I own both a Smith & Wesson XVR 8 3.8? barreled 460 and, the BFR 460 with 7.5?. After spending some time with both firearms, I thought I?d give my thoughts and comparison head to head.

I owned the Smith first and was completely happy with it. That is, until I set my chronograph up and quite frankly, could only get .454 ballistics on a max load of .460. That lead to countless text messages between Tradmark and I, as well as, Franchise and I. Two guys I respect and call friends. The bottom line was I didn?t buy a .460 because I wanted a .454. That plus my OCD brain lead to me purchasing a second .460, this time the 7.5? BFR.

Here are my thoughts comparing the following aspects of each: appearances, build quality, trigger, grip, sights, and ultimately, performance.

Appearance ? I think this one is largely based on preference, but I gravitated toward the Smith. I like the look of the full underlug, especially since I knew I would eventually put some type of optic on top. Price being roughly the same, appearance of the two played a big role in why I originally bought the Smith first. The BFR of course, has a very classic SA look to it, minus the mile-long cylinder (we?ll talk more about that later). My personal vote here goes to the Smith.

Build Quality ? Without question, the BFR wins here. The fit and finish is of the nicest firearm I?ve ever owned. Specifically, the cylinder gap on the Smith measures at .004, while the BFR is .002. Two one-thousandths of an inch probably doesn?t sound like much, but I found out it makes a huge difference. Outside of the cylinder gap, I?d say both are relatively close. But again, the cylinder gap as I?ve discovered is the difference between a nicely made revolver and one that is made clearly with attention to detail in mind. My vote here goes to the BFR.

Trigger ? This one was interesting to say the least. To level the playing field, I?ll only talk about the two in terms of their SA pull. Out of the box, the Smith trigger felt nice and broke very cleanly at just over 5 lbs. 5 lbs. is much too heavy in my opinion, but it felt a lot less due to how clean it broke. After some time with the gun and a few after market parts, I now have that trigger at a near perfect (IMO) 2 lbs. 7 oz. The BFR on the other hand broke at 3 lbs. but felt much heavier. It was very ?gritty?. I was really shocked by this due to my comments about cylinder gap. The bottom line, the BFR trigger felt a ton worse and heavier. Once again, after a thorough disassembly and polish job, it now breaks very nice and clean, and still at 3 lbs. I?ve got after market springs on the way because I?d like to get this down another ? pound or so. My vote ?out of the box? here, goes to the Smith.

Factory grip ? Once again, I think this one is more personal preference. The factory Smith grip is unreal comfortable and greatly reduces the felt recoil. I flat out love it. The finger grooved rubber handle plus a SA/DA recoil is really, really, easy on the hands. The BFR?I?m still adjusting to it. I have a lot of past experience with a Ruger SBH so the Bisley style grip isn?t new to me, but I?m still getting readjusted to it. I?ve order and received an aftermarket grip for the BFR that is very similar looking to the Smith. Rubber with finger grooves. I haven?t shot it yet, so I?m not sure how it will pan out. My vote here goes to the Smith.

Iron sights ? Both are junk, pure and simple. I suspect both companies know that most who buy these firearms are going to hunt with them and most likely will replace the iron sights with either a scope or red dot of some kind. Still, for the price, I expect better. No vote here.

Performance ? This, in my opinion, is where the rubber meets the road. I tested multiple loads in both guns and consistently the BFR kicked azz. With a max book load of 110 pushing a 265 grain A-frame, the Smith averaged 1933. The BFR?2189. Almost 250 fps faster. I tested another load using an almost max book load of 4227, and the BFR was over 200 fps faster. Brass was Starline, primer was CCI 200 (note ? non-magnum). This is where I found out just how important two one-thousandths of an inch are?. My vote here goes to the BFR of course.

Overall, I love both guns but, in my opinion, the BFR is the clear winner. I can do a trigger job and get use to the grip. But performance is king. The Smith, although I still love it, will be used primarily as my back-up now. The BFR?gives me true .460 ballistics.

Everything above is my opinion and my opinion only. Except for the performance part ? can?t really argue with the numbers?

Welcome to the club, Randy! I knew you would like the BFR! They are outstanding in every way. Congratulations on your purchase!

Curious about your grip purchase. I am unaware of any rubber grip for the Magnum Research iteration of the Bisley. You can get them for the plow handle however.

I think you got a plow handle, Randy, in which case you should re-grip it to a Bisley as it's a completely different animal.

See this photo. Plow handle top, Bisley bottom:

Hey Max thanks! Yes it came with the rubber plow handle. I actually ordered a Pachmayr grip intended for a Ruger SBH. It?s not a perfect perfect fit, but really close.

I'm sorry you didn't get one with a Bisley grip. It's nothing like the Ruger version, and it changes the entire shooting experience.

Cool. I might just order that grip then.

Don't read me wrong, Randy, I just thought you had ordered the Bisley and it is that much better.

Cant. Gotta get jack to do his magic. My son loves the plowhandle so maybe we get together and u can see mine and see which one you really like better.

Your son is a bit of an anomaly as well as I don't think I have seen anyone in recent memory naturally shoot as well as he does....just sayin' :-)

Randy, I have the old rubber grips on this BFR (with a plow handle grip) and I like them a lot better than the newer ones - that I have on the other BFR I have with a plow handle grip, a .45/70. I find the newer ones to be very uncomfortable -- too narrow up top, and too wide on the bottom.

That?s the grip I thought I was getting. I also like how yours has a protective piece of rubber on the backside of the trigger housing.

So much for gain twist rifling, go figure, congrats on the BFR Randy, they are built like a brick shithouse!

Did a trigger job on the BFR. Breaks right at 2 lbs. now.

BFR trigger pull

And that makes all the difference in the world!

Interesting.

Thanks for the write up Randy! I can see how one would be a little less than amused by your chrono findings with the big Smith. You could have a much more nimble FA83 or BFR in 454 casull and get about the same performance.

curious, is your smith a performance center or standard offering?

definitely sheds light on how important that cylinder gap is!

It?s the standard. I?m sure the PC is much better.

The .454 doesn?t have the case capacity to compete with the .460.

I understand that, but with the actual velocities Randy M was showing above with the Smith XVR, you are in the 454 casull realm. His BFR is posting the velocities that one would expect with the much larger powder volume

That is with mid-range bullet weights. There is no comparison when the real heavy-weight bullets are pushed to maximum velocity in the 460 S&W.
And You can send your revolver to Cylinder and Slide and have the barrel set back to narrow the barrel-cylinder gap. I sent my own 500 S&W in to Cylinder and Slide for an action job and they found what they deemed to be an excessively wide cylinder gap. The barrel was removed and the barrel set back to .005 which is modest and not too tight, but better than .009 or more that it was.

Appreciate the response. I'm assuming by 'no comparison' with the heavier bullets, you mean the fps gap would be even greater. Seems to me cylinder gap would play even a bigger role when trying to get 300+ grain bullets moving. Am I misunderstanding you?

I followed you on that. And that's exactly why it wasn't acceptable. I didn't buy a 460, so I could shoot a 454...

I am sorry I was not more clear Randy. The 454 Casull has a higher pressure rating than even the 460 S&W so mid-weight bullets will not show any real advantage with the 460 S&W. Also the length of the barrel and how efficient the powder burns is a limitation of both cartridges. But to be clear, in an all-out power race with 400 grain and heavier bullets the 460 S&W will be the faster of the two, as it has more powder and will push the BIG Heavy Bullets appreciably faster. I shoot 454 Casull out of my 5-inch barreled, muzzle-brake equipped 460 V S&W revolver. I have not had the barrel gap measured but will do so. Out of the 5 inch barrel the 460 S&W would not be as efficient with mid-weight bullets. Just my opinion sir.

Ah ok, gotcha. That would be an interesting study. Please post results if you do a comparison. I turn into a true geek when it comes to this stuff.

Also, you can buy a cheap set of feeler gauges at your local Home Depot/Lowe's if you want to measure your gap.

Thanks for the tip. My 460 S&W was sent back to Smith and Wesson to have a Master Revolver package done and an added "fixed" trigger over-travel stop installed. I also sent it into Cylinder and Slide to be bead-blast finished and carry beveled, along with my 500 S&W 6.5 inch half-lug barrel. They discovered the 500 S&W had too large a barrel cylinder gap (.009 or more) so they figured out a way to take the sleeve off of the outside of the barrel and set the round barrel back to accomplish a tighter, but not too tight,.005 barrel cylinder gap. I will let you know what I can when I find out. Thank you!!

Its not just cylinder gap, the freebore in the bfr is a huge advantage as well, so is the rifling. Randy was barely getting 454 velocities. That said, ive seen this with many smiths as well as my own. The bfr is by far a faster better built gun. It out distances my 454?s with any weight bullet handily. 265?s are well over 250 fps faster and 300?s are 240-500 fps faster depending on loading technique. None of which is insignificant. When you add to the fact the 7.5? bfr balances as well offhand as a 10? fa83 you have something for sure. The real issue is the frrebore and the rifling. Smith does a few things that cause a velocity loss.

I had thought about the freebore issue and 45man sent me an article about that issue testing a variety of semiauto rounds out of revolvers and the resultant higher velocity readings on the revolvers that shocked everyone. Interesting that what i though reduced aesthetic appeal and may be a hindrance with that long cylinder may be a very inadvertent and huge benefit.

I would say gain-twist rifling on the 460 S&W could be equated to a free-bore type run and, after speaking with Cylinder and Slide, I am certain my own 460 S&W revolver has a modest .005 barrel-cylinder gap. Ralph goes over and measures everything when charged to do anything to your firearm. That is how he found the excessive barrel-cylinder gap on my 500 S&W that he was also working on for me along with the 460. He called me when he discovered it on my 500 and we talked over the options. I am very happy with Cylinder and Slide and they stand behind any work they do with their lifetime warranty. You cannot beat the service or the results.

The gain twist rifling was used by Smith & Wesson to minimize impact damage done to the forcing cone and frame. Makes for a smooth, easy transition for the bullet. They also wanted to make sure they don't spin the cores out of lighter jacketed bullets. Because of this it doesn't build the same pressure it would with a faster twist up front.

Hmmmmmm, that makes sense. I thought it had something to do with keeping jacketed bullets, reaching up to 2300 fps, from doing as you say. So to infer on the other hand. Is it the BFR intention that they are welcoming the result of NOT having gain-twist rifling to mitigate such occurrences? How they can make it work right with their cut-rifled barrels to keep such maladies from occurring is beyond me. Maybe they are more prescribing in what type of bullets they say their 460 BFR can handle?

That is all very interesting for sure...

Jeff I gotta say, I'm surprised that Cylinder and Slide only reduced your gap down to .005. Maybe that's as far as they could go due to pistol design but my standard Smith has a gap of only .004. My BFR is .002 at the most.

I'd really be interested in any chronograph tests you do if you ever do. Only as a truly interested and geeked out performance guy.

Cylinder gap and what 45man and Tradmark mention about 'Freebore' has my mind spinning right now.

Thanks for the review Randy. Maybe it's just me being the cheap sob that I am however I'd better not have to send a $1400 gun anywhere to get it fixed to the way it should have been to start with. That would just twist my tail!

Bluecow, I could not agree more.

That's why you start with the BFR!

Cylinder and Slide specifies .005 as the closest they will go as it is a standard maximum allowed for reliable functioning but not so close that unforeseen thickening from shooting and use could bind and cause sketchy reliability.
I could live with .004 though. I think barrel-cylinder gap is a necessity for efficiency, but .002 could be too tight for a double-action revolver. The single-action revolver on a true and fixed axis can handle those tight rotation tolerances, especially if it is a BFR or Freedom Arms model. The swing-out cylinder yoke could cause enough play to build-up so that the .002 span could bind and inhibit rotation of the cylinder when engaged. Just my thoughts on the matter.

It never dawned on me the DA/cylinder swing-out feature could be a limiting factor. I learnt something today...

The reason to send any revolver or semi-auto to get more work on it is just the same as why you have a Precision Center at Magnum Research and the Performance Center at Smith and Wesson. Heck Ruger even has a custom shop. Because you seek to refine the basic working package you have and personalize it to your aesthetic and/or functional whims. And this is why gunsmith and barrel-porting professionals have job security. Because these admiral works of design deserve refinement and care. It is not about money. It is amount the goal. At least that is what I make of my experience.

Yep. And it only cost me an additional grand to get my Smith shooting like it should have straight out of the factory. But of course it's now called a BFR...

I like my smith, don't get me wrong. But Max is right, if you start with a BFR, you're starting way ahead. I do my own trigger jobs, which cost about $20 and $8 of that was shipping.

This is speaking purely from a factory performance stand-point. If you're a DA guy, then my argument is pointless.

Good discussion Jeff. Shoot straight in whatever platform you choose, brother.

Mature individuals can discuss and discern. Thanks for your mature demeanor and I wish you the best in all that you endeavor to perform or address. God Bless And Keep You Always!!! Amen

Hear hear...