I hope that your neighbors "really love big-bore revolvers," too, because your home-defense bullets may impact their houses—and maybe their bodies as well.

I think that your choice of guns is overkill, but that's just me.

Your previous posts lead me to ask: Exactly how much pistol-shooting experience do you have?
I note that you've decided to shoot .44 Special cartridges through your .44 Magnum revolver, so I wonder why you even have a .44 Magnum gun.
What're you going to use in that .460 Magnum?

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

I hope that your neighbors "really love big-bore revolvers," too, because your home-defense bullets may impact their houses—and maybe their bodies as well.

I think that your choice of guns is overkill, but that's just me.

Your previous posts lead me to ask: Exactly how much pistol-shooting experience do you have?
I note that you've decided to shoot .44 Special cartridges through your .44 Magnum revolver, so I wonder why you even have a .44 Magnum gun.
What're you going to use in that .460 Magnum?

I have been shooting pistols actively now for about six months. The reason I shoot . 44 Special through my .44 magnum is the same reason I shoot .38 Special rounds through my .357 magnum. My local range does not allow the shooting of magnum rounds because of a noise ordinance. I do keep magnum rounds in the guns for self and home defense. I try and shoot magnum loads through the guns at least every couple of months.

The S&W 460V also allows you to shoot the .454 Casull and the .45 colt along with the .460 Magnum. Both the .454 Casull and the .45 Colt are allowed to be shot at my local range.

Originally Posted by FloridaGuy

. . . My local range does not allow the shooting of magnum rounds because of a noise ordinance. . . Both the .454 Casull and the .45 Colt are allowed to be shot at my local range.

No comment on "why" you want the S&W .460V. I am often prey to "strange desires" when it comes to firearms. Especially big boomers.
But I'm with Steve on the "way too much penetration for home defense" deal. And he's heard my Alaskan stories below "before".

What's with the "noise deal" at your local range not allowing "Magnums", but allowing .454 Casull ? Very, VERY strange.

A while back I took my .454 Casull Ruger SRH Alaskan with 2.5" barrel to my outdoor club range. A substitute Range Officer was on duty.
I put 12 rounds of .45 LC downrange. No reaction from the RO who was about 30 yards away on the rifle range side. After target change,
I put TWO rounds of .454 downrange. And then noticed the RO plus two rifle guys were heading my way to see "what was THAT".
And yes, they were wearing ear protection because the range was hot.

I made a video comparing the effects of .22LR, .38 Special, 9mm, .45 LC, and .454 Casull on water-filled gallon milk jugs at 25 yards.
Just for fun. Besides the HUGE difference in splash from the .454 compared to .45 LC, its sound on the video is a LOT louder.

Unscientific testing, of course, but much fun. As to noise, YMMV.
I'm not about to buy a sound meter to determine the percentage of DB measurement difference. But I think it's significant.

In another interesting but unscientific "experiment" my .308 Rem 700 VSSS with a FMJ put a front and rear hole through the water jug
at 100 yards with hardly any splash. There was a "split" in the jug plastic, but away from the holes.

So, my "expectation" of the 180 grain 2,700 fps rifle round "blowing the jug apart" even more than a slightly bigger diameter
260 grain 1800 fps pistol bullet was totally wrong. I was thinking Kinetic Energy (KE) = 1/2 Velocity Squared (VxV) times Mass (M)
means much more rifle bullet energy and so "much more splash". Not so. Apparently there is not enough "resistance" in a "bit of water".

The .454 Casull was a hunting bullet (Nosler Partition) designed to expand "in meat". Maybe that was "the reason" ? ? ?

My range also has noise ordinance. For some reason, on Sundays, you're only allowed to fire .22 and .38 at the outdoor.

Cannon

I wonder if a 460/454 would blow out your ear drums if you shot it in the house?

Your right,,a 460 is waaay to much gun for the house. I think a .45 ACP would be a better choice.......

It would just be one option to pick from as well as the .45 ACP. Any firearm that makes it's way into my house becomes an option for home/self defense. Below are my current options. Plus I seriously want to add a S&W X-Frame revolver to my collection.

S&W M&P 22L
S&W M&P 9 Full Size
S&W M&P 9c (CCW Gun)
Ruger GP100 .357
Ruger SP101 .357 (CCW Gun)
S&W Model 629 .44 Magnum
S&W Govenor
1873 Colt Cattleman (replica) .45 Colt
Kimber Super Carry Pro HD .45ACP
S&W M&P .40 Full Size
Desert Eagle .50AE

Do you have a good safe?
Was your name and address listed in that New York newspaper?
At which times are you at home?
...Just asking...

I've got a question here about over-penetration (giggity) of these high-power pistols. So, say you use ye old trusty .44 Mag on an intruder. I would guess most altercations would occur (if within the confines of a room), at distances of up to 5 yards. Would there be enough distance for the round to dispel it's velocity on the intruder, or would you just see an entry and exit wound of approximately the same size? Would a slower round do more damage because it would stay in the cavity? What would do more damage at extreme close range? The .44, or, the .357?

Cannon

My understanding of ballistics and of mechanics is small, and purely practical.
Nevertheless, I have some approximate answers for you, based upon my reading and a little bit of experience.

A bullet does the most damage when it remains within its target. The majority of the damage is done through the transfer of energy—momentum, inertia, etc.—rather than from bullet expansion. The real purpose of bullet expansion is to keep the now-much-wider bullet within the target, thanks to increased surface area.
I know that a 230-grain, .451-diameter bullet, travelling at less than 950fps, will stay within its target, from the muzzle out to at least 20 yards.
I believe that the formula for inertia is mass (weight) times velocity, squared. Do the calculation for yourself, and correct me if I've got the formula wrong.
So, now calculate the inertia of a .44 Magnum load, and compare it to that of the .45 ACP to which I've referred. I bet that the result indicates that at within-the-room distances (seven yards or less) the .44 Magnum bullet will not only exit the target, but also will penetrate a couple of walls.
Do the same calculation for .357 Magnum, and I believe that the results will be more of the same. Further, the .357 Magnum may be even better at penetration, since we would have a smaller-diameter, lighter bullet travelling at about the same high speed.

Thus, I believe that you would do better at damaging a, um, target to the point of immediately stopping a fight, were you to shoot it with .45 ACP, .44 Special, or .38 Special.
If you were to use .44 Magnum or .357 Magnum, you would do less fight-stopping damage (!), and you very likely would have a serious overpenetration problem.


References: Thompson and LaGarde (1904), and Martin L. Fackler (1960s). Look in Wikipedia, and follow the links to their publications.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

. . . I believe that the formula for inertia is mass (weight) times velocity, squared. Do the calculation for yourself, and correct me if I've got the formula wrong. . .

I'll try to avoid my usual wordy comments. And I promise no snark.

I'll postulate the main influence on stopping power involving "pure physics" and not considering bullet design is "translational Kinetic Energy".
And I'll spare all you'all the crap about "a few minor details" you "need to know". You were close to having it right. So . . .

Kinetic Energy = K.E. = 1/2 MxVxV =1/2 times Mass ("weight") times Velocity squared.
where M = mass of object. V = speed of object.

At this point, we begin the "older than dirt" argument about slow and heavy (.45 ACP) versus fast and light (9mm +P).
I think this probably started with the Chinese fooling around with the first man-held "fire poles".

I will point out that energy is directly proportional to weight. And directly proportional to velocity squared.
So, this is an "argument" that you get more "energy enhancement" by increasing the velocity compared to increasing the weight.
And, this is the basis for upping the velocity for handgun hunting calibers. I.E., from .44 Mag up to .454 Casull up to .460 S&W.

Think of those 10% ballistic gelatin (Jello) blocks they shoot on the 1/2 hour TV gun programs.
Higher velocity creates more of a "shock wave". This will affect damage to "water/blood filled internal organs". IF you hit them.

Well Crap. Enough. Once again I've violated my intent to make it "short and sweet". I'm constitutionally unable to do that.

OK, as an aside to your comment, "inertia" is involved in Newton's First Law of Motion.
. . . Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest
. . . and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed
. . . and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Yes. Thanks, Dan, for the useful correction. However...
The transfer of kinetic energy still depends upon what the bullet actually does.
If the bullet stops within the, um, target, then all of the bullet's kinetic energy is transferred to that target.
However, if the bullet passes through the target, then only a portion of the kinetic energy that it carries is transferred to the target.
Thus, it is possible to transfer more kinetic energy to a target with a .45 ACP bullet travelling at under 900fps, than with a .357 Magnum bullet travelling at the metaphoric "speed of light," if the .45 bullet stays within the target but the .357 Magnum bullet passes through it.

In the case of the 9mm bullet, and also the .460 bullet, velocity will govern much of the transfer of kinetic energy.
At well beyond normal pistol ranges, a comparatively-fast-moving .460 bullet will certainly deliver more energy to the target than will a 9mm, a .45, and a .357 Magnum. In the case of a .44 Magnum, maybe the energy delivered would be pretty similar.

(I misused "inertia" because I remembered the old thought experiment of kicking a "weightless" cast-iron safe while it floats in outer space. It's a good way to destroy your foot, because although the safe has no "weight," it still has plenty of mass—and inertia.)