Anyone have a .460 Rowland?

[kamerer]

I'm thinking hard on building a 1911 commander .460 Rowland, taking a compensated, ramped Clark barrel I already have, reaming it and having it cut down to commander length (Clark will do it).

I'm curious how that round shoots with the Clark compensator in a 1911. Is it possible to handload lead GC bullets and have them function reliably for big game type applications? Or am I going to be really limited in bullet selection to get reliable function?

Having something that can get near replicating a .44mag bear round in a 1911 is, well, like a dream come true.

[saands]

I have one ... I don't know about your Clark compensator or about the length of the barrel you have, but the comp that comes with the 460 kit works quite well. I DO get 44mag performance with the 1911 and it is every bit as accurate as the 1911 shooting 45acp. The recoil is a little heavier, and I haven't shot double-taps (aka controlled pairs) for accuracy, but I'd bet that they wouldn't be much worse in 460. If you are thinking about a 3" or a 3.5" barrel, you won't be able to get true 44mag performance out of it ... you'll be more limited to 44mag out of a 3" bbl kind of performance :cool:

I will say that it is a little difficult to find bullets for the 460 as most 45acp bullets are designed to crimp right at the beginning of the ogive ... since the 460 case has about 60 mils more length in the brass, this means that most bullets have to be seated so deeply that you end up crimping on the ogive and not on the .451 diameter surface. I have found a few bullets that have longer bearing surfaces on them, so it is possible to load them.

Saands

[kamerer]

Thanks, that's pretty much what I want to hear...

I have a clark barrel with the clark/para ramp and two-port compensator. It's the same as the "Rowland Kit," just in .45acp instead of .460 (assuming you got the Clark kit). Instead of paying $300 for the same thing milled 1/6" deeper in the barrel, and without the strength of the integral ramp, I will just pay them $50 to mill the chamber was my thinking (and I called and they said "sure"). Since I already had a ramped barrel, it sounded safer than a non-ramped one.


Won't there be a reasonable selection of bullets in the .45 colt loadings I would think?

[saands]

There are LOTS of bullets out there ... the problem is that you still want to use the 1911 mag ... and the crunch happens because there just isn't much room in front of the 460 brass before you hit the steel of the mag ... and your bullet needs to go from .451 to 0.000 in that space. This is mainly due to the fact that the "45acp" WAS "45acp ball" for the entire design cycle of the 1911 so there isn't much room in front of a typical 45acp ball round in the mag ... if it had been more like a FN 5.7 round, with a pointed tip, we'd have all kinds of room in the mag :D

Saands

[kamerer]

Duh - of course. Hmm.....

So I really can't use a bullet with a LOA much different than a ball round, I guess. Must be a big flat nose WC out there about 240 grain I would hope. Guess I'll have to start searching hard...

[Charles S]

I actually considered it, but I already had a number of 10 mm handguns and chose not to get one.

I DO get 44mag performance with the 1911 and it is every bit as accurate as the 1911 shooting 45acp.

That is quite interesting. My carry load for woods hunting is a 270 grain Speer Bullet at 1400 giving me a little over 1175 foot pounds of energy. This is in a 4 inch Ruger.

I was not under the impression that the Rowland could even come close. This is not all that hot a load. There are loads from Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, & Garrett that are hotter.

[kamerer]

The thing to do is first be "apples to apple" - the figures you site above are in line with what Buffalo Bore defines as "Heavy .44 magnum" - within saami specs, but generally quite heavier than available factory loads. If you peruse Remington, Winchester, et al, you'll see they deliver performance a little more "inside the envelope."

At it's upper range, the .460 Rowland has been demonstrated to deliver energy and velocity on par with factory .44 mag. It is certainly possible to push a heavy ruger or freedom framed revolver much further than this.

It seems that in a really careful analysis, a 10mm will get to .41 magnum factory loadings. In Double Tap/Buffalo Bore type loadings, it can't get close to .41 (which in their hands approaches .44magnum factory). Likewise with .460 R and .44 magnum.

It might be fair then to say that .460 Rowland has the ability to perform like a .41 magnum "apples to apples," what the 10mm was hoped to do (according to the gun wags).

After trying to squeeze my needs into a 10mm, .41 magnum, and .460 Rowland, I gave up and bought a .44 magnum last weekend. So my .460 Rowland angle here is to make something interesting out of a .40 commander I've never been happy with.

I've been studying these really carefully to select a bear defense round. The experts are pretty unanimous that the minimum you need is a hot .41 magnum - so to me both the .460 and 10mm fall short - the .460 could do it if the bullet selection was greater (e.g., not limited to the standard magazine length).

[Alleykat]

I was not under the impression that the Rowland could even come close. This is not all that hot a load. There are loads from Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, & Garrett that are hotter.


You're probably right. However, it sure sounded great when he posted about having .44 mag power in a 1911, didn't it? :cool:

[The Tourist]

This limited amount of useable bullets was my displeasure with the .451 Detonics conversion.

However, while that load was very easily reloadable with 185 grain slugs, the OAL and magazine was a whole lot better than the Rowland. Obviously, strong springs all around were to be used, even the inertia firing pin spring.

Is the creation of a .45 ACP Magnum worth the trouble?

[Charles S]

The thing to do is first be "apples to apple" - the figures you site above are in line with what Buffalo Bore defines as "Heavy .44 magnum" - within saami specs, but generally quite heavier than available factory loads.

These are my handloads and are well within the book specs. I am quite happy to shoot them in my S&W's also.

It seems that in a really careful analysis, a 10mm will get to .41 magnum factory loadings. In Double Tap/Buffalo Bore type loadings, it can't get close to .41 (which in their hands approaches .44magnum factory).

Owning both the 41 mag and the 10 mm, and shooting them both a lot: that statement is wrong. The hottest 10mm loads will not even come close to the standard factory loadings. People who believe that are wrong. The only way you can arrive at that is by comparing down loaded Winchester Silver tips in the 41 mag to the 10 mm.

The original 41 Remington Magnum load was too hot for law enforcement so law enforcement loads were downloaded. One of the hottest loads for the 10 mm is equal to a load that for the 41 Remington magnum that was downloaded for law enforcement.

Compare loads across the board (even ignoring) Double Tap, Buffalo Bore, look at Remington and Winchester.

Here is Winchester's ballistics on a load that has not been downloaded.

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/handgundetail.aspx?symbol=S41PTHP&cart=NDEgUmVtIE1hZ251bQ==

The Winchester load delivers 833 foot pounds at the muzzle and is not all that hot, again I challenge you to find a 10 mm load that is its equivalent.

I can easily improve on this with handloading. However I cannot improve on the Double Tap 10 mm loadings that are not the equivalent of this load.

[saands]

To clarify, my handloads (I've never actually shot any 460 factory loads) are 200gr RNFP on top of Hodgdon Longshot. They run 1550 fps average which yields 1067 ft-lbs of energy. It certainly isn't a hot 44Mag, and probably falls 30% short of what you can easily handload in 44mag, but I think that it is in the population that calls itself 44Mag ... and it is a pleasure to shoot.

Saands

[Charles S]

To clarify, my handloads (I've never actually shot any 460 factory loads) are 200gr RNFP on top of Hodgdon Longshot. They run 1550 fps average which yields 1067 ft-lbs of energy.

That is certainly impressive and easily outperforms the 10mm. Your correct that your load outperfoms the majority of mainstream (Federal, Remington, and Winchester) loadings.

You also seem to like the cartridges characteristics. What platform did you build your on?

That more than enough energy for a great hunting handgun.

[Alleykat]

I don't think that muzzle energy is the end-all measurement. Factory load, 135gr. .40 Supers run @ 1800 fps and 971 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. For most hunting applications, I'd take a larger bullet with a little less muzzle energy.

[saands]

I don't think that muzzle energy is the end-all measurement.
I agree ... if 44Mag means 240gr bullets to you, then this plain and simple isn't like one of those. That's OK by me.

I still like my 1911 in 45acp ... so when I found a spare Springfield Armory slide that was in good condition, I used that to make a quick-swap setup for my full-sized stainless SA 1911. Because the compensator on the Clark kit blocks access to the guiderod, it takes a little effort to swap back and forth ... if I hadn't run across the spare slide for a reasonable price, though, I would have just continued using the base SA pistol.

I'm not all that fond of the cartridge, really, mostly because of the limited availability of bullets that it can use. I do think that it is pretty cool that the kit allows such an amped up load to run so smoothly, so accurately and so comfortably in a 1911, though.

Saands

[Alleykat]

I've shot some .45 Super and .450 SMC through an aftermarket, threaded compensated barrel for my G21. I know that the two rounds mentoned aren't as stout as the .460 Rowland, but the G21 handled them fine.

[Ultima-Ratio]

Johnny Rowland simply renamed the .451 Detonics, yawn.

The .45 Super and the Rowland/Detonics can all be loaded to the same energies, powder capacity remain the same because in the 1911 platform your OAL is the determining factor. The round must fit in the magazine, right?

The key in the conversions is simply chamber support, in a fully supported chamber whether ramped or not, even standard .45acp brass may be loaded to these pressures.

Paranoid? Used Starline +P brass, studies show it's the strongest brass for the acp.

[Alleykat]

Paranoid? Used Starline +P brass, studies show it's the strongest brass for the acp.

I doubt if you can produce any "studies", but what you're saying is exactly what Starline says. Unless one's going to be hunting with a handgun, what's the point of the rounds that simply dump more powder into a .45ACP case?

[vaquero aleman]

There are two key elements to the .460 Rowland concept. The first is a sharp increase in cartridge maximum pressure over the .45 ACP and .45 Super. Maximum Average Pressure is: 45 ACP (21,000 PSI), .45 ACP +P (23,000 PSI), .45 Super (28,000 PSI), .460 Rowland (40,000 PSI). The result of this pressure increase is a potential for 185-grain (12.0 g) bullets to achieve 1,500 ft/s (460 m/s) MV and 230-grain (15 g) bullets to achieve 1,340 ft/s (410 m/s). The second element, in regard to M1911 type autoloaders, is to dampen or reduce the velocity of the slide to a manageable level.

***Taken from Wikipedia.***