Author Topic: Took the .500 out today..... (Read 1621 times)

Darreld Walton · « **on:** December 05, 2009, 03:10:01 PM »

Temps were just a bit brisk. Mr. Thermometer said +10F. Still, the new handloads performed rather well, or at least to my liking.
Stopped at Rim Rock Bullets in Montana on a recent road trip, picked up a hundred of their 500 gr. hard cast gas check bullets, and with 28.5 gr. Li'l Gun, and shooting over the hood of the truck without bags, the irons gave me 5-shot group of 1.5 inches at 50 yards. Recoil was as brisk as the temps, but when standin' up and shooting like a real person, offhand, it was bordering on enjoyable.
Same gun with Rainier 335's and a 'bit' more Li'l Gun, and point of impact was quite a bit lower than the 500's with the same hold, but got about the same group size. Substantially less recoil.
The rifle started out as one of the 32" barreled .45-70 "Buffalo Classic" rifles, and I sent 'er back in to be fitted with the .500 S&W Mag and a .204 Ruger barrel. I'm quite sure that a lot of the felt recoil had to do with that buttstock and the steel plate.
Still and all, a fun day!
BTW, I tried to recover some of the bullets, especially the 500 grainers, and I had to stop digging at a foot deep in the loose soil I was shooting into. This might turn into a dandy little 'Black Timber' rifle sometime in the future, if I can EVER draw another tag!!!

BMKindoll · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2009, 03:34:34 PM »

That sounds awesome. Can't wait to take mine out. I have had it for almost two months and haven't shot it yet!! It's killin' me! I should have some 700 Grain "Trainstoppers" Monday so I can't wait to take those out as well.

So far to sight in my scope I have 500 and 700 grain bullets. Should be REAL enjoyable sighting it in!!!

Again sounds awesome. And what type of sighting setup do you plan on going with on that gun? Scope? Facotry irons? Peeps?

Thanks

Brandon

Big Blue · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2009, 04:31:58 PM »

Just got my .500 cases in the mail today. I need to do a bit of loading and hope to give it a try shortly. 1.5" groups from iron sights at 50 yards sounds more than alright to me. You done real good!
Don

Darreld Walton · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2009, 05:29:04 PM »

I've got two scopes that I'm thinking of using on the .500. Both old steel tube Weavers, one a K4, the other a K 2.5. I've a notion that the 4X might be a bit more than I really want on there, and that perhaps the 2.5X will end up living on it.
Before that, though, I've got to find a good stock blank to make better use of glass. The one that's on there now drops enough that my face is nearly off the wood, at least it feels uncomfortable when I have the scoped .204 barrel on this rig.
The plastic 'Fire' sights gave up the ghost in the cold weather. The filament in the front sight busted after exposure to the cold with just finger pressure wiping fuzz off it from the case. The rear is so crude that I mounted the Williams aperture sight from the .45-70 barrel on it in it's place, and that's what I used on it today, and just used the black bead that the front sight presented without the lighted piece.
I like the utility of the leaf rear/bead front that came on my .45 Colt 'Cowboy' gun, and I'll likely end up taking it down and having dovetails cut in the barrel for those...if there's enough meat in the .50 bore to let me do that safely.

cwlongshot · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2009, 02:05:00 AM »

Good show with those 500 loads!!

I have been playing with mine since I got it and have only gotten mediocre results. Those have come with moderate loads and lead bullets. Spf the 440WFGC bullet.
My problem is flyers. I will shoot two, three even four shots into almost one hole then the next bullet will go 4 maybe 6" off coarse.

I really wanted to load the Hornady 500Gr SP bullet, but had to give up on it as nothing made it shoot satisfactory. I tried all powders available sans the vltavou powders. Tim suggested I try these bullets from a guy Ranger Rick in AK, BINGO!!! These bullets and now my own cast 440 Grs with moderate loads of IMR/H4227 and XMP5744 shoot well enough for me to remain interested in this "big bore".

Good luck with yours!!

CW

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2009, 01:05:00 PM »

I'm still in the dumps over the fact that just sanding down some excess acraglass from pillar bedding the forend screw sent me back to the realm of the big fliers. Bummer. This gun is so sensitive about small changes. It was shooting extremely well at 50 yds with that little bit of excess pushing up - apparently just in the right spot. I have RTV bedded the whole forend now - but have not had a chance to shoot it. And so the beat goes on...

Big Blue · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2009, 01:21:42 PM »

I have a nice walnut replacement stock from Gunstocks. I bought it to use on my .500, but I want to wait to replace it until after I've test fired the rifle and seen what kind of accuracy it gets with the original stock.
Don

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2009, 01:54:50 PM »

Derreld - I had to put a monte carlo on mine to have a comfortable cheek weld with my scope. The trouble is that I had to use no lower than medium rings to accomodate even a smallish objective lens over the rear fire sight that H&R puts on. I will be curious to see how the new dovetails work - when I recrowned by barrel, I discovered that there is a thin hard outer barrel and a soft inner barrel - almost as if H&R stuffed a 50 cal liner inside a shotgun barrel. It was kind of a pain to recrown because the outer part is considerably harder thant the inner - which gave the cutter fits. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if you have enough depth to cut decent dovetails before you get to the inner part of the barrel - I guess there is enough, but I don't know.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2009, 02:01:42 PM »

I've shot with scopes and the BC stock on two of my rifles, the 45LC carbine and 38-55, the BC stock works fine for me with a scope that's mounted low, but if you have to mount in high or extra high rings, it may not work well.

Tim

jy951 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2009, 05:23:17 PM »

Quote from: guns-o-fun on December 06, 2009, 01:54:50 PM

Derreld - I had to put a monte carlo on mine to have a comfortable cheek weld with my scope. The trouble is that I had to use no lower than medium rings to accomodate even a smallish objective lens over the rear fire sight that H&R puts on. I will be curious to see how the new dovetails work - when I recrowned by barrel, I discovered that there is a thin hard outer barrel and a soft inner barrel - almost as if H&R stuffed a 50 cal liner inside a shotgun barrel. It was kind of a pain to recrown because the outer part is considerably harder thant the inner - which gave the cutter fits. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if you have enough depth to cut decent dovetails before you get to the inner part of the barrel - I guess there is enough, but I don't know.

Very interesting find on the barrel inner. Do you think it's actually a sleave? I don't like the sound of a sleeve.

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2009, 10:40:56 AM »

Like I say, I found that when I cut down for a new crown, there is a thin hard outer barrel (maybe 1/8 of an inch thick) and a somewhat softer inner barrel. I don't have the slightest idea whether they used some kind of liner or not. It may be it was designed this way to increase the torsional strength in the face of a potentially high pressure cartridge firing a big darn bullet. If anyone here knows the answer, I would be interested in why they put this thing together the way they did. I have not had a hint of a problem with mine - and I have not heard of any. But, I am curious to know why they did it this way.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:59:47 AM »

Quote from: guns-o-fun on December 06, 2009, 01:54:50 PM

... when I recrowned by barrel, I discovered that there is a thin hard outer barrel and a soft inner barrel - almost as if H&R stuffed a 50 cal liner inside a shotgun barrel. It was kind of a pain to recrown because the outer part is considerably harder thant the inner - which gave the cutter fits. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if you have enough depth to cut decent dovetails before you get to the inner part of the barrel - I guess there is enough, but I don't know.

I checked with H&R, all barrels including the .500S&W are made from solid blanks, the only exception was the discontinued Versa Pack barrel which was built a little different, still no liner tho.

Tim

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2009, 03:31:51 PM »

That's strange - because mine has a distinct outer layer about 1/8 inch thick. I could see it and my cutter could feel it. Did I just get an odd run or something. Either that, or once again, someone at H&R doesn't really know the whole story. Nothing new there as far as I can tell.

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2009, 04:20:14 PM »

PS - I plan to cut my 500 barrel down to 16.5. When I do, I will try to remember to grab a camera and take a photo of the barrel within a barrel. It would be interesting to see H&Rs response to photographic evidence.

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #14 on:** December 10, 2009, 09:55:05 AM »

CW, Is that a 100-yrd target or a 50? I am so frustrated with mine now that I am just going to shorten the barrel and try to salvage a specialty brush gun out of it. I have had it shooting well a couple of times, and then small changes completely degraded its accuracy. I have only tried the CPB 370s as far as cast bullets go. They did not shoot all that well. Maybe I should get hold of some Ranger Rick's...

cwlongshot · « **Reply #15 on:** December 10, 2009, 11:34:42 PM »

IIRC that was 50. Its not nearly as bad throwing shots with the lower pressure lead bullet loadings.

I also tried a powderpuff trail boss load. Even this one wasn't a great shooter!!!

Pruning may just be the ticket!! Keep us informed!!!

CW

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2009, 03:17:20 PM »

I may not go as short as 16.5 - saw one on another thread and it just looks kind of unbalanced. Besides, the 500 is a big enough case that a little slower powder might take advantage of an extra 1.5 inches - so I think I am going to do 18 inches. Anyway, I ordered a Choate forend and stock - with the shorter barrel and the synthetics this thing may be pretty handi, even if it kicks like Mrs. McGillacutty's mule. I think I will try some 4227 - IIRC it is a little slower than H110 or Lil Gun. And, of course, I have a whole new forend to play with as far as making adjustments is concerned. I will report back on how all this works out. I will even dig out my chrony. This round is so easy to load, and is such a good short-range thumper, I hate to give up on it. Besides, Slufoot has taken a bunch of deer with it....can only hope.

Big Blue · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2009, 03:52:07 PM »

Quote from: guns-o-fun on December 11, 2009, 03:17:20 PM

I may not go as short as 16.5 - saw one on another thread and it just looks kind of unbalanced.

That may have been a picture of my 16.5" barreled .500 S+W that you saw. I just received my Ironsighter scope base from Midway yesterday and was able to mount a Leupold M8 scope, a fixed 3X power scope. I put the whole package on the postage scale for a total weight of 6lbs. 14ozs. The point of balance is halfway between the trigger guard and the barrel hinge.
Don

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 13, 2009, 07:06:27 PM »

Quote from: guns-o-fun on December 10, 2009, 09:55:05 AM

CW, Is that a 100-yrd target or a 50? I am so frustrated with mine now that I am just going to shorten the barrel and try to salvage a specialty brush gun out of it. I have had it shooting well a couple of times, and then small changes completely degraded its accuracy. I have only tried the CPB 370s as far as cast bullets go. They did not shoot all that well. Maybe I should get hold of some Ranger Rick's...

I can tell you one thing, Ranger Rick makes some great bullets, if they shot as well as they do in my handgun, I will be happy.
I just put an I will take it on a new H&R 500 Mag to take on my next black bear hunt, and try some of Ranger Ricks 440 gr.bullets I have loaded up for my BFR and S&W 500 Mags.

Ranger Rick also cast some 370 gr. that shot very good in my BFR 500 Mag, but to me the 500 Mag shines with the 440 gr. bullets.

blind ear · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2009, 01:23:20 AM »

The 500 barrel I had was bad. It had 3 rifleing that were gaulded off near the muzzle. Wouldn't shoot well at all. Was repalced by a different caliber by H&R. I wonder if the reports of non shooters in 500 may have something to do with the cut of the rifelings due to the metal hardness? I don't know just a wild guess. eddiegjr

guns-o-fun · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2009, 01:14:14 PM »

It wasn't in my case - but, my barrel did come with a very ragged looking crown, which I promptly recut. There seem to be a number of variables that affect the way this gun shoots. It has been up and down. I have good accuracy for a while, then tinker and there goes the accuracy. Next step is not only crowning - but shortening first. Stay tuned. I will let you know how it all works out.

cwlongshot · « **Reply #21 on:** December 14, 2009, 11:36:50 PM »

This is what I am thinking if I wanna improve the accuracy of mine as well. Please keep us informed!!

For those reading and wondering what we are thinking...
Shortening in and of itself does nothing but reduce velocity. BUT, it gets you a fresh muzzle to be re and /or properly crowned. Its makes for an overall stiffer barrel. It changes the barrels harmonics. If you can in-vision an oscilloscope or sign wave. This is what the barrel is doing as a bullet travels thru it. If the bullet exits as its raising or falling its in more motion than if it could exit at the crest of the wave. Chopping the barrel allows you to "adjust" when the bullet exits, but its a "poke-n-hope". This is also why different loads shoot differently, different velocities cause different effects. Remember Browning and Winchesters adj/tunable muzzle brakes? That's how they functioned, they allowed for small movements of ALL of that barrel. Allowing the shooter to adj this for each bullet or load. As a bullet travels down the barrel, its not a smooth slide. Its actually quite violent depending on the smoothness and lack there of of that barrels interior. many variables exist here too. Was the broach (cutter) fresh and new? Or was it near at the end of its life and not cutting as well as it did at the beginning of its life? Dull cutters produce poor rough rifling with wildly varying diameters. This is the reason many suggest lapping the barrel. its also the reason it doesn't work for everyone. This is the heart of the reason I preach every gun is its own identity and needs to be treated at face value, not because its a H&R or a 500.

I hope that this explains more then confuses...

CW

mrgd · « **Reply #22 on:** December 16, 2009, 03:46:05 PM »

Cw, excellent post. Thanks for teaching.