.460 Rowland -VS- .45 ACP Hot Handloads?

Well, I chose a different path, mostly due to ease of doing it...
.45-Super is a nice upgrade from .45acp, and it's easily achieved with minimal mods.
Some pistols are even capable of shooting it without mods...like the Megastar 45.
It switches back & forth from .45acp to .45-Super without a single mod,
which it was designed to do.

Similarly, went with a 18-lb WC spring in my Ballester-Molina,
it has yet to show any ill effects from .45-Super :)
However, it's only had 80 rounds of .45-Super thru it so far,
as the Megastar handles the recoil far better due to its design & weight.
But it's nice to know it'll handle it in a pinch.
 
Glocks are not as flexible as 1911s.
See posts #5 and #15.

Your scheme would let you overload .45 Super to Rowland power, but you might well have to overload .45 ACP to get the gun to function as a "light" load.

Or, you could get the Ported Rowland which would let you flip flop back to the stock barrel to shoot ACPs.
https://www.460rowland.com/product/ported-glock-21-conversion/

There was a brief fad here for the "sight tracker" which was a non-ported muzzle attachment giving reduced recoil by increasing the recoiling mass, longer sight radius, and a non-reciprocating front sight. This helped your prospects in USPSA Limited versus more expensive raceguns.
They seemed to work ok in .40 but the 9mms were a struggle, the attachment had to be a lot lighter.
I think this is what you would see between .460 (or hot Super) and .45 with a compensator.

Gas checked bullets would protect you from base fusion leading, but would friction leading be a problem in compensator, ports, or bore with heavy loads? I don't know, but it would only take one application of The Dip to remove leading and sell you on jacketed bullets.
 
Last edited:
Thanx Guys!

Here's what I've learned from this thread and some reading on the side. Management of the .460 power levels can be controlled in three different ways:

1. Compensator - uses the impact of muzzle gases against angled surfaces to push the barrel forward and delay it from unlocking until pressure levels drop somewhat, and also re-directs some of these gasses upward to reduce muzzle flip & perceived recoil.

2. Stiffer Recoil Springs & Buffers - resist & slow the rearward velocity of the slide, and reduces battering of the pistol.

3. Heavier Slide - a longer slide containing more metal, and/or attaching slide mounted optics, sights, etc, will help slow the rearward velocity of the slide with their added mass. But, since compensators are attached to the barrel, and not to the slide, that mass doesn't slow down the slide.

Did I get those right?
Click to expand...

If you are going to run 40,000psi Rowlands, I'd say #1 is your only option.
#2-#4 would work for .45 Super.

And, for #2, I'd put the emphasis on the mainspring, so that you don't have to increase the rating of the recoil spring as much.
Heavy recoil springs can outstrip the ability of the mag to keep up, and slamming the rounds into the feed ramp with double or triple the necessary force can lead to bullet set-back, which could really ruin your day when you are already running 50% higher pressures than .45 ACP.
 
My problem with 460 Rowland is that you don't see many pistols MADE for
460 Rowland. They are all conversions. WHY isn't Ruger, S&W, Colt, and a
host of others trying to manufacture the 460? They all happily stole the glock
design, in order to turn some coin.

JMHO, if you want something stronger than 45ACP, go to a caliber, like .44 Mag,
454 Casull, or 10MM. Something manufactured by the big boys, for the given caliber.
 
I did a ton of research a few years ago. I really wanted a 460 Rowland. After weighing the pluses and minuses I decided to stay with the 44 magnum. Then S&W came out with the model 69......
 
I'm not a cheerleader for the 460 Rowland .Reasons are not important,but

JMHO, if you want something stronger than 45ACP, go to a caliber, like .44 Mag,
454 Casull, or 10MM. Something manufactured by the big boys, for the given caliber
Click to expand...

I think if you look back over time,the "big boys" often follow,rather than lead.

Yes,S+W and Remington intro'd the 44 Mag,but Elmer Keith was the leader,
And Dick Casull was hot rodding 45 Colts to bring us the 454.

I'm kind of fuzzy on this,but didn't the 10mm come about via Jeff Cooper and a Bren 10 project?
After the innovation of the 10mm,which,IIRC,Norma collaborated on,the 40 S+W was a child of the 10mm.

Actually,the "big boys" have done nearly nothing beyond the military/police cartridges of WW1 and WW2 for semi autos They shortened a "Little guy" innovation to make the 40 S+W.
And ,while the classic JMB 1911 has its loyal purist devotees,its IPSC and bowling pin hot rodders and Bullseye accurizers and combat customizers ,not Colt,that have innovated the 1911.

The "big boys" do deserve credit for improving the cartridges.I'll give them that.

Even in rifles,most factory cartridges grew out of little guy wildcats of military brass,or the belted H+H. Done by little guys.
 
Last edited:
> different path

Clark Custom insists a comp is necessary. So does Jim Clark, who also sells conversion kits. Wilson briefly sold a comp-less .460, then replaced it with a comped model.

Try as I might, I could never accept the look of the compensators. I went with the 10mm's big brother, the .40 Super, which has muzzle energy in the middle of the .460 range.

Actually, I had decided to go with .38 Casull, noted that it would be a lot easier to make Casull brass out of .40 Super, and then wondered, "why go through the extra work when Starline sells Super brass that doesn't need to be wildcatted?"
 
I did a ton of research a few years ago. I really wanted a 460 Rowland. After weighing the pluses and minuses I decided to stay with the 44 magnum. Then S&W came out with the model 69......
Click to expand...

I too researched the hot 45s... Super, rowland, and magnum. In the end, to really tune a 1911 for these loads, you need a stronger mainspring to increase lock time. That sacrifices some of that sweet 1911 trigger feel. In the end, I decided to wait. I fully plan on doing 45 super in a 1911 one day, when I have expendable income. It will be a gun I don't mind battering a little bit and it will be viewed as a firearm to wear out, not something to pass down.
 
I know I'm late to this party, but here's some info I received from Starline brass several years ago when researching 45 super and 460 rowland.
This was starline's response to me regarding the cartridges, "There is actually no SAAMI standard on pressures for the .45 Super or for the .460 Rowland. However, the Rowland is not recommended to be loaded more than 40,000 CUP and the Super isn’t recommended to go over 35,000psi. But our Super case and Rowland case are actually identical to each other except for the case length. So to answer your question, our Super brass probably is that tough, in the right gun."
I would advise against reloading 45acp cases to 45 super or 460 rowland levels for reasons already mentioned.
I have reloaded STARLINE 45 super to 460 rowland levels, and it worked fine, although i couldn't get the higher velocities of the 460 rowland. I shoot mostly WFN hardcast and can't reload them to the same OAL length in a 45 super as I can in a 460 Rowland. That extra 1/16" does make a difference for me.
I also have better velocities out of guns with double stack mags than single stack mags. Again this is due to being able to load the double stack mags to a longer OAL. Just mho.
 
I'm not quite sure I understand your post regarding overall. loaded length.

Do you have an exotic handgun that uses magazines longer than 45 ACP length?

At least for the 1911,the grip frame does not allow for longer than 45 ACP magazines.

As far as I know,the 460 Rowland was designed to fit in a 1911 mag,and is loaded to 45 ACP max length.

I understand the safety factor of the longer brass not fitting in 45 ACP guns.

IMO,or,for myself,the point of the 460 Rowland is not hyper velocity flying ashtrays for 2 legged foes.

For myself,heavy bullets would be the point,for woods carry or hunting.

Heavier bullets are longer.The bullet designs in 451 dia don't necessarily work in heavier weights with the longer case.There is less room for ogive in the magazine.

Seating deeper,at some point case wall taper becomes a factor,as does powder capacity.

And big,fat meplats are less friendlt to feeding into ramped 45 Barrels. Remember the center axis of a 38 Super up against the feed lips is higher than thecenter axis of 45 ACP or Rowland in the magazine.That,plus the smaller dia of the 38 Super help in not snagging up on the ramped barrel lower ramp.

I've seen a 265 gr 45 Colt revolver bullet used with some success.

Don't get me wrong,the .460 Rowland does get business done. A brother who has built both 1911 and Glock 460's prefers the Glock.(I can't give specifics)

For myself,all things considered,for a woods gun,a 10mm set up for 200 gr + hard cast bullets ,while not a 460,offers good penetration,mag capacity,flexibility,and for around $800 including the Lone Wolf barrel I'd be in business,without the R+D project to get it running reliably.

But,thats just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top