I am always expermenting with something to hunt with. I have been studying the Rowland pretty extensively lately. With my .45 Super using the 6" barrel I get low end Rowland velocities but the slide velocity and recoil are pretty fierce. Enter the Rowland with up to 300 more fps on tap with lower slide velocity and less recoil. Legal in nearly every state with a ftlbs requirement on handguns for hunting and it just makes sense. Coupled with the trigger work and new Dawson sights this thing is shaping up. reflex264

If you have higher slide velocity with your 45 Super than with the Rowland, then you do not have a properly set up Super

The Rowland is load to significantly higher pressure. Not sure what the Rowland can take that a 45 Super can't. Underwood Ammo's 230 grain JHP claim 1100 FPS, but are more like 1200 FPS. That will leave a mark for sure

Compensator slows the slide speed on a Rowland heavily over just a heavy spring like in the super conversions. One can easily exceed safe super loadings into Rowland territory without detonating a gun, but excess slide speed becomes an issue. 460 Rowland starting loads will typically outrun a Super load and be doing it with potentially less barrel.

I use an 18.5 pound spring in my 1911 for 45 Super, I rely on longer barrel slide lockup in order for the pressure to be lower when they unlock thus negating the need for ridiculously heavy springs. Mine does not exhibit excessive slide velocity

More than one way to skin a cat. Just adding a heavy spring is only a band aid IMHO

I should clarify that the Rowland conversion shoots supers as well and that will be the slide speed reduction. My super runs great as is with a 24lbs spring and 6" Storm Lake non ported barrel. reflex264

Now that I have a few minutes I can explain further. The Glock supers and Rowlands both are very simple and complicated at the same time. The Glocks will run supers just fine with no frame battering with the 24lbs spring and 6" barrel. Even set up this way the slide velocity is much higher than a non comp gun. The delays the unlocking which drasticaly cuts the pressure by the time the slide starts back. I thought about getting a comp barrel for the super but Johny Rowland has this worked out perfectly on his conversion. The beauty is I can still shoot my loads that have done so well but also have the opertunity to get another 250+fps from the gun. I have been well pleased with the super and hope to be just as pleased with the Rowland. The super has proven itself a great deer killer. reflex264

Reflex,

I can confirm that the comp on the 1911 does work for the Rowland, and is necessary. I tested one barrel years ago when the Rowland first came out, and did destroy the lower lugs on the barrel when shooting without the comp. It was a little confusing when Wilson brought out their comp-less Rowland gun, but the ammo they were using was a 230 in the 1250 fps range. They are now offering a comp'd version, so methinks that they came to the same conclusion. There is Rowland ammo out there spec'd with 230's at 1350, and even if your gun is built right the comp makes a world of a difference.

Besides, 230's at 1350 without a comp really verge on the recoil too snappy to be useful ;^) A comp'd Rowland with 230's at 1350 is really amazing at how it thumps but is 100% controllable. sans comp, the gun twists and flips violently. A few of those and you will think this can't be good ;^)

One thing to consider if you plan on running supers from your Rowland will be the "piston" effect of the brass. I have shot boatloads of 45acps from my Rowlands over the years, but I would really keep an eye on things doing this with the super ammo. As the round will headspace off the extractor, when it goes bang, that brass is going to slam pretty hard into the breach face. I would not be concerned as much with the case support on the bottom as technically it will be the same as running the Rowland. But in the 1911 this is like an excess headspace situation and I have decided not to run Supers in my Rowlands.

After playing with the Super for the last few months, I do think that a comp'd Super barrel in a gun that is also setup properly can really push closer to the Rowland territory than 250 fps. And an interesting thing I found with my latest comp'd 45 acp barrel from Clark is that it came with a less "hogged out" barrel feed ramp, so I actually have more case head support than the 6 or 7 Rowland barrels that I have also from Clark. That's a head scratcher for sure ;^)

You'll probably have better results with your conversion on the Glock than I have had in the 1911 world. With the Glock, you only have one platform that they tested on and build for. With the 1911, the tolerances are so badly "all over the place" when it comes to lug fit and link. Clark fits the 1911's to their factory gun which is a Kimber (at least the upper). I have never gotten a standard link size from them on any barrel, and they market it as a drop in, but I can say 100%, that depending upon which 1911 combination a user is running, the upper and lower lug engagement can and WILL vary a lot. Not so much as to make the gun unsafe, but absolutely enough that you can have issues with early unlocking, and very minimal lug (especially upper) engagement. In the 1911, lower lug engagement usually relates to accuracy. Little upper lug engagement will wreck a barrel and/or slide in short order with these pressures.

I look forward to hearing about your conversion....

Craig

Bear, you are correct a properly set Super can duplicate Rowlaond velocities. Powder capacity is nearly identical in both as the COAL is the same for both