cartridge hate but that's just me. A handloader can build .44 Special loads with enough penetration to reach the thorax on most big animals (in North America) from poor angles. .44 RM and .45 Colt more so, the super mags? All of them are capable of doing it with reduced loads. I like variety tho and enjoy shooting my friends "different" types of firearms from mild to wild. ETA: I think OP should buy the .480, if for no other reason to make the cartridge nazi'z heads explode 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 12:49:12 PM EDT
[#19]
I have one of the Ruger Alaskans in .480. I carry it in a chest rig when hunting in Alaska.
I have actually shot it a fair amount, and it's not that bad recoil-wise. Most I have ever shot it in one session is 40 rounds, though. It works fine for what I use it for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 6:23:18 PM EDT
[#20]
The .480 Ruger did not "grow up" from a lesser round to launch 325 grain bullets. The .480 is essentially a shortened .475 Linebaugh. Wide heavy bullets make these rounds shine.
Edit: that 325 grain bullets can be used does not make them the best choice for many uses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 11:36:07 PM EDT
[#21]
As far as 'pleasant' to shoot, you're still talking a round with a good bit more recoil then .44 magnum... And if recoil was a concern, you'd think the option that could also chamber a wide variety of widely available, low recoil ammo would also be desireable... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 11:48:34 PM EDT
[#22]
I like the cartridge. Only real downside to it is the lack of variety of loadings for it as well as a lack of variety of bullets at that diameter if you do plan to reload for it. To me, I would have to get into bullet casting before I considered that cartridge. Montana Bullet Works Graf's |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
