I have an itch and have been considering a 10 mm, but am now thinking I would prefer a 1911 .460 Rowland. Anyone here have any experiance?

No experence but I want one too!

Would much rather have one in a different platform though, maybe a s&w or sig, not sure how feasible it would be though.

Smith & Wesson M&P

http://460rowland.com/smith-wesson-mp-conversion-kit/

Also kit available for Springfield XD

I will pass on a tupperware gun in 460, haha.

I would rather have a S&W 4506 or sig p220 (or better yet p220 super match). If I even come across either for a good price I might grab it, send it to magnaport, get some heavies springs, and have the barrel re chambered.

Wilson Combat makes one if you don't like tupperware guns.

My 1911 shoots 45 ACP and 45 Super. I shoot 255 gran hard cast 45 Super at 1090 FPS, they'll leave a mark

Oh no problem with tuberware guns, just don't want one in 460.

I would rather have the smith or the sig. I just looked at the Wilson Combat, looks nice but 4k is waay too much. I guess I should look at the conversion kits out there for 1911's.

I have a limited edition Dan Wesson revolver, stainless, 5" heavy barrel, with a titanium nitride finished cylinder. One shroud has an EGW picatinny mount, the other is a plain stainless heavy. I also have a Wilson conversion for the 1911. I don't have one for a Tupperware gun; however. It is a decent caliber, pretty much identical to my 45 Win Mags.

Doc

I have had many conversions (Clark) in 460 that I have played with over the years. My latest is on a Colt Series 70 SS Reissue, and I do love the performance. I have not taken a critter with mine to date, but I started playing with 250 grain bullets last spring/summer, and hope to have suitable loads worked up for this year.

I am assuming that you are thinking about big game hunting with it, and as such it is a little tricker than big bore revolvers. Meaning that to get into reasonable hunting bullets, you almost have to look to non-acp made bullets. The .452 diameter stuff works great, but you really have to pay attention to your reloading techniques, and the way the gun is set up if doing a conversion. You do not want to have feeding problems that would cause bullet setback. And you may find that many of the wider meplate stuff may not funtion/chamber well. Like other wildcats that push the velocity of tradtional for that caliber bullets, you have to be a little creative in bullet selection.

I would also add that the power is definately there, and for me I shoot my Rowland more consitently across the boards than I do loading my 454 to similar power levels. Whereas SA's are pretty picky about shooting technique, a ramped up 1911 is much less so, for me. The comp on the Clark Conversion works amazingly well, and the lack of muzzle rise is pretty astonishing.

On the 1911, the conversion really pushes the gun design to the outter limits, as such you really need to pay attention to how your gun is set up, and especially to your reloading practices/techniques.

Craig

I talked to Double Tap today about the 255 gr Keith style bullet that they use in one of their .45 ACP loadings. I figured it would feed well.



Unfortunately it does not have a gas check and I prefer gas checks for hotter loads to prevent leading. Perhaps I can find a Keith style bullet with a gas check for .45 Colt somewhere.

Montana Bullet Works looks to have a couple of .45 Colt in 255 and 260 gr that might work.

http://www.montanabulletworks.com/45_Colt.html

I looked at the 460 conversions when I started shopping for a 10mm. I went with the Glock because everything I read was that the 1911 platform wouldn't stand long to full power 10mm loads. When I started looking at the 460 I just couldn't figure out how it would hold up if the 10 is to much

As to the bullet choices, I have tried some of the bigger offerings. The primary issue is that the case is a 1/16" longer than a acp case. But the limiting factor is the magazine OAL. So any bullet gets set deeper in the case relative to the crimp location (not powder location), and bullets with a wide meplat can be problematic in the magazine. Case in point is just run of the mill 230 ball. Some rounds mfg. will work, others no go as to get the oal set for the magazine, the case mouth hits high enough on the bullet to be above the ogive radius/taper point for the crimp. Obvoius no go. With some of the 255 fp's, you have to set them so deep to fit the magazine (width in front), the case mouth hits above the forward edge of the bullet driving band. So it is a balancing act when you get bigger than 230, but it can be done.

I have not tried many of the 255 or larger offerings in the keith or lbt style yet. I can get a 265 Cast Performance to crimp and feed properly, and if you like jacketed bullets the XTP's are available in enough weights and "magnum" design to find one to work, probably. If I were a whitetail hunter, life would be so much easier. I live in mule deer and black bear country, so perhaps I am being a little more cautious. I have done a boatload of XTP, 250 and lighter offerings penetration testing, and you can get reasonable XTP performance. But you can flat fold a 230 XTP inside out. Same with the Nosler 250 sporting bullet. One bullet that looks pretty dang good is the Beartooth 225 acp bullet. It penetrates to all get out, holds together, and pushes a lot of material. But I am a little leery, as the nose profile is not lbt per se, and I am afraid to try it on meat harvesting. I have a bunch loaded up for black bear and general defensive stuff, as I carry mine full time at the ranch that I play at. I definately have more purchasing and testing to do this spring with heavier bullets. Right now my first attempt is gonna be with the FA 260's that I use in my 454. The nose/core lead is very hard and has a destinctive flat reasonably wide meplat. I would not expect this bullet to open, but perhaps behave like a lbt/Kieth. Need to test.

As to the guns holding up, that is a concern. What it entails is a lot of 1911 "trickery". By this I mean dealing with a flat firing pin stop, balancing spring weights all the way around (recoil and main) and other things to try and minimize battering. I destroyed the bottom lugs on a Clark barrel while playing with comp-less. With the Clark, the comp is needed. What is also needed is a good barrel fit, all the way around, especially the upper lugs. Combine all of this and I think you can expect reasonable life. I have thousands of full pressure loads through one barrel, with no gun or barrel ill effects, but I also have one cracked Colt frame, and blew out a springfield slide with a bullet setback mishap. My only reloading mishap in 30 years of reloading, and I lucked out.

I have been playing and experimenting for 8 or ten years with the 460, and have a lot of rounds down range. It is fun, and I love the round, but it is not for the sloppy, or for someone who does not really pay attention. It helps to be a 1911 nut, who is up to speed on mods. I guess I would liken it to a 44 mag S&W revolver v. a Ruger in 44 (since everyone likes to say it equates to a 44 mag). With a S&W, you have to be a little more mindful of loads and lifespan, whereas the Ruger's are typically so overbuilt you can beat them senseless. I too have been intrigued with the 10mm, but then I alwys fall back on a little more speed, a little more bullet weight, and a little more diameter. Plus I love to tinker.

Craig

edit: Rio, sorry that was rude of me. Yes, there are a couple of bullets in your link that look interesting. The one you have pictured looks like it might work, but the width of the meplat might get into the situation I described above. I have not felt the need for gas checks in my Clark barrels. The finish has been so smooth that any residual leading comes right out with a little choreboy, and I have not had enough leading to degrade accuracy in any way. Not like you are going to shoot hundreds at one time, although I have done it at times. The only lead bullet issues that bug me are comp related. The comp does get pretty dirty and can get lead deposits in it. I will never shoot lead exclusively for that reason, but certainly for bullets that are used for something more than practice or plinking.

I had planned on ordering my barrel from Rowland and assumed they were the same. Is there a difference? Rowland now operates out of Tulsa, Oklahome and he has been very helpful to me with our email exchanges, so if it makes no difference I would like to order from him.

The first order of business is to get a 1911. I am headed to a gun show today with some trading material. I am trending toward a Remington R1 Enhanced. I noticed that Clark has Remington R1 on their list of acceptable guns and I want adjustable sights.

Rio,

I would guess that a barrel from Rowland would be a clark. The upside to ordering from Clark is that you can send your slide to them and they will check for fit. I am still puzzled how this can be done with just a slide, as when I have spoken to Clark they told me they fit using a Kimber frame. I purchased all of my barrels through Brownell's with my discount, probably why I have so many over the years.

Adjustable sights are a must in my book, especially if you are going to play with heavier bullets. Also helpful if you want to also shoot acp's. I had Novak do my S70 slide with their adjustable combat site, and am totally happy. It was about 120 bucks, and a week of time.

Nice to see Clark is updating their page with newer 1911's. I guess this means they are still "interested" in the Rowland.

Craig

Edit: The pictures on Rowlands site sure do show a Clark Conversion. And I finally found a picture of the R1 enhanced. The front fiber optic might give me slight pause. It might not hold up to the recoil, and if you shoot lead the comp will certainly foul it. Not insurmountable, but food for thought.

I traded for the regular Remington R1. I was also not much liking the front sight on the enhanced model. Now I need to order a kit and shop for a adjustable rear sight.

I may order fro Clark since the also have brass and I can get by with only one shipping.

Great post here, lots of good information. I really enjoyed reading it.

Greg,

I am just happy to have some interest on this board in the Rowland. Single actions are a struggle for me, the 1911 is in my comfort zone. The Rowland is on the lower edge of really big game hunting, and I have been struggling all these years to convince myself that my 454 is not always needed. Like I said, if it were only Whitetails or hogs, things would be so much easier.

Rio, welcome to the darkside. I think the R1 is a good choice, as long as the sight cuts are not goofy in dimensions. For the Rowland you really need a dovetail front, just to keep the sight on the gun. I could not tell from photos but I assume it is pinned. With the roundtop slide and dovetail rear you are probably going to have fewer aftermarket choices that are just "drop in", but once you nail down the angles of the cut, you will know what you have for choices. Just make sure whatever you choose is good quality. If you buy something like a MMC or Champion or other lesser types that have moving parts, the Rowland can eat those up. been there done that ;^)

And the R1 front sight does look pretty tall, so you may find with 230 and less weights you may have enough to work with. One of the bene's of this platform is that the auto has a different enough recoil impulse and design from Single Actions that going up in power and bullet weight does not requite as radical of difference in poi/poa (compared to revolvers). As an example I could live with one setting between 185's and 250's, as we are only talking about an inch or two at 25 (with my setups).

Jim Clark and Johnny Rowland were both in Louisiana at one point, and were pretty tight. Not sure what their relationship is today, but they may have a monetary connection so I would not lose a bit of sleep going through Clark. And as I mentioned they will check fit of your slide, so being that you may be new to 1911's, it may not be a bad thing for you to have done. The upper lug engagement is very critical to the longevity of the platform, and should at least be checked.

If this needs to go to PM's or the phone, let me know. Anything I can do to help.

Craig

Interesting information. I've not 'worked' with the Roland, yet, but have worked with several different cast 255gr'ers in the acp trying to get to te 900-1000fps threshold w/o sending my slide back into my forehead. Feeding hasn't been a problem with the swc's that I'm using in my 'stock' government model. Sounds like the Rowland may get there easier with less effort than experimenting with the 255/acp combo.

BTW, Hank, if you're coming to the OPHA meet in Woodward we can visit some about what you've found out thus far.

I plan on being there. I need to send my money for the banquet before the deadline and make reservations at an RV park. I will be interested it talking to you about the 255 gr bullets you have tried. Hopefully I will have the gun with me by that time.

Remington states on their web page that they use a Novak cut, but that must be for the enhanced model because I measured the dovetail width at .330 which should be a standard GI and a Novak rear is much wider.

I am planning on using drop in LPA adjustable, but just for development as I want to eventually go to nite sights and don't want to spend a lot of money and be cutting bigger dovetails until I know where I am at. If the sight blows up it will be no big loss as I have found where I can get one for 50 bucks.

But thinking further I may just use the fixed sights, because I can calculate what I need after I find where it is shooting.

Hank,

The LPA is exactly the type of sight I was warning against. I sent an earlier model to the great sight graveyard in the sky. But at least you understand the limitations. Something else I noticed about the R1 is that it uses a standard beavertail and hammer. Depending upon your grip style, that might eat you up, or at least make your hand pretty raw with extensive shooting.

Just throwing out ideas, but Novak does refinishing. If your thoughts were to treat the R1 as a base, and decided to upgrade the grip safety yourself, as Novak refinishes the slide when doing their cuts, you might opt to treat the gun as a builder, perhaps make some mods yourself, then plan on dealing with a refinish and sight installation down the road, with a refinish?. And the .330 width of the dovetail is good, if the angle of the cut is not goofy, then you are in good shape. But yes, I would start with what you have to get ideas. At the price point, that R1 looks like a very solid investment, as the 1911 is very easy to go bonkers with doodads and goodies. I just picked up a Browning 22 lr 1911, and while it is scaled down so goodies are not avialable, I am having a good time tweaking it ;^) It looks like my Bearcat may no longer be my go too bunny and grouse duster. And I only live a few hundred yards from the Rio Hondo here in NM ;^)

1948, the acp is going to be easier to get more bullets to feed and function due to the case lengthening I mentioned above, but once set up properly, a 250ish at 1100 is not a top end with the Rowland.

Craig

Hank, one of the two bullets I use is a 'Keith style' commercial. The other is a home cast WFN. Neither have the gas check you prefer. I don't find leading to be a problem and use these same bullets in my Ruger .45colts to 1050 - 1100 fps.

Craig, 1100 would be more than enough for the critters I hunt. Not sure how well lead bullets and the comp will work together. The only 'comped' handgun I own is a 'tender 14" .45-70 and I shoot 'jacketed' in it.

1948,

The lead will smoke the front sight some, and the top of the gun. No biggie there. It will also build deposits inside the comp and this has not affected my accurcay in any way, but the deposits can be a pain to get out. especially at the front of the comp, at the lower end in front of the barrel(threads). Seems to be mostly cosmetic, but I would guess at some point it has to be dealt with. My lead shooting is more minimal with using jacketed, but ymmv.

I had a frame mounted rail on an earlier gun, and I did not have a blast shield installed. The lead was a no go with a scope, and pretty hard on a Jpoint. Again, with this setup a blast shield would have been needed.

Craig

I could live with the 'cosmetics' issue as long as accuracy and reliability weren't affected. I hadn't planned on mounting a scope or 'dot' on the pistol,so that won't cause any problem.

My problem now is finding the 'base gun' I want. Would like to pick up a Ruger SR1911 as every Ruger I've owned and/or shot is 'hell for stout'. They're scarce as hen's teeth around here right now.

Russell,

I believe that the Ruger is in Stainless only and Clark recommends a steel gun over a stainless steel one. They also have a list of reccomended guns and ones to stay away from. Of course this does not mean that the Ruger would not work fine, but I opted for one on their recommended list to avoid any unwanted surprises.

http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/rowland.htm

Here is a thread on the 1911 forum the has several posts by Craig that I have found to be very helpful.

http://1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187513&highlight=Bearbait+firing

I have purchased a Remington R1 and my kit, brass from Clark, and some additional parts from Brownell's are on the way.

Thanks for the links, Hank. I know Clark recommends and prefers blue over stainless because of the ss causing more friction which translates into several types of 'failures'. It was pretty common in the first ss semi autos that came out. I know from experience. In my research on the .460 Rowland I've found where some have had success with both th stainless ones and with some others not listed by Clark.

As it seems I'm not going to come on a Ruger any time soon, I'm looking at the Remington or a Springfield. I'll get my kit from Clark and probably get my brass from Starline as they make the brass and I have an account with them. Last time I checked, Starline had it in-stock and it was < $100.00/500. I just ordered and I was mistaken it's 129./500. Anyway, it's on the way.

As a sidew note, I see where the R1 is now in stainless, too.

Russell,

I am currently using a stainless Colt s70, and have had no issues that are stainless related. Might be nice to know whether the issue with Clark was also related to the tensile/compression properties as well, but I proceeded with it having cut my teeth, and hopefully my stupid mistakes, on carbon steel.

I would imagine that if you planned to shoot lead a lot, you would have to deal with the deposit buildup in the comp, at some point. I just do not shoot lead exclusively.

Hank, thanks for picking that thread ;^). Folks on the 1911 forums sure can get cantankerous about "knowing" what the 1911 platform will not do. The thread does show what and how reasonable folks can discuss and learn, together. I have the bug right this moment to try out the sprinco recoil system to see what it could bring to the table. Lot of mixed stuff on the forums about the product, but again most of the replies are from folks working with standard pressure stuff.

Craig

Craig,

I saw several threads that you posted on, but I felt that thead covered the subject most completely and in particular your ideas for a 25 # mainspring and flat firing pin stop that we discussed on the phone. Newbies to the caliber like Russell and I can really benefit from you experience.

Thanks again.

Craig,

I really appreciated the info contained in your posts about the Rowland on the thread Hank posted. Lots of good information there. (Thanks again, Hank)Wasn't having any luck finding a stainless locally, so I went ahead and got a Remington R1, standard, blued.

I do know, having carried a .45acp daily for quite a few years, that when the stainless first came out there was quite a problem with 'gualling'(lots of friction on the rails to the point of almost non-functioning)and unless you kept the rails, barrel hood and locking lugs heavily lubed, the early stainless were not reliable. Could be that's what Clark is thinking. Just a guess.

Anyway, appreciate all the info and help.

Russell,

Given that the Clark conversion comes with a 20 lb spring for SS guns, certainly that must fit into their thinking. But mfg's have had SS guns nailed for a lot of years, so who knows. I know the stock 20 was not the best for my gun, mine needs the 24 or an ISMI 20. I go back and forth. Looks like you and Hank have the same base gun to build from. I guess you and he are gonna be able to share notes.

Hank, thank you for kind words, but this probably the only place I amy know a little more than you. When it comes to guns, from speaking with you, I could learn a lot from you.

Now that I have gotten fired up for this thread, I just ordered the sprinco recoil reducer for my Rowland. I have always wondered about these, so with my Brownells discount I can afford to test the theory. I spoke with Alan at Sprinco, I think the head honcho and it was a nice chat. Whether or not this will stay in my gun aside, apparently he does sell a lot of these and he mentioned that there are more Rowland makers out there besides Clark and Wilson. Maybe this thing is really catching on.

Craig

Hank here's a picture of the two 255gr cast bullets I load in the .45acp. The one on the left is a LEE #90358 (.452-255 RF) and the right one is a 'commercial' Keith-style swc. Neither are gas checked and I've not had any leading problem in my .45's, colt or acp. In the colt, I run them with 10.0grs unique and get an average of 1050fps(5'5", ss, Ruger Bisley NMBH). I haven't chrono'd them out of the acp, but I'm guesstimating 750-800fps. They both 'feed and cycle' well in the acp.



Sorry the pics are not 'courtroom' quality, but my little digital camera is only 5mega pixals.



The LEE actually has a larger melplate that the swc.

1948,

Wow, great timing. I just started tinkering with loading up the acp with a heavier bullet, and as my gun is all set up for the Rowland pressures, I have decided to see if I can get a 255 class bullet into the low 45 Super range, with super brass. I was playing with my cast bullets yesterday for my 454 (heavy weights) and cutting the bases off these bullets to only check for feeding shape (LBT, WFN, LFN etc.) What I do not have handy and want to try is something along the Kieth style. And I am also hoping to catch the crimp groove.

I have a 315 Lee bullet that I could not find on line with Montana Bullet, Beartooth nor Cast Peformance in a 255ish weight. Is the Lee one you cast yourself? Who makes the Keith one you show? And if you will, have you tried crimping into the groove with this or any other Keith style (Band ahead of the crimp groove)? Just curious if the front driving band looks to chamber in the acp without having to move the case mouth up onto the band. The only bullets I have in my stash with a band are Speer 255 SWC's, and these are too soft to to really check this (not to mention too soft for my plans).

Thank you, sir,

Craig

Craig

While I'm waiting on my clark conversion, I've been loading up a couple of batches of the Rowland with two of the style bullets I plan on using.





The 255 is the one I cast myself and the swc is the commercial, made by E&E Lead Products. (I believe they are out of business now as these bullet are part of a large quantity I bought 10yrs ago)

I have a 300gr cast chk'd bullet I cast, LEE 452-300RF that I may try later.

I'm loading these with Unique based on info I got from an article by Hunter Lee Elliot when he tested Wilson's Combat Hunter. I know that use AA#7, but I've been using Unique in my handguns since I started reloading in the mid 1960's and it's my initial 'go to' powder. Elliot loaded some 325gr cast, Lyman 452651, with Unique.

In the two loads pictured, the 230jhp is seated to a col of 1.262 while the 255 is seated to a col of 1.232. These length functioned thru all the 'mags I have on hand, including some old 1950's G.I.. Just wish my 'kit' would get here!

I crimp just a 'frog hair' ahead of the crimp groove on the Lee and a touch more with the swc, but still leave the front driving band exposed.

I've not had any trouble getting the swc to feed with the front driving band exposed as long as the col remains close to 1.256-1.266 (with the acp). I feel that the tapered 'nose' of the swc aids in the feeding. I do find that my 255 LEE reqiures a shorter col than the swc because of its wider melplat.

Russell,

Thanks for the info on the SWC/Kieth style bullets. I just need to order some and be done with it. As I posted earlier, the lengthend rowland case can actually work against us with heavier bullets, or designs that deviate from traditional 45 acp designs.

PLEASE be careful with the unique. In the article he says that load data was hard to find. There is a lot of load data out there, and none uses such a fast powder. Even if you extrapolate from 45 Super data, the convential 45acp powders are all too fast. If you look at the burn rate chart for powders (Hodgdon's website) for Power Pistol, Longshot and AA #7, you will see that these are much slower than Unique. These are the primamry powders used in all of the printed data that I have been able to find. You are getting a very fast peak with Unique, and I would bet dollars to dounuts that you will get no where near top Rowland velocities without possibly blowing out a case. I exclusevly use Longshot, and have seen very uniform pressure curves (from velocity of bullet and slide) using 200 grain bullets up to 250. These powders were designed for high pressure auto pistols of many calibers. If you do some research on the 45 Super you will see where I have gotten this in print.

Since you are dabbling with the heaveier bullets in the Rowland, as have I, you are already into the land of limited data.

Thanks,

Craig

PS Nice pictures and looks like a clean bench. Mine is mess right now, from sawing on 300 grain cast bullets.

Thanks for the word of caution on the Unique. I wasn't sure how it would react in the Rowland. I use it in the acp and my other 'pistol' cartrides with cast bullets. Didn't load very many and I've got a 'puller' handy.

In doing more research, I've found several who've used stainless, so after I get this one to working, I'll probably go that route.

Thanks again for your information, it's been very helpful.

No problem, as I am learning as well. I hope you will be able to find a stainless comp version. I have not called Clark to see if they still do them, but I did snag one from Brownell's a few years ago while they still had them. I do go back anf forth on mine, as I have several in blue, and kinda like the look of the blue in front of stainless. The nice thing with the stainless is that as the comp can get a little scratched up, it is easy to clean up.

I am not a super fuss for guns that show wear, but my poor FA 454 took a real beating last hunting season, as I tried a "cowboy" style rig for a whole week of constant wear. I am going to have to touch up the grip frame and my walnut grips. Gonna save the cowboy style for another application ;^) That is one really nice thing with the Rowland and the 1911, it is so much easier to carry for days on end. At least for me.

Craig

I started doing some playing with 255gr D&J cast bullets which are similiar to Hunter brand cast. I've been using HS6 but I haven't chrono'd it yet but in my ACP it's very accurate.

Craig
Clark still must make the stainless because when I ordered mine, the young man asked if I wanted blue of stainless. I'm beginning to prefer stainless as I'm not as prone to clean mine as often as I should anymore.

Rod
I bought some Hunter 'Keith style' 255 at a 'going out of business sale' and they look like the E&E's except for the lube color. I've got some HS6 but haven't got around to putting it in the .45acp, yet.