.460 Roland

[Caseman]

Thinking about converting a 1911 .45 to a .460 Roland. Any thoughts/input?

 

[grwd]

No experience, maybe Jess50 does...

 

[permafrost]

Seems like one of those good ideas that never took off. Can't figure why. Who wouldn't want 44 magnum performance in a 1911 package? Seems like it would be a lot handier to pack in the woods. Conversion kits seem reasonable also. Ammo is no more expensive than 44 mag. Not seeing the down side.

 

[Caseman]

I think this will be my after Christmas project. Going to pick up a mil-spec Springfield to do the conversion. Looks like it uses standard .45 reloading dies so the only additional ammo cost would be the brass. I agree that it looks like a good woods gun. Looks like it would be good for hogs.

 

[permafrost]

If you go for it keep us posted. You have my interest peaked now. I'm thinking with the comp package that it comes with , the recoil would be significantly less than a revolver in 44 mag.

 

[bulbboy]

Heard people talking about it on GunTalk. Sounds interesting

 

[Sturgell]

I am not sure why one would even use a barrel chambered for 460 Rowland. Aside from the compensator and heavier recoil spring it is a 45 ACP ran pretty warm, the case capacity is the same as 45 ACP as is the COAL. The bullet is seated to the same depth in deeper brass, aside from someone picking up your reloads and shooting them through a factory gun there is no reason to pick up expensive brass for a pistol that is going to fling them all over the woods.

I would really like to do this to a Springfield/Taurus/any forged frame 1911.

 

[permafrost]

I am not sure why one would even use a barrel chambered for 460 Rowland. Aside from the compensator and heavier recoil spring it is a 45 ACP ran pretty warm, the case capacity is the same as 45 ACP as is the COAL. The bullet is seated to the same depth in deeper brass, aside from someone picking up your reloads and shooting them through a factory gun there is no reason to pick up expensive brass for a pistol that is going to fling them all over the woods.

I would really like to do this to a Springfield/Taurus/any forged frame 1911.

From what I've read the 45 operates at 21,000 cup, while the 460 Rowland is up around 40,000 cup. I'm assuming the barrel has been manufactured accordingly. I don't think the standard 45 barrel could stand much of this.

 

[Caseman]

OK I've done it. Bought a new milspec Springfield at the Grand National Show in March. Ordered the kit from Clark's Custom Guns and have installed it on the Springfield. Have loaded 15 rounds of the .460 Rowland and am planning on taking it to the range later this week to see how she shoots. Kit was pretty straight forward to install. Changed the firing pin spring. Changed the recoil spring and drop in the new barrel. The rounds I've loaded are about midrange. Plan on using thick phone books for the comparison. I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

[TonyRumore]

It was actually done in 1983 by Detonics. Then reintroduced by Rowland after he figured everyone had forgotten about it. Case length only differs by eighteen thousands of an inch, which is a moot point when the OAL is limited by the magazine. When I asked the Rowland rep about the difference between the two at a gun show, he just gave me the stink eye and turned his back to me. Obviously, he didn't want to talk about it.

It's still not the energy king in the 1911 platform. The Rowland puts out 834 foot pounds of energy. The 40 Super puts out 937 fpe. The Rowland does have a slight advantage when compared using the Taylor Knockout Value.