NationStates Jolt Archive

KING CANNON: Dirty Harry Is Now Officially Out-Gunned (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_460XVR,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)

Dirty Harry Callahan’s favorite .44 magnum has been dethroned as the world’s most powerful handgun since Smith & Wesson unveiled their newest "King of the Hand Cannons," the Model 460XVR.

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/4902/460xvr1mg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Hail to the King: This revolver can catapult a 200-grain bullet at a speed of 2,330fps, making this the highest velocity revolver currently in production. (Photo: Smith & Wesson)

By Michael Merrill

“I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?” Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum might have been the king back in his day, but it can't even play in the same league as Smith & Wesson's newest "King Hand Cannon" -- the 460XVR (X-treme Velocity Revolver).

The Model 460XVR is Smith & Wesson's newest 5-shot X-frame revolver, which they introduced at the SHOT Show earlier this year. This revolver can catapult a 200-grain bullet at a speed of 2,330fps, making this the highest velocity revolver currently in production. (Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum had a speed limit of somewhere between 1,200-1,300fps.) The 460 XVR utilizes a special gain-twist rifling inside the barrel, which gives the weapon superb accuracy. It is possible to hit a target center of mass at distances of 250 yards with no holdover!

The 460 XVR comes with two interchangeable compensators; one for lead and one for jacketed bullets. The 460XVR has an 8 3/8-inch barrel, which includes the one-inch compensator. Thru use of barrel porting, the compensator allows for lighter perceived recoil than its X-frame predecessor, the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum. Make no mistake; even with lighter perceived recoil, this hand cannon is no tame animal. This is a ferocious monster that roars with every pull of the trigger. This weapon is NOT recommended for beginners and should only be fired by experienced ‘big bore' gun owners.

The new .460 magnum cartridge uses a .452 diameter bullet. This fact allows the 460XVR to be able to chamber the lighter load of a .454 Casull, and a baby load of a .45 colt. Not only is the 460XVR the world's highest velocity revolver, it also is the world's most powerful .45 caliber handgun; the new .460 magnum cartridge produces 2,350 ft/lbs of energy. By comparison, the .454 Casull only produces 1759ft/lbs of energy.

Since this weapon utilizes a brand new caliber of ammunition, cost could present a problem for many would-be gun owners. With the .460 magnum shells costing between $2.75 and $3.00 per round (retail), the more common and less expensive .45 and .454 loads look more acceptable for the firing range.

All of the superior performance of the 460 XVR comes at a price. This X-frame revolver is advertised as being able to with stand the pressures of the new .460 magnum, which are around 65,000psi. The gun's structure might be able to withstand having a chamber pressure of 65,000psi, but it is not immune to it.

A local sporting good store reported to SoldierTech that Smith & Wesson recommend having the barrels replaced by the factory for a $100 fee after only 1200 to 1400 rounds. This is due to the high-pressure gas cutting into the back end of the barrel. If the gun owner would ignore this problem, eventually the cylinder would also start to erode, causing all kinds of functionality problems.

This gas cutting issue could cause severe sales problems if people don't like to re-barrel so often. But even with the relatively short barrel life-span, in late April, Smith & Wesson announced that its new Model 460XVR received the 2005 "Handgun of the Year" award from the Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence.

Hitting a target at 250 yards is normally considered practical (if not tough) with a rifle, not a handgun. Let's face it; some couldn't hit a deer at 250 yards even with a scoped rifle. Now with the 460XVR, you just have to line up the sites and the gun will do the rest.

Holy shit!!

Bah. Dirty Harry doesn't need technological wizardry to compensate for anything. Dirty Harry just whups you at closer range... close enough for a bad-ass remark or two! What's the point of using rifle ranges for Dirty Harry? None at all!

KING CANNON: Dirty Harry Is Now Officially Out-Gunned
http://img236.echo.cx/img236/4902/460xvr1mg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Hail to the King: This revolver can catapult a , making this the highest velocity revolver currently in production. (Photo: Smith & Wesson)

I want one.

I. Want. That. Weapon. Now.

Holy shit!!
Yeah ... really!

I want one.
You'll have to get in line ... right behind me! :D

I can see Americans using this to go hunting things including people.

So one could concievably use this to hunt Moose. I can't think of any other use for this monster.

I can see Americans using this to go hunting things including people.
It's not practical for shooting people. Too much recoil, bullets are too expensive to waste on such common game animals, and it may shoot through the human and damage a nice car or something.

I can see Americans using this to go hunting things including people.

projection

That would be cool, but I'm sure it would throw me about 2 blocks backwards... :p

It's not practical for shooting people. Too much recoil, bullets are too expensive to waste on such common game animals, and it may shoot through the human and damage a nice car or something.

I'm sure some idiot will think of use not suitable for it. :)
Me personally, a 357 Magnum has too much recoil for me so God knows what this thing will be like.

What is "fps"?

My wrists hurt just thinking about the recoil on that thing. Its just too big, too powerful. Not by myself, I just couldn't do it. I'm not man enough for that gun...

Wait, what am I talking about?! Its perfect...for...erm...something! ;)

What is "fps"?

Feet Per Second.

What is "fps"?
Feet per second. This gun lobs it's ammo at a speed formerly reserved for rifles.

Feet Per Second.

Ah. People still use such archaic measures?

It's not practical for shooting people. Too much recoil, bullets are too expensive to waste on such common game animals, and it may shoot through the human and damage a nice car or something.

Not my GEO! Don't shoot him or you'll shoot my GEO!




I like my car...

What is "fps"?

Feet per second (not Frames per second)

I'm sure some idiot will think of use not suitable for it. :)
Me personally, a 357 Magnum has too much recoil for me so God knows what this thing will be like.

My brothers girlfriend considers the .357 Magnum to be a womans gun, she is looking for a good .50 Magnum. :p

What is "fps"?

Well, I know who this guy would have voted for, were he in the U.S. ;)

Maybe scouts could shoot right through armoured cars to get the people isnide?

My brothers girlfriend considers the .357 Magnum to be a womans gun, she is looking for a good .50 Magnum. :p

So does she shoot .5 inch sniper rifles?

Not especially attractive as a pistol for criminal use.

1. It's expensive - so unless you stole it...
2. The ammunition is uncommon - someone will remember you if you buy it. There are cameras in Wal Mart.
3. You won't be able to hit anything with it.
4. Rapid fire is impossible.
5. While some guns make a sound that some will question (firecracker?), this will let everyone know you just fired a gun.
6. You can't conceal it. Even if it's under your coat, it's a heavy piece of steel that doesn't bend.

Ever wonder why small pocket pistols have always been so popular with criminals? Life is not like the movies.

Feet per second (not Frames per second)

Or First person shooter for that matter.

Holy Mother of God!
Ha! Three thousand years of suppression, yet she survives.

Not especially attractive as a pistol for criminal use.

Ever wonder why small pocket pistols have always been so popular with criminals? Life is not like the movies.

Very true, its also a dead giveaway to any investigator, bullets and guns like this are easier to track down. But still, god help the first armored car guard who faces this little hand cannon. May it remain rare and under-utilized.

It fires a bullet at speeds of almost a half-mile per second...I wonder just how much penetration power the damn things have.

Suggested retail price (according to S&W) is $1,253.00.

So does she shoot .5 inch sniper rifles?

She was a Marine and claims to have fired 50 different guns, I would imagine the Barrett was among them.

It's not practical for shooting people. Too much recoil, bullets are too expensive to waste on such common game animals, and it may shoot through the human and damage a nice car or something.
ROFL! Yeah! And not only that, but you might shoot right through that obnoxious neighbor and accidentally hit your mother-in-law ... um ... wait. :confused:

Ha! Three thousand years of suppression, yet she survives.
:D

She was a Marine and claims to have fired 50 different guns, I would imagine the Barrett was among them.

Yeesh. I wouldn't wanna see anybody get shot by a Barrett... Think of the mess...

Very true, its also a dead giveaway to any investigator, bullets and guns like this are easier to track down. But still, god help the first armored car guard who faces this little hand cannon. May it remain rare and under-utilized.

It fires a bullet at speeds of almost a half-mile per second...I wonder just how much penetration power the damn things have.

It's weaker than most common hunting rifle rounds. And due to the design of the bullet, it loses velocity much faster.

Yeesh. I wouldn't wanna see anybody get shot by a Barrett... Think of the mess...

I know, really. It does go well into the territory of absurd considering walls, vehicles and the like don't matter much. I would love to shoot one though.

I know, really. It does go well into the territory of absurd considering walls, vehicles and the like don't matter much. I would love to shoot one though.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind shooting one... But, I'd have to be by myself, out in the middle of nowhere. I wouldn't want to accidentally kill anything (or anyone)!

Yeah, I wouldn't mind shooting one... But, I'd have to be by myself, out in the middle of nowhere. I wouldn't want to accidentally kill anything (or anyone)!

Heh, I would suggest the middle of the desert shooting in the general direction of a large mountain or mass of rock(with no one on the other side.) :p

Hey Eutrusca, can I get a link to where this came from, wouldn't mind posting it elsewhere.?

Heh, I would suggest the middle of the desert shooting in the general direction of a large mountain or mass of rock(with no one on the other side.) :p

Hey Eutrusca, can I get a link to where this came from, wouldn't mind posting it elsewhere.?
Oh, yeah ... sorry about that! I forgot the link. :(

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_460XVR,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Is it wrong to be a pacifist and anti-guns, and still want one?

Do I care?

That thing's not a revolver! It's a damned piece of hand-held artillery! Heh!

That thing's not a revolver! It's a damned piece of hand-held artillery! Heh!

It's not as impressive as the press it gets.

There are single shot pistols that have much more powerful cartridges.

And like I said, a lot of hunting rifle cartridges are more powerful.

Is it wrong to be a pacifist and anti-guns, and still want one?

Do I care?
My hat's off to the true pacifist ... takes a great deal of both moral and personal courage. I can't be one though; too many children and grandchildren and too much experience with the terrible things people can do to each other. :(

I don't see any essential conflict between those positions, until you act on the urge to buy a weapon. That, IMHO, would automatically make you something other than a true pacifist.

It's not as impressive as the press it gets.

There are single shot pistols that have much more powerful cartridges.

And like I said, a lot of hunting rifle cartridges are more powerful.
Well, never having fired one, I can only go by what I read or am told. I just find it amazing that a revolver can fire accurately over 250 yards! :eek:

This weapon is NOT recommended for beginners and should only be fired by experienced ‘big bore' gun owners. [/B]

The new .460 magnum cartridge uses a .452 diameter bullet. This fact allows the 460XVR to be able to chamber the lighter load of a .454 Casull, and a baby load of a .45 colt. Not only is the 460XVR the world's highest velocity revolver, it also is the world's most powerful .45 caliber handgun; the new .460 magnum cartridge produces 2,350 ft/lbs of energy. By comparison, the .454 Casull only produces 1759ft/lbs of energy.
<snip>
Only one quibble with this article...

My .454 handloads pushed a 350gr LBT WFN to about 1700-1750fps - which is 2246 - 2380 ft/lbs. 1759 factory loads are for wimps.

Yeesh. I wouldn't wanna see anybody get shot by a Barrett... Think of the mess...
Don't get me started on the mess that can be made of human biengs. :(

Well, never having fired one, I can only go by what I read or am told. I just find it amazing that a revolver can fire accurately over 250 yards! :eek:

Only if fired from a rest.

Also, the range of a weapon has more to do with the ballistic coefficient of the projectile than the power of the cartridge.

The pistol cartridge for this weapon may, depending on the load, be less powerful than some other pistol cartridges - but it is using a longer, more tapered projectile. So it retains its velocity better through flight, and can have a flatter trajectory.

As an example, a cartridge like the 6.5 x 55mm is a light cartridge in terms of power - but with the right bullet, you can hit something nearly 1000 yards away. You could go with the bigger 300 Winchester Magnum - with an equally impressive range, but your shoulder might hate you.

Something else to note: as good as these revolver cartridges may be (as powerful as they may be), they lose power QUICKLY as the range extends.

Well, never having fired one, I can only go by what I read or am told. I just find it amazing that a revolver can fire accurately over 250 yards! :eek:

I haven't tried 250, but with my .45 ACP cylinder in my old Freedom Arms Casull I could consistantly hit an 18" gong at 180yds+... Isosceles stance. Gun would go "punt", then you could wait about 3 sec before the "clang!"

Never could manage that with my .454 loads...

Hooray. More money wasted.

Only if fired from a rest.

Also, the range of a weapon has more to do with the ballistic coefficient of the projectile than the power of the cartridge.

The pistol cartridge for this weapon may, depending on the load, be less powerful than some other pistol cartridges - but it is using a longer, more tapered projectile. So it retains its velocity better through flight, and can have a flatter trajectory.

As an example, a cartridge like the 6.5 x 55mm is a light cartridge in terms of power - but with the right bullet, you can hit something nearly 1000 yards away. You could go with the bigger 300 Winchester Magnum - with an equally impressive range, but your shoulder might hate you.

Something else to note: as good as these revolver cartridges may be (as powerful as they may be), they lose power QUICKLY as the range extends.
I suspect that the rifling used in this weapon helps that longer range accuracy as well, yes?

Have you heard about the AA-12 and AA-12 CQB shotgun prototypes? No felt recoil, gas-forged and heat treated: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_AA12,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Gary Paul Johnston: "Having traveled to Tennessee to test the AA-12, I personally fired more than 500 rounds in two AA-12’s, and witnessed another 500 or so fired by seven others including two women who work in the B&H Precision foundry. Neither of these ladies had previously fired the AA-12 and they were more than a little nervous. The guns were fired from the hip, shoulder, with one hand, and upside down.

"One of the AA-12’s we fired was the CQB model, and this little gun had more than 5,000 rounds fired through it and had never been cleaned, much less lubricated. One look at it and it was obvious. The entire mechanism was black with carbon and it was also totally dry. However, neither gun malfunctioned in any way during the shooting, most of which was done using low-brass target rounds, which are always a problem for self-loading shotguns, especially when dirty.

"Except for the noise, shooting the target 12 ga. shells in the AA-12 was like shooting a .22 rimfire machinegun. Really! High brass buckshot and slugs produced more noise and a bigger muzzle flash from the CQB model, and also increased the cyclic rate, but the additional recoil generated was barely worth mentioning. It took the two ladies only a couple of short bursts before they were emptying 20-round drums without stopping, and they barely moved."

I suspect that the rifling used in this weapon helps that longer range accuracy as well, yes?

Have you heard about the AA-12 and AA-12 CQB shotgun prototypes? No felt recoil, gas-forged and heat treated: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_AA12,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Gary Paul Johnston: "Having traveled to Tennessee to test the AA-12, I personally fired more than 500 rounds in two AA-12’s, and witnessed another 500 or so fired by seven others including two women who work in the B&H Precision foundry. Neither of these ladies had previously fired the AA-12 and they were more than a little nervous. The guns were fired from the hip, shoulder, with one hand, and upside down.

"One of the AA-12’s we fired was the CQB model, and this little gun had more than 5,000 rounds fired through it and had never been cleaned, much less lubricated. One look at it and it was obvious. The entire mechanism was black with carbon and it was also totally dry. However, neither gun malfunctioned in any way during the shooting, most of which was done using low-brass target rounds, which are always a problem for self-loading shotguns, especially when dirty.

"Except for the noise, shooting the target 12 ga. shells in the AA-12 was like shooting a .22 rimfire machinegun. Really! High brass buckshot and slugs produced more noise and a bigger muzzle flash from the CQB model, and also increased the cyclic rate, but the additional recoil generated was barely worth mentioning. It took the two ladies only a couple of short bursts before they were emptying 20-round drums without stopping, and they barely moved."

I've fired a USAS-12, and a HK CAWS, and despite the ad literature, they DO have a recoil - more of a long shove than a sharp kick.

The problem is that shotgun ammunition weighs a lot per round, and on full auto, you'll go through a LOT of ammunition quickly. It's also an indiscriminate weapon (high explosives and buckshot aren't choosy).

I wouldn't want to carry one. If I need a lot of firepower that I can either use wholesale (and indiscriminately) or accurately and with a handful of rounds, I'll use the M249.

Hooray. More money wasted.
:rolleyes: Yeah, just think of the Computer you could buy with that kind of money...

Oh, wait... that would be a pretty lame computer. The one I want costs $3500 US. Never mind.

:rolleyes: Yeah, just think of the Computer you could buy with that kind of money...
Or food for starving people....

But now, INSTEAD, you can kill a human being several times over with a single shot. whoopteefuckingdoo

Or food for starving people....

But now, INSTEAD, you can kill a human being several times over with a single shot. whoopteefuckingdoo

When you've sold all your personal belongings other than the clothes on your back, and given all the money to the poor, signed over your savings to charity, and have the bank send all your pay to the same charity whenever you get paid, come back and lecture us about spending money on starving people.

Considering the insane recoil, the rare type of ammunition, the weight and the size of that thing, this is one of the most expensive clubs I have ever seen.

When you've sold all your personal belongings other than the clothes on your back, and given all the money to the poor, signed over your savings to charity, and have the bank send all your pay to the same charity whenever you get paid, come back and lecture us about spending money on starving people.
There's a difference between lethal weapons and things like....oh..... a bed, a book, an education

Or food for starving people....

But now, INSTEAD, you can kill a human being several times over with a single shot. whoopteefuckingdoo Or a Moose or Bear if you happen to live in Alaska...

But, if you want a religious quote from a notable "pro-poor" sage...

Mat 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat [at meat].
Mat 26:8 But when his disciples saw [it], they had indignation, saying, To what purpose [is] this waste?
Mat 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
Mat 26:10 When Jesus understood [it], he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Sometimes you just gotta buy stuff you want and to hell with "the poor" - you can't make them all "un-poor", even if you impoverish yourself.

There's a difference between lethal weapons and things like....oh..... a bed, a book, an education
Is there a difference between a firearm that can be used as a lethal weapon and a compuetr with "wireless internet" that can be used to write viruses, trojans and other malignant bits of software?

Is there a difference between a firearm that can be used as a lethal weapon and a compuetr with "wireless internet" that can be used to write viruses, trojans and other malignant bits of software?
Yes. One is lethal, the other isn't

There's a difference between lethal weapons and things like....oh..... a bed, a book, an education

Every personal belonging you have, other than the minimum amount of food necessary to keep you alive, and clothing to keep you warm, should be taken away from you (in the name of the socialist state) and the belongings sold and the wealth redistributed to the poor.

When you've accomplished that, come back and lecture us.

Yes. One is lethal, the other isn't
Not true.

Both can[ be lethal (to humans) if they are misused.

If a virus I write on my computer shuts down the power grid somewhere someone could die (if nothing else in the ensuing looting).

If I hack into an ATC system, and do some minor tweaks, 747s turn into pretty fireballs.

The thing that money is spent on is not the problem. The intent of the user is.

Lecturing people on how they spend their money is pointless unless you give up all of yours first. Otherwise you are simply a hypocrite.

Every personal belonging you have, other than the minimum amount of food necessary to keep you alive, and clothing to keep you warm, should be taken away from you (in the name of the socialist state) and the belongings sold and the wealth redistributed to the poor.

When you've accomplished that, come back and lecture us.
Why should I do that? Do I not have a bigger chance of helping them with actually finish an education and get a proper job? The better I have it the more I can help others.

Anyway. What is your point?

Not true.

Both can be lethal (to humans) if they are misused.

If a virus I write on my computer shuts down the power grid somewhere someone could die (if nothing else in the ensuing looting).

If I hack into an ATC system, and do some minor tweaks, 747s turn into pretty fireballs.

The thing that money is spent on is not the problem. The intent of the user is.

Lecturing people on how they spend their money is pointless unless you give up all of yours first. Otherwise you are simply a hypocrite.
You misuse a gun if you shoot it at something/someone alive?

And no it's not pointless. If I had no money or any posession really you would be arguing: "But you have no money. What do you know about it?" :rolleyes:

I have money now to build myself (and hopefully someone else too) a life, so I can support others later when I really DO have the financial means to spare.

Why should I do that? Do I not have a bigger chance of helping them with actually finish an education and get a proper job? The better I have it the more I can help others.

Anyway. What is your point?

My point is that if you believe that buying weapons and shooting them for sport is a frivolous waste of money, I can easily argue that every personal item you own can be brought into question, and therefore sold to help the poor - including any money you make.

Until you've given up everything you own to the poor, and given all your money to the poor, you're not really in a position to criticize the expenditures of others.

What i learned from this article: use SI for sake.

Why should I do that? Do I not have a bigger chance of helping them with actually finish an education and get a proper job? The better I have it the more I can help others. Anyway. What is your point?
If you don't understand the point then you really DO need to spend you money on a better education. :rolleyes:

The point is, people spend their money on things they want. Those things can be used for good or for ill. Their dollar cost is immaterial.

Some people buy $1500 guns. Some people buy $3500 computers. I can buy an awful lot of high-end gun(s) for $3500. A $1500 computer is just mid-range. Should people not buy $3500 (or even $1500) computers simply because there are poor people in the world?

Your idealisim isn't even charming, it's simple naievte.

My point is that if you believe that buying weapons and shooting them for sport is a frivolous waste of money, I can easily argue that every personal item you own can be brought into question, and therefore sold to help the poor - including any money you make.

Until you've given up everything you own to the poor, and given all your money to the poor, you're not really in a position to criticize the expenditures of others.
Not really. There's an importance to every item as you yourself said. Clothes and food are the most important. Guns (for whatever use you have for them) are in the dead bottom of MY list. Under even a shawl for my pet worm which I don't have and a "real" splinter of Jesus' cross.

You misuse a gun if you shoot it at something/someone alive?
You misuse a gun if you shoot it as someone/something who is not already trying to hurt/kill you. You misuse a gun if you shoot it at something alive that you do not intend to harvest for meat or is not a nuisance/vermin animal... (I'm not big on "trophy hunters"... Don't like it, but not going to try to stop it either.)

Am I really that hard to understand?

Syniks, don't patronise me. I'm not a child. Nor am i stupid. Don't imply that.

What is "fps"?

fps=Feet Per Second. it's a velocity measurement commonly used in ballistics.
Most often if you only see this tied to a single number (say, "2330 fps") it's the velocity of the bullet upon exiting the barrel, and before it has started to lose velocity.

fps=Feet Per Second. it's a velocity measurement commonly used in ballistics.
Most often if you only see this tied to a single number (say, "2330 fps") it's the velocity of the bullet upon exiting the barrel, and before it has started to lose velocity.

Conclusion (again!): use SI

Not really. There's an importance to every item as you yourself said. Clothes and food are the most important. Guns (for whatever use you have for them) are in the dead bottom of MY list. Under even a shawl for my pet worm which I don't have and a "real" splinter of Jesus' cross.

that's your choice. others may choose differently. That's the difference between being "Free" and being "a slave"-the right to make choices about things without being suppressed, attacked-by-authority, or harassed.

that's your choice. others may choose differently. That's the difference between being "Free" and being "a slave"-the right to make choices about things without being suppressed, attacked-by-authority, or harassed.
indeed. But i can still try to convince others :)


Failing horribly though :D

Not really. There's an importance to every item as you yourself said. Clothes and food are the most important. Guns (for whatever use you have for them) are in the dead bottom of MY list. Under even a shawl for my pet worm which I don't have and a "real" splinter of Jesus' cross.

My wife would be dead if she didn't carry one.
104 othe women would be beaten, harassed, stalked, and possibly murdered if they didn't carry one.

I would be dead now if I hadn't carried one (and I continue to carry one).

So, staying alive, and preventing people from raping, beating, strangling, abusing, and possibly killing you has a very low priority?

My wife would be dead if she didn't carry one.
104 othe women would be beaten, harassed, stalked, and possibly murdered if they didn't carry one.

I would be dead now if I hadn't carried one (and I continue to carry one).

So, staying alive, and preventing people from raping, beating, strangling, abusing, and possibly killing you has a very low priority?
No, but I never had to have a gun to do that. Neither is anyone in my family, friends, other people I know....

What's the point in making that gun, anyway?

The gun itself may be accurate, but given the shooting hand's wobble and the flinch factor from the huge recoil (and this one will have more recoil than the Raging Bull, even with the ported barrel), you're unlikely to hit anything beyond a hundred yards anyway. Hell, you would probably hit yourself on your forehead with this thing from the throwback.

The overpowered cartrige is unnecessery. The .454 can already drop down anything except perhaps a rhino or an elephant. And who in their right mind would want to hunt an elephant with a handgun anyway?

That thing's weight probably makes it a baaaaaaaaaaad thing to carry around on a hunt that requires stalking the game rather than shooting the aforementioned elephant tied to the nearby tree.

No, but I never had to have a gun to do that. Neither is anyone in my family, friends, other people I know....

You obviously don't get out enough.

Tell you what. Downtown Washington, D.C., in the Anacostia neighborhood is a good place for you to visit.

You'll be perfectly safe, too. Guns of all kinds are illegal there - you can't even own a slingshot there.

I'm sure you won't need a gun. ;)

You obviously don't get out enough.

Tell you what. Downtown Washington, D.C., in the Anacostia neighborhood is a good place for you to visit.

You'll be perfectly safe, too. Guns of all kinds are illegal there - you can't even own a slingshot there.

I'm sure you won't need a gun. ;)
That or I don't live in the US

That or I don't live in the US
You remind me of the man who lost both of his hands recently here.

He gave them his wallet and his watch, and then they cut his hands off for fun.

You remind me of the man who lost both of his hands recently here.

He gave them his wallet and his watch, and then they cut his hands off for fun.
So was that because he had no gun, or because the muggers are psychos?

So was that because he had no gun, or because the muggers are psychos?
What do you think? Wouldn't the prior quote have read "He gave them his wallet,his watch, and his gun, and then they cut his hands off for fun." if he had had a gun?

What do you think? Wouldn't the prior quote have read "He gave them his wallet,his watch, and his gun, and then they cut his hands off for fun." if he had had a gun?
I don't see why not. That is, if the muggers hadn't shot him first

So was that because he had no gun, or because the muggers are psychos?
He had no gun. I knew him before and after the incident.

He used to believe that if you cooperate with a robber, you won't get hurt. That they aren't out to hurt you. That you can talk your way out of anything like that. That no one in this world lives to see the agony of another human being. That people rob you because they're desperate for money.

Well, they weren't desperate for money. They were driving extremely nice cars that they paid for. They were most definitely out to hurt someone - someone who would be fun and easy. They lived to see his agony - they taunted him after chopping off his hands.

He told me that he was wrong - that he should have carried a gun as I do.
But it's too late for his hands.

I am no knee-jerk anti-gun nut, but I just have to ask where it ends? Why on Earth manufacture a gun like that except for people who need to feel like their cocks have been incresed in size? Surely this is a macho thing tied to the same "bigger-is-better" consumer culture we have here in the US.

I'm not gona sit here and preach about sustainable this or ecological that (there are enough people around my neck of the woods who do that all too often anyway), but between huge SUVs, all kinds of inefficient uses of energy and now woefully impractical handguns, I repeat -- when is it enough? When does society realize that consumption isn't the point of existence?

Trust me, if I ever move to a neighborhood I don't already know, you can count on me buying a weapon, getting trained on it and being a responsible owner. I've had enough military in my family to know that firearms are to be respected and not a source of machismo or a substitute for self-esteem. But this gun, while I suppose impressive from a purely ballistic point of view, IS a waste. Yes, we all have the "right" to buy whatever we can (even to the point of ignoring whether or not we can afford it), but does that "right" make the purchase even remotely sensible? Responsible? Practical?

If you really want to shoot one of these behemoths, couldn't you go to a range that had one and save a hell of a lot of money by shooting it whenever you wanted to without having to own it? The earlier expensive computer analogy that someone used doesn't work -- not because it's a question of a lethal weapon versus a computer, but because the computer is customizable to the person using it and therefore far more useful.

Self-defense is something I believe in, but this .460 hand-Howitzer is just plain crazy.

Self-defense is something I believe in, but this .460 hand-Howitzer is just plain crazy.

From a strictly technical point, if you want to make it more difficult to shoot at an animal, but ensure that if you do hit the animal, it dies without much fuss, this pistol is an exact fit for that sort of niche.

Not everyone buys a bigger cartridge because it's some macho thing. I'll tell that one to my wife and the ladies in the class tonight.

Aside from self-defense, shooting is FUN and it's far more difficult to master than most non-shooters believe.

While I would purchase a different firearm before I would buy that particular revolver, it's not within my authority to tell anyone that their choice of weapon is "crazy". Maybe they're just having fun.

Or a Moose or Bear if you happen to live in Alaska...

But, if you want a religious quote from a notable "pro-poor" sage...

Mat 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat [at meat].
Mat 26:8 But when his disciples saw [it], they had indignation, saying, To what purpose [is] this waste?
Mat 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
Mat 26:10 When Jesus understood [it], he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Sometimes you just gotta buy stuff you want and to hell with "the poor" - you can't make them all "un-poor", even if you impoverish yourself.


I think a better interpretation of that quote would be to "enjoy life's special moments" and Jesus was pointing out that she can help the poor all her life.

He was not dismissing the poor as you mention. That's just not WWJD :)

Don't take extreme interpretations and try to pass them off as gospel. Selling all your belongings is silly. If I sold my car and clothes I would not be able to hold a job, but if I kept those things not only would I keep from joining the ranks of the poor but I could tithe or 'donate' part of my paycheck to help them out.

That's the right answer.

That's the right answer.

If I hadn't had a gun that night, I would be dead.

My wife would be dead if she did not have a gun.

Sometimes, using a gun to stay alive is the right answer.

KING CANNON: Dirty Harry Is Now Officially Out-Gunned (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_460XVR,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)

Dirty Harry Callahan’s favorite .44 magnum has been dethroned as the world’s most powerful handgun since Smith & Wesson unveiled their newest "King of the Hand Cannons," the Model 460XVR.

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/4902/460xvr1mg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Hail to the King: This revolver can catapult a 200-grain bullet at a speed of 2,330fps, making this the highest velocity revolver currently in production. (Photo: Smith & Wesson)

By Michael Merrill

“I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?” Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum might have been the king back in his day, but it can't even play in the same league as Smith & Wesson's newest "King Hand Cannon" -- the 460XVR (X-treme Velocity Revolver).

The Model 460XVR is Smith & Wesson's newest 5-shot X-frame revolver, which they introduced at the SHOT Show earlier this year. This revolver can catapult a 200-grain bullet at a speed of 2,330fps, making this the highest velocity revolver currently in production. (Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum had a speed limit of somewhere between 1,200-1,300fps.) The 460 XVR utilizes a special gain-twist rifling inside the barrel, which gives the weapon superb accuracy. It is possible to hit a target center of mass at distances of 250 yards with no holdover!

The 460 XVR comes with two interchangeable compensators; one for lead and one for jacketed bullets. The 460XVR has an 8 3/8-inch barrel, which includes the one-inch compensator. Thru use of barrel porting, the compensator allows for lighter perceived recoil than its X-frame predecessor, the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum. Make no mistake; even with lighter perceived recoil, this hand cannon is no tame animal. This is a ferocious monster that roars with every pull of the trigger. This weapon is NOT recommended for beginners and should only be fired by experienced ‘big bore' gun owners.

The new .460 magnum cartridge uses a .452 diameter bullet. This fact allows the 460XVR to be able to chamber the lighter load of a .454 Casull, and a baby load of a .45 colt. Not only is the 460XVR the world's highest velocity revolver, it also is the world's most powerful .45 caliber handgun; the new .460 magnum cartridge produces 2,350 ft/lbs of energy. By comparison, the .454 Casull only produces 1759ft/lbs of energy.

Since this weapon utilizes a brand new caliber of ammunition, cost could present a problem for many would-be gun owners. With the .460 magnum shells costing between $2.75 and $3.00 per round (retail), the more common and less expensive .45 and .454 loads look more acceptable for the firing range.

All of the superior performance of the 460 XVR comes at a price. This X-frame revolver is advertised as being able to with stand the pressures of the new .460 magnum, which are around 65,000psi. The gun's structure might be able to withstand having a chamber pressure of 65,000psi, but it is not immune to it.

A local sporting good store reported to SoldierTech that Smith & Wesson recommend having the barrels replaced by the factory for a $100 fee after only 1200 to 1400 rounds. This is due to the high-pressure gas cutting into the back end of the barrel. If the gun owner would ignore this problem, eventually the cylinder would also start to erode, causing all kinds of functionality problems.

This gas cutting issue could cause severe sales problems if people don't like to re-barrel so often. But even with the relatively short barrel life-span, in late April, Smith & Wesson announced that its new Model 460XVR received the 2005 "Handgun of the Year" award from the Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence.

Hitting a target at 250 yards is normally considered practical (if not tough) with a rifle, not a handgun. Let's face it; some couldn't hit a deer at 250 yards even with a scoped rifle. Now with the 460XVR, you just have to line up the sites and the gun will do the rest.

Now THAT is a fine piece of engineering! :D

Syniks, don't patronise me. I'm not a child. Nor am i stupid. Don't imply that.
Then what is YOUR point, except that you don't believe in civillian ownership of firearms?

You begin by saying that money spent on firearms (an arguably non-essential item) could/would be better spent on Charity to the poor.

When Legs & I dispute this by showing that that principle applies to ANY "non-essential" item you say you don't understand our point, then make an absurd statement about misusing firearms when you know very well what I meant.

So in what way are my statements patronising? I don't deny you your Right to a personal anti-gun position, but you shouldn't try to say that a pro-gun position is immoral simply because the money spent isn't going to charity.

I think a better interpretation of that quote would be to "enjoy life's special moments" and Jesus was pointing out that she can help the poor all her life. He was not dismissing the poor as you mention. That's just not WWJD :)<snip>
Please re-read the citation, that is why I reprinted the context.

Jesus was reprimanding the deciples for chastizing the woman for spending her money on abulations when she could have "given that money to the poor."

Jesus' statement (my paraphrase) "Why do you trouble the woman" (about her purchase) ? "There will always be poor people. Sometimes you gotta do what you want to do. She wants to wash my feet with perfume. It's more than what you schmucks volunteer to do (Right Peter?) What's wrong with that?"

I think it sums up the argument about "friviolous spending" quite well.

indeed. But i can still try to convince others :)


Failing horribly though :D

Well, as long as it's all clean fun.:D

Your failure is easy enough to deconstruct, though. Your audience is familiar with Firearms as more than a media bugbear, the result of such familiarity is that they aren't going to fall for the usual lines that work, say, on most College Campuses and among people whose closest association to firearms is Duke Nukem or Doom.

You'll find it's easier by far to convince people who are already inclined to agree with your base proposition, when using the arguments you've been using.