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.

Craig

I did find some 260 load data using 3 powders; Power Pistol, AA#7, and True Blue. Power Pistol is #33 on Hodgden's Burn Rate chart, Unique is 31. The max load for the Power Pistol and the 260 Speer JHP is 9.4. My Unique load with the 255 cast is 3.4grs under that so we'll see.

During all this preparation, I found a box of 260gr Nosler Partition-HG's. The box says hollow point, but I'd call it a cup-point. I may try a few of these and some AA#7. The data I have shows 11.1grs of AA#7 and a 260 speer hp giving 1077fps out a a 5" Kimber with the Clark conversion. If the Nosler is stout enough, that might make a good 'bear thumper'.



It's the last bullet on the right. L-R:Speer 230 Gold Dot, bulk 230jhp (Midway, I think), 255cast swc, 255cast LeeRF, Hornady 255XTP, and Nosler 260.

I think E&E, D&J, and Hunter all must have used a similiar mold. That Nosler Partition is more than stout enough, it's designed for heavy 45LC and 454 Loads. I used it in my 460 before I sold it and it was an exceptionally accurate bullet and I would have used it for big bears. It's similiar to the A frame which is also a tough bullet the only problem is the partitions are pretty much gone. They had a short run of them but as far as I know they are out of them already.

Rod

Don't know how old the Noslers are, at least 5yrs, but the price in the box of 50 is 48.95. At that price a fella couldn't afford to shoot too many. Thanks for the info on just how 'stout' they are. I'll load a few and see how they function.

Russell,

Thanks for the additional information. I am sure Unique will work to a point, it is just that most of the sources use something a bit slower. And it is not just about absolute pressure and top loads, but the pressure curve and the locking/delayed opening of the 1911 slide. As I am sure you know, the slide is headed backwards before the bullet leaves the barrel. One of the reasons the comp works so well is due to the faces on the perpendicular edges of the comp getting hit with gases. This in effect causes the barrel to "drag" against the slide's "pull". And all of it affects just how much total rearward velocity the slide gets. And how much gets transmitted to the frame. So it really is a system of moving parts. Lots of room to experiment to get the right balance of things.

As to the bullets, if you are open minded about the slightly lesser weights, the Hornady XTP line has some real potential. As they make the 45 diameter bullets in standard and magnum version (for the 454), you can tweak penetration and expansion this way. In my wet newsprint testing, the mag versions do penetrate deeper with less expansion than the non-magnum offereings, just like you would expect. The other nice thing about the XTP's is that have been the most accurate bullets in all of my Rowlands, without exception. I have tested many of the premium 230 HP's, and without exception the Rowland at the top end flat turns them inside out.

I tried seating the FA's 260's yesterday in a regular acp case, and it looks like they might work for feeding. The core is really hard lead, so I am thinking that they could behave like the Nosler, or even like hard cast lead, as they do have a decent meplat. I need to test these, and they are priced between the XTP's and Nosler's. I think if I were going after a white tail type critter, and wanted very good expansion with decent penetration, I would skip the 230's all together, and use either the XTP in 250, or even the Nosler 250 Sport bullet. The XTP seems to hang together better than the Nosler, but neither would break the bank for practice. Driven to the same velocity, the 240 XTP mag has out penetrated the 230 or 250 regular XTP's. You can really split hairs just in the XTP line.

I wish I could find a source for the Lee 255 you have pictured. I would love to try that one with my current 45 Super endeavours.


And Rod I would agree with you, that 255 grain SWC bullet has just been popular for too many years with the Colt shooters to die off completely. I think Midway has a couple maker's of those listed. I cannot count the number of local caster one-off's I have seen in gun shops and shows over the years.

Thanks,

Craig

You guys might to see this if you have not. A link to a post on the Hunting page here:

http://www.handgunhunt.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=100516&page=0#Post100516

I checked the Grizzly cartridge line-up, and they only offer the bullet in 230 +P. Not Super or Rowland. I'll let you guys tell me what you think that bullet looks like, but I have a guess. Very interesting.

Craig

Found this page on Hornady's web site. The bullet performance vs velocity chart looks very usefull in picking a bullet for the .460 Rowland. I like the range shown for the 250 gr HP/XTP if it can be made to feed reliably.

http://www.hornady.com/assets/files/catalog/2009/19-22_bullets_handgun.pdf

Looks like Hornady XTp to me.

Rio,

Yes, a good link. I have that info squirreled away for my light 454 loads with XTP's. You would not have any issues getting any XTP's in 45 caliber to work and function in the Clark kit. I have tried them all, and had zero issues. And all shoot to the barrel's potential for accuracy, all of them. Or is that my potential ;^), I always forget.

My go to loads for my Rowland for carry (not necessarily hunting per se) are 250 Ranier plated and the 250 XTP. I run them both at about 1050 fps, so they are light by Rowland standards, but I have penetration tested them and the Ranier penetrates for days, and the 250 seems to give me a better hole than the 230's. Here at home I load up the XTP's, and when I am at the ranch the gun is loaded with the raniers, with a spare mag with the XTP's. The ranch has problems with poachers, and the idiots in the subdivision next door like to feed the bears. They end up at the cabin many times, and are just plain aggrevating. Sometimes the neighbors, usually the bears ;^)

Yup, I agree, the Grizzly round sure looks supiciously like the 230 XTP.

Craig

That's a good chart, Hank. It's in one of my Hornady loading manuals(along with the rest of Hornady's line up).

I concur that the Grizzly round is a 'dead ringer' for the 230 XTP.

I'll have to look at FA's 260. If they're a solid, they could be just the ticket.

I'm not locked in to the Unique.( I only loaded 10 rds) i'm just 'bull headed' enough to think that other powders 'might' work in the Rowland as well as the ones I've found listed. I'll be watching the 'signs'.

Don't know of any commercial source for the LEE. I like the bullet in my .45colts and they seem to like it better than the 255swc.

I recieved my Clark kit today and was disappointed with some shoddy machine work on the barrel bushing. The band that is machined down to make the latch was not machined down flush. As a result the bushing could not go into the slide.

I have sent the slide and barrel back, but IMO it should have never been shipped like that.

Don't have mine yet, but I don't like the sounds of that.

Hopefully it is an isolated case. The rest of it looked ok, but of course I could not check the barrel fit.

I don't know if they make the bushing or someone else that they buy it from, but in any case it should be checked before they install it and install the muzzle brake.

Hank,

That sucks. I have always gotten mine from Brownells. I know that Clark told me they fit them on a Kimber gun, but it sounds like they could not have actually fit this one on any gun. In thinking about it, if the kit directly from them is the same as the Brownell's offering, they may not be able to really do a complete check fit, as the hood will likely have to be dressed for length and width ( a good thing).

I have ordered bushings from Clark, or gotten them on full length guide rods, and what is installed on their Rowland kit is the same you get when ordering a bshing only or guide rod. That should have been fit. And I think you said they had your slide? Makes no sense.

Craig

No, they didn't have my slide. I was going to do the fitting myself with the help of my machinist friend that I mentiond earlier, so I just ordered a kit for self fitting. I never expected that the bushing would not even go in the slide. We probably could have polished the bushing down. If it had been properly machined it should not have to be polished. IMO the bushing was not properly centered when they machined the latch and that caused some meat to be left on the band opposite from the latch. So I decided to just send it back with the slide so Clark can fix it.

I see. Probably the best thing to do, as trying to polish the bushing with it on the barrel would have been a pain. And removing the comp can be a pain the rear.

Craig

C

I just hope they don't decide to open the hole in the slide to make the bushing fit rather than install a new bushing that has been correctly machined. I am a bit nervous since I see that their quality control is a bit lacking. If it was my company and this had happened rather than fix the barrel I would send a whole new barrel after careful inspection to make sure it is right.

After studying Hornady's bullet performance chart I have decided to go with the 250 gr XTP/HP as a better bullet for all around use than the 230 gr.

Since I cast most of own, I'm going to use the LEE452-255RF for most of my shooting and leave the jacketed to 'on occassion' status. Of course that depends on how well the casts shoot and whether of not they 'lead' the comp excessively.

Still waiting on mine, Hank. Clark's been in the business a long time and has a good rep with the self-loader crowd. I'm hopeing yours was just one of those 'oops' that slip through ever so often.

Hank and 1948,

In my limited wet news print testing, the 230 at 1295 penetrated just a tad less than the 250 at at 1150. But the 250's retain weight better, and do not get loose between the jacket and core. As I mentioned the 230's just get flat turned inside out. As this is newsprint and not critters, I am not sure it is conclusive, but when combined with the scads of bullets recovered from my dirt banks I still kinda lean towards the 230 at velocities above 1250 or so is getting to be above where I want a bullet to deform so radically. I do not mind the petals being flat against the core, or even torn off, but when the main lead core is being flattened. I start to question things. For what it is worth, the 240 XTP mag performed about equal to the 250 when driven at 1220 fps.

1948, I do like the looks of that Lee bullet, and you know more about lead than I ever will, but I would highly recomend at least working with some XTP's, if only to see what your accuracy potential is with the barrel. I have tested a lot of lead and jacketed through many Rowland barrels, and the XTP's always shoot lights out right now for accuracy. The lead has always been like lead in revolvers, lots of frustration. But I am sure you have been down that road many times.

Hank, I would not worry about Clark and them fouling your slide. They have indeed been around a very long time, with Clark Jr. taking the company over from his dad. On a conversion where they know the original gun barrel will still be used, to bugger a slide in lieu of the cost of a cheap part would be a terrible rookie mistake. And it sounds like the bushing was not true (round), so to make the slide fit would take a ton more work. Between my Rowlands and full length guide rods, I have probably had 10 perfect bushings from them over the years. They do have the ability to do them correctly. Sorry you caught the lemon.

Craig

I have talked to them on the phone and now feel better about it except for the fact that they claim to check every kit by putting it in a slide. If this is true they need to get a new slide because the one they are using has an out of tolerance hole or my kit got out without inspection.

I know this, my machinist buddy was unimpressed. Of course he is like most machinist I know, very much perfectionist. In fact I would say he is the champ in that regard. That is why I am very confident in his help in this project.

Excellent thread!! I read the entire thing & learned a lot.

I do have one uneducated question if I may. Is there anyone who does a conversion kit without the compensator on the barrel? I never much cared for compensators or muzzlebreaks. I have fired some heavy recoiling cartridges like J D Jones' .378 WBY cut back to 2" & necked to .50 cal. I currently shoot an Encore .30/06. So I am not scared by recoil

Wilson Combat sells a complete gun without a muzzle break, but after all my research I feel that the muzzle break is not for the sake of reducing recoil for the shooter, but to keep from tearing up the gun. Bearbait has done extensive testing and can comment more on this issue.

Like Hank said, the comp is for the gun and not so much for ths shooter. I have been looking into one of these for some time and this thread has shed a lot of light on the subject. Great reading.

Craig,
The 250XTP is an accurate bullet. I load it in my .45colts with Lil Gun, Unique, and H110/W296, but that LEE is one of the more accurate 'home cast' bullets I've shot (and I've shot several lbs of numerous designs).The fact that there's more of it to ingage the rifling may have something to do with it; similar to the LBT_WFN designs that I shoot. As to how it'll work in the Rowland remains to be seen. I do have the 255XTPs on hand and will shoot some of them. Your test with it are similar to what I've found (wet sand). I usually run the XTPs around 1000-1050fps. In, fact, they are usually the fisrt round 'up' in my .45colts, followed by the casts, when I 'hunting'.

I looked long and hard at the Wilson w/o the comp (lead bullets), but was concerned on how much actual shooting it would stand before starting to show significant wear problems.For me and my 'peace of mind', the Clark was the better way to go.

Joe,

As Hank and Russell noted, the comp is indeed needed in the Clark offering. Having intentionally shot the Clark without the comp (and destroying the barrel lugs) I can confirm that a 230 at full throttle without the comp is pretty violent in recoil, compared to with the comp. What I do not know is how much of the recoil mitigation is venting gases or how much is just the pure weight hanging on the end of the gun barrel.

I remember thinking the first time I touched one off way back when was that the recoil was very mild, compared to my 454 loads of similar power, or other magnum guns I have owned and fired. You can definately feel the power in your hand, but it is very much straight back, with just a little muzzle rise. It was definately one of those wow, that ws not bad at all moments.

Back to the issue of why Wilson does it without the comp, it has to be the overall fit of their gun. As the Clark is a drop in unit designed to fit (or misfit) a lot of different guns, Clark has no control of the entire gun system. As such, they have to mitigate what they are able. Also if you look at the velocity data that Wilson lists on their web page (I think), you will see they show a 230 at about 100 fps less than earlier published data. In retrospect, I have spent enough money on 460 barrels over the years to have paid for a Wilson, but then they were not available back then. I would love to own one, or even have one to test side by side with the Clark, just to feel any differences.

Russell, the only thing that gives me peace of mind these days with the Rowland is my learning curve is mostly behind me, at the least the steep ugly part of the curve. I do not need to shoot so many rounds, and I have a good selection of solid base loads that work for me. If I had a Wilson ten years ago, I am sure I would have destroyed it by now ;^) Besides, when it comes to 1911's I am just plain weak. I have to tinker with them, I have no control.....

Craig

Craig,
I'm 'tinker junkie'. Not just the 1911, but all types of firearms. My longtime friend and gun nut was by Wed and I was telling him about the Rowland and showing him the data and info I'd found on it. We got to remembering all the 'projects' we both have done the last half century. If I had all the money I've spent on 'projects'.......
Anyway, just waiting on the Clark conversion to get here so I can get started.

I agree, my "scrap" pile has not been terribly large all this time, and the money spent was certainly fun and educational. Maybe I should have gone to gunsmithing school years ago when I was serioulsy pondering it. Then I could have gotten paid all these years to break things......Well, sort of. I guess I am happy I am a little smarter, and still have all of the body parts I started with. Well except for my hair, but I cannot blame that on the guns ;^)

Craig

FedX dropped it off this morning!

opened the package and laid out the parts.



Then installed the parts and checked for function.



Everything works!

I did not have the problem that Hank did with his kit, so I'm assuming that his was just 'Murphy's Law' rearing its head. The only problem I encountered was mine and not the kit's. I couldn't get the 24# spring in and after several tries, installed the 20# spring that Clark also puts in the kit. My initial loads are not 'barn burners' as I'm only wanting 1000-1050fps out of a 255gr'er.

Now to get out to the range a run some rounds through it.

I just got an email that they are shipping my barrel and slide back today. I know from my tracking info that they received it late yesterday afternoon, so that is good service.

Sweet! Looks good, can't wait to do mine.

Russell,

Looks great. Yup, that 24# spring can be a bit of a wrestle. You'll get the hang of it with a little practice. I am off to the shooting hole today as well. Probably not the Rowland, but the same gun in 45 Super, low end. Wanna see how fast I can push a 230 XTP (no comp) before either the recoil becomes more than I want on the gun or my hand, and to see if my Sprinco works properly.

I hope the chrony does not object to the cold weather.....

Craig

I get 1090 FPS with Buffalo Bore factory loaded 255 grain hard cast in 45 Super and still have the option to fire 45 ACP rounds in the same gun without any changes what so ever.
The barrel slide lock up is a long as possible and I only use and 18.5 pound spring. I do not like the 20+ pound springs

Still haven't got to put a magazine full 'downrange'. The city has closed the public range as of this month ( fenced it off and pulled the culvert). Hadn't had the chance to run up to the homeplace, yet so.....

Thanks for the info jwp475, but I wanted the Rowland and not a Super.

Does you gun have a muzzle brake?

Another uneducated question if I may. I like the idea of the .460 Rowland, but how would that compensator be on a carry gun?

My hands are really small and the 1911 is one of very few guns that fits me well.

Do you mean concealed carry or carry for hunting? IMHO the Rowland is for hunting. A standard 45 ACP is more than enough for 2 legged varmints. The muzzle break only adds about an inch or so to the length of a 1911 which should not be an issue for hunting carry.

I was thinking more along the lines of everyday in town carry. You are right. The ACP would probably be enough. Sometimes I just like being different.

No sir, mine does not have a muzzle break

Jo

One of my deputies carried a compensated .45acp built for him by John Nowlin,(now Nowlin Industries). Danny used a combat commander and with the comp contoured to the frame, it was no different than carrying a 'government model'. Ain't nothing wrong with being 'different'.

Just did some testing this weekend along the lines of the last few posts. I decided to try some 45 Super loads, mostly testing the gun without the comp, using a power level that should not beat the gun up. But I was mostly interested in how far I could take a Super without comp to the point where the gun felt and recoiled like a full Rowland with comp.

So in working up a load with the 230 XTP, I got to just shy of 1100 fps. The recoil impulse of the gun, as well as the "thump" and the distance the brass was going put this at my stopping point. This is very subjective, so others might see and feel something different. And as I mentioned earlier, my gun is setup for the Rowland so I was comfortable with the amount of slide banging going on. And for the record, an 1100 fps 230 XTP out of the Rowland is a very easy shooter.

I was also wanting to see how far I would want to go "comp-less" as there are times the full Rowland comp is a little long. As I prefer a Commander for carry perhaps my judgement on a 6" gun for carry is a bit slanted, but I think the Rowland for CCW would be for someone who has a very specific window of needs.

And as this was sorta addressed in JWP's posts, I do shoot 45 acp's out of my Rowland. BUT, I only do so after a lot of research and thought. The folks who shoot the supped up 40 say that shooting 40 S & W in the same gun is dangerous. I tried to find a good reason, with little luck. Johnny Rowland advertises it being safe in the Rowland. The other kicker is that the acp round has to hold (headspace)on the extractor to work, so it probably stresses the extractor a bunch. And you will have to play with spring rates and ejector length and shape, but it is doable. And top end 45 acp loads feel like plinkers out of the Rowland setup.

Craig

Received my barrel and slide this morning and had my machinist buddy help install 24 lb spring. In order to do it he made a special tool as shown below. We stuffed the stuff shown with the tool into the port to hold the slide in the right position. The very end of the tool was clamped in a vise and the gun pushed against it to compress the spring.



Shot 4 rounds loaded with 9 gr of Longshot and 250 gr XTP set at 1.215 inches OAL. First was at 1135 fps, but the other 3 were 1049 to 1081. Maybe the first may have had a miss weighed load? I checked for any bullet setback after chambering the first round and it was ok.

Shot one round that I had set a little deep, 1.200 inches and it was 1144 fps which I had expected it to be higher.

No signs of any pressure so I think I will go to 9.3 gr and see what happens.

Noticed that Clark sent a new firing pin spring with the kit. I did not install. Is it needed?

That 'tool' looks handy. I don't know whether the spring is needed or not, but I went ahead and put mine in since it only takes a minute. I like the velocities you're getting with Longshot and the 250's. Thanks for the report.

Loaded up 4 at 9.3 gr and got 1143, 1171, 1150 and 1151. Used my Hornady powder thrower but checked each load on scale and it was spot on for all 4 loads. Yesterday it was not spot on for some reason. No signs of pressure. Think I will stick with this load for now. Next I will do some target shooting to see how it shoots.

Recoil is very mild by my standards, but I think you know what I am used to.

Hank,

Great news, and things look good. The new firing pin spring is included with all Wolff recoil springs that they sell that are rated above factory. They are "needed" to keep the firing pin from slamming against the primer under the recoil/return of the heavier recoil spring. I never tested to see if it was happening with the stock firing pin spring, I just install them and be done with it. Not a lot of reason not to.

You might find that you do not need the tools to install the Wolff spring now that you have fired it a few times. The spring will take about a half inch of set now, so it should be easier. Your loads mirror mine pretty closely, so hopefully you will find them to be very accuarte. Keep us posted.

As to the bullet setback, it is important to check the first round in the magazine, and at least the last, as these two positions can be different. The same if trying a different brand of magazine, as different brands usually have different followers and lip geometry.

Craig

I changed out the firing pin spring today and shot 4 rounds at a target just to see where the fixed sights are shooting . Shot a little over an inch group, but I was not concentrating, about 3 in low at 20 yds. I can correct for that untiil I get some adjustable sights by putting the 3 dots in a triangle and be pretty close.

Hank,

I figured you would be happy with the accuracy of the Clark unit. All of mine have been great. If I could only get this Colt barrel to perform the same. I fire lapped it last weekend, and the bore is looking pretty good, but I think it will never be a quality tight group shooter. Perhaps I should just fit a Clark 45 acp barrel to the gun and be done with it. But where's the fun it that.....

Craig

And 'fun' is the real reason most of us 'play'.

Hadn't got to shoot mine, yet. Babysitting sick grandkids takes prioity over grandpa's playing, just ask grandma.

Tried some Montana Bullet Works 250 gr WFN today set at 1.210 today. First one at 9.3 gr and got about 1230 fps. I then loaded 2 with 9 gr. First one was 1173 fps and I ejected the second one to check for setback. It had a little gouge on the side if the bullet and had moved back about .005. I shot it and it went 1190 fps.

I think that it is going to be hard to WFN bullets to feed without set back. I wonder if not only the shape of the bullet but the bullet lube contributes to the problem.

I have Dave Clements Ruger Old Army 50 Cal cap & Ball conversion and the only way I could get the bullets to stay still under recoil was to wipe as much of the bullet lub as I could off the side of the bullets. I then would load it with wonder wads under the bullet for some extra lube.

I really enjoy it now that I live out of the city limits on an acreage so I can test with out having to go to the range.

Hank,

The WFN's can be hard to feed period. As the nose has to bounce off the feed ramp (if you are lucky just the case side will hit the ramp), then bounce of the top of the chamber, it is a rough ride. Not sure if you have other brands of 1911 mags or someone who could let you test drive a different brand, sometimes a different mag with different feed lip geometry might feed better. Much like Wilson mags have what is loosely called wad cutter lips, they release the cartridge base typically sooner than the traditional Colt feed lips. Not sure I would go out and spend money to test, as it will be a crap shoot. generally Colt style mags are called tapered, and the Wilson and others would be called parallel or wad cutter style, in case you want to ask any buddies for a test drive.

A 250 at 1230 would seem to me to be pretty darn close to max pressure. I would definately be very concerned about setback at that level, as you probably have very little wiggle room.

And when you rub in your home shooting range, proper etiquette requires some amount of tongue protrusion......At least it explains why you can load 4 at a time to test.

Craig

I figured it was a crap shoot, but I have a bunch of 250 gr WFN's for my M92 Levergun so I thought I would give it a try.

It has been my experience that I usually get more velocity out of cast bullets than jacketed, but I backed off a bit after the 9.3 gr load anyway.

Hank,

Just moved into this place in December so grandma could be closer to the grandkids. Figured it was the least I could do for her since she's put up with my job and hobbies all these years. I do miss my 100yd range, tho.

What I like about the LEE is that it is a RFN which, IMO, allows it to feed a little better than a straight WFN.. I've not had any problem in the acp with set back, but that remains to be seen with the Rowland.

Those are just a little more velocity than I'm wanting with the 255. Hopefully by working 'back' from your data, I can get there without any 'set back'. The deformation may require some 'alloy' changing to keep the bullet hard enough. We'll see.

Russell

My gun has been shooting about 2 in low at 15 yds and 3 in low at 25 so I ordered a .150 high Kensight front night sight which is .020 shorter than the stock sight and should make it work. I also had to order a dove tail cutter because the Remington dovetail is a smaller size than the Kensight and my machinist does not have the right cutter.

I had talked to Novak and they said that Remington uses their own size. I could not use a Novak because it is smaller than the Remington sight.

Appreciate the info on the 'dovetail cut'. I was going to order a Novak.

I am not sure that the Novak will not work because I have seen info that the Novak front cut is the same as Kensight. Anyway unless you are planning on a adjustable rear I would shoot and see where it is hitting so you can buy one that will bring you POI to where it needs to be.

The Kensight is somewhat less expensive than the Novak. When you are ready to change sights I will have access to the correct dove tail cutter.

http://stores.homestead.com/KenSight/-st...0721/Detail.bok

I'm headed up to the 'home-place' this morning to get in some 'shooting'. Yes, I was looking at putting in an adjustable rear. I've got a dandy little 200gr hp mould that I'm anxious to try in the Rowland. It works well in the acp. Anyway, as I shoot different weights of bullets, I had planned on an adjustable.

FINALLY!! got to put some rounds down range. When I loaded them, I hadn't acquired any Longshot so I went with some Unique and Blue Dot using some 'pin load' data and some +P+ data. Out of 56 rounds (used McCormick 8rd 'Shooting Star' ss mags)with 2 different powders and 2 different bullets, I had two 'failure to return to complete battery'. The gun digested both the 230 JHP and the 255 cast RFN. The 2 failures were with the cast and on one it appeared that it drug on the slide stop. I have no idea on the other. No set back when I made random checks. did not check for accuracy or velocity but at 25 yds was able to keep all rounds on an ISPC target. Think I'm going to like this round.

As a note, one of my Blue Dot/255gr cast loads is actually a low end .45 Win Mag load (and judging by the sharp ejection and FLAT primers, too much for the Rowland); recoil was not as bad as some of the .45 Linebaugh colt loads I shoot.

Was able to con one of my shooting buds out of two pounds of Longshot so now for the 'fine tuning'. I may have interested my bud in getting one. Let him shoot a couple of mag fulls.

Intersting on the Remmy sight cuts. Sheesh, you would think that making them Colt or at least Novak would help with the selling points. The gun afterall is one that folks do a lot of customizing. The rear cut for a Novak Adjustable does remove a lot of material, I would have guessed it could have worked. I have a real hard time with fixed sights on anything, as I tend to like heavy bullets, and play around enough. The Novak Adjustable Extreme duty has been a great sight so far.

Russell, it is pretty common for the 1911 slide stop to make contact with these heavier bullets. You can (and I have) removed just a tad of material to clear that up. But obviously it is one of those things to do as a last resort, once you know you want to stick with a particular bullet. It can be further complicated if your mag springs get fatigued. Obviously you have new springs, but I run Wolff extra power in all my mags, just to make sure things keep up. But I am an oddball, I actully like Colt 7 round magazines.

The buldging brass that you can get at the web from loads that are too hot can reaaly be felt when resizing. Sometimes they are obvious when looking at the brass, sometimes only felt when going into the size die. I immediately pitch any of those. And a little trick to keeping track of how many times brass gets reloaded (if you do not do so manually) is that you will probably find that your brass at the top end gets some kind of mark from the extractor or ejector somewhere on the case in and or around the rim or groove. I just count them up ;^) But I also try and only do full throttle on new brass.

I am sure you are gonna dig the accuracy, and how little recoil that you actually have for what the ballistics produce. It sure seems that most gun junkies do like 1911's, and when you show them the capabilities, the Rowland does sorta sell itself.

I cant wait for spring and snow melt, so I can shoot my 1911's more......

Craig

When I talked to Novak we were only discussing the front sight. I am sure that there would be no problem putting a Novak on the rear. On further research I believe that the front Novak will also work at least the current R1's. My R1 has a front cut that is about .040 smaller than what my research shows a front Novak is, so with the proper dovetail cutter it can be enlarged.

Perhaps earlier R1's had a different cut and that is why the Novak guy thought it would not work.

Craig,
Only had 2 'failures' out of 30rds of the RFN. One I can definately say was caused by the slide stop as there was a nice 'groove' on the exposed lead. There was none on the other so I'm not sure. Neither round showed any evidence of 'set back' which is usually evidence of the 'nose' catching on the feed ramp. Both fed and fired when re-inserted in the mag.

I segregated the flatten 'primers' from the rest of the empties so that I would know which was which when I resized them. When I ran them through the resizer they were not harder to size than the rest of the brass which really surprised me since the primer condition and ejection pattern would indicate max overload. The only other thought is the 20# spring was not slowing things down enough and of course Clark's barrel has a 'tight' chamber which did not allow the brass to expand as much. Food for thought anyway. I'm using Longshot published data now.

I do segregate my brass as to number of times reloaded and as the number of loadings increase, the amount ofpowder decreases. I was curious as to how many loadings you could get from the brass.

I like adjustables on my hunting pistols because I shoot several different weights depending on what I'm hunting. One weight would do it all, but what's the fun in that.

I'm looking hard at the Novak Adjustable Extreme Duty.

Just come in from casting some 200gr HP's. I'm going to see how well they work in the Rowland. They're little dandies in the acp at 1000fps. Hell on coyotes.

Russell

Russell,

Pressure sign in the Rowland are pretty tough. You have the bunch that say primers only flatten in the 50k range, but clearly we are not in that range, even oopsing a little. In about a half dozen Clark barrels, working up loads to published I always seea little flattening of the primer. I think it best to mix that sign in with primer pocket looseness, and other common sense things. One of the reasons I keep my 230's closer to 1250 or 1275. Wilson seems to think the mid 12's are better for their gun, I think. My first batch of 1000 cases got a lot of loadings. I did not keep track, but 6 or 7 for sure, some more, unless you run right at the redline. I started retiring the brass by and large more for the nicks in the case rims from all of the feeding and ejecting. Starline is good stuff.

I give two big thumbs up for the Novak adjustable. On my Colt with the recommended Novak front, the blade is down a bit for the Rowland, but real close to the top for 45 acps. Good range of movement, and Novak did a wonderful job of installation. Only took about a week, and they re-beadblasted the top of the slide.

I would imagine if those hollowpoints are cast without serious hardening, they would make a mess out of a coyote. The Clark barrel is reasonably tolerant of softer lead, as the bore is pretty dang nice. The comp may be another matter ;^)

Craig

Craig,
The hollow points are cast from an alloy that Roto-Metals puts together and is 'tested' at Bhn 9. I use it in casting hollowpoints for a 270gr for my .45 colt, a 200gr for my .41 mag and the 200gr for the acp. At 1000fps I can usually count on the bullet holding together and expanding to nickle size. Much faster and it starts coming apart so I'll have to watch it with the Rowland. Didn't notice any comp leading to speak of in my first outing, but as the 255's were 'hardball' alloy.

I've already reloaded the 'oops' bunch and the primer pockets were tight. I may have 'lucked thru' this time. Thank goodness Clark makes a good barrel and the Remmy's all steel.

I ruined a nice little Martini cadet's chamber with too heavy a bullet seated too deep once, pains me still.

I've got a big brother to the 255 RFN that drops from my mould at 301grs w/ gas check. Haven't seen any Longshot data for anything heavier than a 260. Did find a Unique load for a 300+ load but it was pretty anemic. Have you ventured up in that weight, yet.

Russell

Russell,

I only have one dead Springfield slide to my credit ;^( The frame is still in use, as well as the barrel. I have wrecked my fair share of brass over the years, and my kinetic bullet puller has seen some use ;^) So all in all fairly lucky, or at least methodical enough to catch a few of my own goofs.

You might find the 300 starts to hit in the brass case web before any hope of a load. I have only been as high as 250-255. I did try and seat a few heavier bullets last week in acp brass to get a feel for feeding and nose profile, and few got into the case web. Them be some goofed up rounds, but I did not loose any powder or primers.... The nose profile is gonna be the deal breaker there.

Craig

Hank
Just a 'heads up'. When I got back from the OPHA hunt, my Novak adjustable had come in. It's definately not going to fit. It appears that the cut on my slide is the standard
'GI' dovetail cut and not the Novak. Don't know if mine is an early slide or a later one, but it is definately not a Novak 'cut'.

I was sure that a Novak adjustable would not fit as is, but there should be plenty of "meat" left on the slide with the existing cut that a gunsmith can recut it to a Novak rear sight cut. To do the job he has to have the proper dovetail cutter however..

I know that Remington states that the R1 has Novak cuts on their web page, but I believe that that is only on the enhanced model that comes with an adjustable rear sight. The front sight on our guns is some unknown cut, but is small enough to be cut to a Novak front cut also. That is if I have the correct info on what a Novak front cut is.

I assume that your adjustable Novak is a low mount which not only reqires a different cut but some milling on the slide also.

I did quite a lot of research on the various dovetail cuts and it can be confusing.

It's not supposed to require more than a 'Novak cut dovetail' according to the instructions, but ..... If the smith can't do it, I'll send it in with the slide to Novak and let them do it. Their turn a round is supposed to be a week.

I'm finding out that you're right on the various 'cuts'. Seems every manufacturer has their own.

You guys need to also note that the Novak Adjustable requires a small falt be also cut in front of the dovetail. Once cut this way, I think the adjustable Novak is the only one on the market that will cover/need this small flat. Kinda a one way proposition.

Craig

This is the additional milling other than the dovetail cut that I was referring to above. It should be no problem for Russell's gunsmith if he has the proper size dovetail cutter and Novak's instructions. The instructions are available on their web page if they did not come with the sight.

http://www.novaksights.com/products/sights/installation.html#adj

I'm wanting the sight 'melted' into the top of the slide so if can't do it like I'm wanting, it's off to Novak.

Russell,

Not sure how much material is left between the bottom of the dovetail and the firing pin tunnel, but in my standard installation the bottom of the dovetail has very little room above the slide serrations. Not sure if you would care about getting into those, but a little melt would be pretty cool. While my front sight is not what I would call excessively high, it can be a little hard in some leather. The Brown barrel that fit to compliment my Rowlands is looking like for all loads, my rear is down a little in the notch, so I may have a little wiggle room to reduce my front sight a bit.

Along the same lines, the one thing I really like about the Novak adjustable over a Bomar is that the sight body really protects the notch/blade from wear or loss of bluing. It really is a joy to have a rear blade that does not require touch-ups.

Craig

Craig,

That 'sight protection' is what sold me on the Novak as well and the sight body does not have as many sharp 'edges' as some others. While this is strictly a 'hunting' 1911, years of habit causes me to limit the number of sharp edges on a handgun. Easier on the jackets, shirts, and 'hide'.

I'll have to take another look at the 'meat' in the slide around the 'cut'. I like melded sights, but it may remove too much metal. Thanks for the 'head up'.

Russell

No kidding about the hide. I love Bomars, but they really suck on a gun that is carried a lot. The ears on the Novak did take a little getting used to, as it takes a split second more to line everything up, but now that I have used them for a while, I am good to go. I do have to admit a buried Bomar cut is a thing of beauty ;^)

And I did load up some of those 250rnfp bullets we discussed in the other thread. As I mentioned before, regular acp brass is more foregiving to oal due to the brass being shorter than the Rowland. They feed so slick that it almost feels like a missed feed, seriously. And I may have mentioned this sometime earlier, but I compared them to Marshall's (Beartooth) 225 fn acp bullet, and the 225 has a .300 meplat, while the rnfp is .250

Marshall highly recommended his 225 to me, and they do make a pretty wide very deep hole in wet print in the Rowland. I wished they were a tad heavier, but I may test them again in my current project.

Craig

Craig,

The meltplate on my 255's is .337, measured with my old style dial caliper. (I'm not aware of anyone casting the LEE 452-255RFN commercially.)I'm sure that's not 'exact', but it'll be withen +/- .005 which is similar and heavier than Beartooth's 225.

If they shoot well in your Rowland and you run them 1150-1200fps, I'd wager they'd break down a black bear or elk just fine. If I'm remembering right part of the army's desire when they were looking at the acp was that it duplicate the old .45 Colt load (250rfn @ 900fps). They seem to think the 230gr in the acp was close enough that they adopted it. So, you're only giving up 25grs (and putting a little more shove behind it).
Just some random thoughts.....

Russell

Russell,

Your random thoughts are pretty much mine. The consensus seems to be that .300 is a good minimum meplat, but I still get confused when I read stuff on Kieth bullets v. the others. Nose versus the bands, what enhances the penetration. I am pretty good on the Rowland front, my current project is a tad slower at 45 Super levels. No problem with 250's at 900, 950 and 1000.

And it is also my understanding of the goal of the acp when it was developed. Thank goodness, as there are no .355 class bullets in any 1911 version that would give me comfort with critters bigger than whitetails ;^)

Craig

Here is a bullet I have been working with in the super.



This feeds fine as long as I use the mag with the stronger spring. reflex264

I should add that I set OAL 1.153"

I shot a 460 Rowland once, liked it! Have never shot a 10mm though - I have a friend who has one, but he is as mean as a biker with a Harley with that gun... no one touches it but him.
Did I say he was a friend?... maybe I should change that definition some.

Great it see you over here Roy.