It seems as if you are making a logic jump. Yes, I too am "intimately"
familiar
with the autorotational characteristics of both aircraft. If you are
flying
either model you should have the same competency level in either ship.
Therefore while the 500 may be more of a challenge to learn, one must be
reach
the same competency level, thus you will hit the ground the same and the
500 is
more crash worthy. Plus the whole mast bumping thing, LTE, limited sloped
land
capabilities and the other limitation of the 206 ....

A pilot of superb skill and familiarity with the 500 has less margin to deal
with contingencies beyond his control than an equally skillful and familiar
pilot has in a 206, and is, therefore, more likely to get into one of those
crashes that you like to remind us it is better able to withstand.
Statistics tell us 500s are more likely to hurt their occupants than 206s,
even when you take into account flying beyond the envelope (aka
mast-bumping), pilot inattention (aka LTE), and the other limitations of
which you speak. Hey, I like both aircraft, and there are missions for
which I would prefer a 500 series ship, but its greater ability to withstand
the sort of crash that it is more likely to get into is not way up my list,
unless I'm flying certain kinds -- not all kinds -- of hazardous mission
profiles.