I have a birthday coming up soon and looking at getting a new 454. I'm considering a Ruger Bisley sbh but not sure if I want the 4 5/8" or the 6 1/2". I was thinking that the 4 5/8" would be handy for carry but I'm a little concerned about sight radius, muzzle blast, and velocity lose. I have not seen much discussion on this forum about these new Rugers, so I would appreciate any feedback you can give me. I'm also open to any discussion on the BFR's Thanks

I have the 6.5 in model and really like it.

I have not shot the Ruger SBH but own a few Freedom Arms. I would not look forward to shooting the 4 5/8" with 454 Casull loads, the muzzle blast will be significant. I would much prefer the 6.5". I now have a 7.5" FA 83 and had planned on reducing it to 6" but it is so much more comfortable to shoot with the longer barrel than I am dragging my feet. I have a Ruger Blackhawk in 10mm with the 4 5/8 and that is ok with full power loads but I would not want that in .454.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY RUGER SB 454's BUT HAVE A FEW FA 454's, GO WITH THE 6.5, LONGE/BETTER SIGHT PLANE, MORE VELOCITY AND A LOT LESS KICK.

I MAY PISS A FEW GUYS OFF WITH THIS NEXT COMMENT BUT TO ME ANY 4 5/8ths BARREL LENGTH IN A LARGE CALIBER REVOLVER IS A WASTE OF MONEY.

I favor the shorter barrel, in my opinion sight radius is over rated for a field gun. My favorite FA 454 is the 4 3/4? barreled model. I also have 6? and a 7 1/2? but much prefer the 4 3/4? one.

I own the 480 version of this revolver in 6.5 and have found it to be solid and very accurate. I have found no issues with excessive muzzle blast and all my hand loads are pushing a 405gr hard cast at just about 1230FPS and shoot sub 2 inch groups at 50 yards. I know its not the 454 you are looking at but as far as build and accuracy, these are good revolvers. I have a buddy who has the 4 5/8 version in 454 Casull. I have shot it and love it as well. I have a SRH in 454 with the 6.5 inch barrel and the velocity difference is negligible between the 2 using the 300GR XTP Mag loads. If you can, shoot both variants and buy the one you like. I don't think you can go wrong with either barrel length. Just my 2 cents.

Good Shooting!

As much as I like the feel of a 4 5/8" sing action, I've found that I shoot the 5 1/2" and 6 1/2" barreled guns much better. I think it's not just the sight radius, but the slightly longer barrel makes the gun balance just slightly barrel heavy which in my experience seems to help me shoot tighter groups. The 4 5/8" has a neutral balance.

Of all the 454's I've shot, my favorite was a 5 1/2" mdl 83 that was roundbutted and mangnaported.

I do not shoot the short barrels well past 25 yards, add a inch or two in barrel length makes a big difference for me.

Thanks everyone for helping me decide on which barrel length to get on my new Ruger 454. Everyone's input is very much appreciated. After contemplation of the input I've ordered it with the 6 1/2" barrel. I look forward to getting out and doing some shooting with it. Thanks again.

Having spent extensive time testing the preproduction.454 Bisly, I have concluded that iit makes a better .45 Colt +P revolver than a .454. There is a reason that most gunbuilders of note won?t build a .454 on a Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk. They won?t hold up to a lot of heavy loads.

Whitworth thanks for your input. I have your books so I knew you had extensive experience with this platform. I was hoping you would chime in on the discussion. It maybe a moot point because I have already placed my order. I still would like to here about the weak points that you found. In all honesty most of my handloads will not be full tilt and many will be 45 +p, but it would be nice to have the option of the factory level loads if the need arises. Feel free to private message me if you prefer. Thanks

I had 6.5" for a while and really enjoyed it. I found out quickly that I didn't care for the bisley grip, so down the road it went. It was an excellent shooter and it's favorite load was a 335 going around 1500 fps.

I loaded some rounds to 45 colt+p and it was a sweetheart. Wish I had kept it, I would have gotten along with the bisley grip eventually as it was mild mannered with a 335 going 11-1200 fps. Stupid me.

The Bisley model Ruger Super Blackhawk 454 five-shot revolver is as Whitworth has asserted. It shoots loose over time and a lot of 454 Casull loads will create that condition. If you do not shoot an abundance of 454 Casull it will not be called "Lucy" as Whitworth so appropriately named his test prototype. Just shoot +P 45 Colt predominately and enjoy your new revolver. You have purchased a true classic design and it makes a great project design gun for the future. For instance, someday you could have a barrel-band replacement barrel to keep the ejector rod tube trapped between the frame and the rear of the barrel banded barrel. That would help secure it from shaking loose under 454 Casull recoil forces. Just saying.

Exactly! Ejector Rod Housing (ERH) ?launch? was a feature of both the .454 and .480 test subjects. Jack Huntington kept them both patched together while I was testing. He added a ?deadman? - a positive stop - to both ERHs to keep them firmly in place. I do like the banded barrel for both function and looks.

Don?t fret your purchase! It?s a great revolver that can handle full-tilt .454, I just wouldn?t feed it that level of pressure all the time. You will be fine! Keep us posted!

What is a dead man's stop? Is it something easy to add so the ejector rod housing will not launch off? Jack Huntington is quite the problem solver.

The deadman is a stud pressed into a hole drilled into barrel that fits into a corresponding hole in the backside of the ERH. It?s location is roughly one inch behind the ERH screw hole (where it attaches to the barrel). It?s simple, but takes the recoil forces off the screw preventing breakage or stripping. Brought to you by Jack Huntington!

I talked with Jack Huntington and he explained it and I informed him of my intent to purchase a BFR 475 Linebaugh/480 Ruger with a 6.5 inch barrel. He knew of the epoxy method used by BFR to retain the ERH. And he offered to share the deadman stud application method to take shear forces off the screw and retain the ERH with BFR. I called BFR and spoke to Brett who did not know of that method but was glad to hear about it. Their BFR 500 Linebaugh has been known to loosen their ERH even using the epoxy method. I do not want an epoxy method to keep my BFR from loosing its ERH. If and when I get a Bisley model BFR I will ask for the use of the deadman method to keep the ERH intact.
Jack Huntington said the 500 Maximum was really tough on ERH and two or three deadman studs were warranted to be used with that one.

Do what makes you feel comfortable but my son has one of the first performance center 500 jrh?s made and whitworth has two with more rounds than any other besides my son?s and they have never loosened. They both shoot rounds thru it with loads whose recoil is far beyond that of any factory or recommended lod data in existence. Its never come loose. We also have a bfr 454 that is about 12 years old and has had many thousands of rounds down it and it has never loosened. Just fyi

I?ve never had an issue with any of my BFRs and I don?t run any of them lightly. That said, I don?t think the .500 Linebaughs have had problems as only a handful have been built and the one I have is the first and I?ve ridden it hard since day one without issues. I don?t think BFRs are as susceptible to ERH problems as Rugers, but installing a deadman isn?t a bad piece of insurance!

I am sorry that I created a firestorm of criticism inferred with BFR revolvers losing their ERH. They do not loosen because they use epoxy to adhere it to the barrel proper. The epoxy method WORKS!!! I do not dispute that. I just would prefer not having epoxy used to adhere the ERH to the barrel on the BFR I purchase from the Precision Center.
I would rather have a barrel band at the front end as well as a deadman by Jack Huntington within the ERH. For peace of mind as well as the additional aesthetic look of the barrel band addition.
I like the use of structural design change solutions and I am neutral with the use of chemical application solutions. I am an artist so what works is not my only consideration. Peace with you all.

Whitworth,
Jack Huntington related the ERH loosening on 500 Maximum revolvers he had experience with. And Brett at BFR Magnum Research informed me that they had not had a perfect solution using epoxy to keep the 500 S&W magnum ERH from becoming loosened. I do not believe Brett was inferring a rash of ERH failures.I feel that Brett wants perfect performance and even a few or even only ONE incident is TOO MUCH and gets his attention. Just what I sensed and picked-up from the two conversations I had yesterday with Jack Huntington and Brett at Magnum Research.

For me it's very important that information disseminated on these sites is accurate. It's the .500 S&W BFR that has experienced the occasional ERH issue, not surprising in that the pressure ceiling on that cartridge is nearly 62,000 PSI. There are literally only a few .500 Linebaugh BFRs that have thus far been built. Keep in mind that they only started offering them to the public a couple of months ago and by nature, the .500 Linebaugh is a low-pressure cartridge, in fact considerably milder than typical .500 JRH loadings. My .500 JRHs as such are much harder on parts than my Linebaugh. I have damaged two scope bases on mine thus far. It's a relatively violent bugger the way I load it. And yes, Brett is not only dedicated to his craft, he takes a lot of pride in building some of the finest revolvers available.

Yes, the .500 Maximum can be a problem child as they are light in weight (a little bit more than the standard Blackhawk on which they are based) and they generate a lot of recoil (again, the way I load it). But ERH problems on a Ruger Maximum are unrelated to the BFR.

Just for the record.

Now, having said all of that, I do agree that the deadman is always a good piece of insurance and I too love the look (and function) of a barrel band. It's a nice detail.

Whitworth,
Thanks for the clarification as I only heard what I wanted to hear I am sure. The 500 Linebaugh does weigh less than the 500 S&W magnum. It does have a larger hole in the barrel and the cylinder-charging holes. But pressure does cause recoil impulse and higher pressure creates snappier recoil. Jack Huntington related that the 500 Maximum has larger holes in the cylinder and barrel so it lightens the revolver enough to cause recoil velocity to make the ERH loosen regularly.He puts two or three deadman posts on the 500 Maximum to combat it.
I edited my earlier post to reflect your need for proper record keeping on this site. Integrity is JOB ONE!!!

Personally I like the 5 1/2 bbl. Bisley frames, that said my FA 454 has a 7 1/2" bbl that I often wanted to shorten but it's just so accurate the way it is didn't want to mess with perfection. My Linebaugh 45 has the 5 1/2" which does not have excessive muzzle flash but then again it's not a 454. I had a SBH in 44 mag that mag-na-port worked over years ago and that was cut to 4 5/8", again no great shakes with the muzzle flash. I just ordered a BFR in 500 Linebaugh with the 5 1/2". In the end I think you really can't go wrong either way.

I will not buy any more Rugers. It seems I always have to have something done to them to enhance the Accuracy, and especially the triggers and Scales HAVE to be changed.
For me the BFR with Bisley Configuration is the way to go with any caliber or barrel length. Spend a little more and out of the Box its ready to go.

Charles