Ruger Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
(in the same sized gun) Google for Clark Custom Guns. the 460 is 230 grs at 1350 fps in a 5" 1911 barrel, so the gun is 8.5" long. A M29 Smith .44, with a 4" barrel, is 9.5" long. Cut that barrel to 3", so as to make the guns of the same OAL, and the .44 won't get a 240 gr jhp much, if any, over 1250 fps, and the factory loads, at least in some of your cylinder's chambers, won't be over 1200 fps, either.

Guys go at this "magnum" stuff all wrong. Instead of lugging around a 44 oz .44, and doing 99+% of your shooting with .45 ACP type loads, and having a gun that aint very good for combat, you could have THE combat handgun (ie, 1911 Commander variant) and just make up some "magnum" ammo for it, as I have shown how to do in another post here. Once you have such, you won't need both a ccw gun and a hunting handgun, cause your carry gun will do just fine on big game.

If you cast the 160 gr swc .45 bullet out of "non lead" solder, from a plumbing supply place, it will weigh 110 grs as it falls from the mold. you can use a lathe to hollowbase it to 80 grs, and get it to right at 2000 fps in a 4" .45 auto. that works out to 700 ft lbs, and delivers a LOT more penetration in flesh than does a .44 jhp, and the recoil is the same as 160 grs at 1000 fps, which is not much, or 200 grs at 800 fps. the latter is the load to practice with, actually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
460R vs. 44 Magnum

I know this is an old post, but who cares about 230 or 240 grain bullets if you are talking about something like woods protection? Woods protection is thte main reason folks are willing to lug around a Redhawk. A Ruger Redhawk with a 5.5" barrel (compare to 5" 1911 barrel - not a big difference) can spit out a Buffalo Bore 305 grain hard cast bullet, with much higher momentum than a 230 grain 460R because both mass and velocity are important for momentum and penetration. If kinetic energy turns you on, the Redhawk with the 305 will generate upwards of 1200 ft-lbs. Let's see a 460R shoot a 305 grain bullet! Even the 255 grain 460R bullets only generate around 950 ft-lbs and, of course, less momentum at impact.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
The Rowland in a Glock conversion is violent, to say the least. I haven't loaded 300's in it, but I've shot plenty of 230's, and they're nothing if not uncomfortable to shoot. The recoil over wrist feels very different than a single action or double action 44mag. Putting that action directly above your trigger finger makes a heck of a big difference. My Rowland conversion doesn't feel anything like a Desert Eagle 44mag or 50AE - it's more like the difference in an LCR and a 454 Alaskan - the Glock is aggressive and painful with a VERY fast snap over. Firing a 44mag Alaskan with a worked-over trigger beside a Glock Rowland, the Alaskan behaves much better.

But to say that a 200-240grn pill isn't sufficient for quick killing is just foolish. Heavier pills have advantages, but 240grn pills aren't slouches either. I've killed enough game with 240's and enough bears to know well enough that I'd trust my life to them in a defensive revolver, or in the Rowland.

One thing that I suppose is worth noting, on the same string that the OP mentioned so many moons ago - which is something that (I THINK!!!) TX Gunrunner posts on here quite often. A pistol of the same OAL will tend to have considerably longer sight radius than the comparable revolver.

I play with the Rowland, toying with it as a hog pistol. In bear country, I carry a DA revolver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
A pistol of the same OAL will tend to have considerably longer sight radius than the comparable revolver.
Don't Rowland converted guns necessitate a muzzle brake? If so, that would alter the OAL vs sight radius math a bit, as the front sight won't be on the end of the brake.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
I guess it doesn't matter since the OP got the boot anyway... But plenty of things outperform the .44 Magnum. So what?
These are the arguments that most Rowlandites push:

  • A Glock 21 Converted to 460 Rowland will have 44mag power, but with 13 in the mag, plus 13rnd refresh with one reload. A Super Redhawk will have 6rnds, with only 6 in the reload. So it needs 2 reloads before the 21 would need its first reload.
  • It's also more convenient to carry that reload in mags than in speedloaders.
  • The 44mag is adequate for bear defense, and 44mag is considered by most to be the highest powered handgun cartridge that most shooters can master. The disconnect here is that this "rule of thumb" has neglected to propagate that it SHOULD read the 44mag in a full sized 40oz+ revolver is the highest powered handgun cartridge that most shooters can master. Firing the 44mag in a 329PD is a very different conversation. The Rowland in a Glock conversion is violent at best also, so I don't personally consider that this argument stands.
  • It's lighter to carry a converted Glock 21 than a Super Redhawk.
  • Sight Radius and barrel length advantages go to the autoloader.
So... The idea is that the 460 Rowland is FINALLY the end to the argument that there really isn't a practical pistol that is sufficient for big bear country, so the pistol guys get to stand up beside the revolver guys and say "we have an app for that"...

I suppose It's a very fair statement that my converted 21 is more accurate and easier shooting than my 329PD, but I couldn't say the same for a 629 Mountain Gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Ive always thought about a 460 but finding brass always talked me out of it. That and i like the versatility of the revolver with a shotshell in one chamber and some midrange 240 grain 1000fps loads for general farm use and the ability to go as heavy and hot as my hand dares or powder puff light without worrying about function in the 44 mag or 45 colt.

But if a nice conversion and pistol rolled my way someday id be happy to own one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,218 Posts
I've heard of .460 Rowland conversions for 1911 pistols, so I suppose the same would work for a Glock. The question for me comes down to "Why?". Yes, the .460 Rowland gives you .44 Magnum power in an autoloader platform, but I can't imagine trying to hold onto that much recoil in a 1911 or G21 frame.

Yes, a G21 converted to .460 Rowland would have 13 rounds, but I'm not sure that I would be able to empty a 13-round magazine.


Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but I appreciate your post. The advantages you list are interesting. What I don't get is the OP seemed to suggest they made owning a .44 Magnum obsolete, or something people do out of ignorance.

The .44 also has advantages:
- Easy to find ammo anywhere
- Many firearms available chambered in it
- Tons of reloading data and components out there
- Tolerates a wide range of loads/power/bullet weights/etc

He also assumes that overall length and weight are the measures of a firearm. Not everyone cares about those things, or buys a .44 because it is short and light.

And as you state, if you don't care about the shooting experience being wildly unpleasant, you can get a super light .44 revolver. Or you could just get a revolver of the same weight and size as a .44, but in .454 or .480.

I will say, the .460 Rowland sounds interesting. Personally I think if I were going for a high power semi-auto, I'd more likely get a 10mm because of the same reasons, availability of firearms, availability of reloading data, etc. It's more established. Also there's no need for a brake. Did the G21 you shot have a brake on it? Do the guns hold up well without one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
I used to have a Springfield XD in 460 R, but sold it. I loaded extensively for it.

To say that it is stronger than a 44 Mag is a farce

It CAN be handloaded stronger than SOME factory 44 Mag, but a 44 Mag can be loaded (and commercially purchased) in power factors exceeding the 460. The 460R is limited by it being a semi-auto and limited range of bullet weights, case size, and ogive needed for reloable functioning.

That being said, I can usually put 10 rounds of 255 gr 460R rounds on target at 10 yards faster than 6 300 gr+ rounds from a DA revolver.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Did the G21 you shot have a brake on it? Do the guns hold up well without one?
My Conversion has a brake. When I first ordered the kit, I did not want a brake, but the muzzle flip was extreme. I ordered another barrel with a brake, life is much better. I don't know that I think it really affects the gun's durability, but rather my split times shot to shot were considerably longer without. I'm not a brake guy, but on my conversion, I am.

Gross recoil energy aside, the FEEL of the recoil is incredibly different. A handshake and a wrist lock can have the same pressure, but the feeling at your joint is very different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
460R vs. 44 Magnum

I know this is an old post, but who cares about 230 or 240 grain bullets if you are talking about something like woods protection? Woods protection is thte main reason folks are willing to lug around a Redhawk. A Ruger Redhawk with a 5.5" barrel (compare to 5" 1911 barrel - not a big difference) can spit out a Buffalo Bore 305 grain hard cast bullet, with much higher momentum than a 230 grain 460R because both mass and velocity are important for momentum and penetration. If kinetic energy turns you on, the Redhawk with the 305 will generate upwards of 1200 ft-lbs. Let's see a 460R shoot a 305 grain bullet! Even the 255 grain 460R bullets only generate around 950 ft-lbs and, of course, less momentum at impact.
just man up to a .500 S&W and be done with it I HAD a .44 mag New Super Blackhawk 40 some years ago,,, when I'm in griz country you won't catch me out without it unless I have my BAR .338 Win Mag
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
460 Rowland outperforms the .44 Mag.
News report: Rain is wet.

Decades ago, my very first gun was a S&W 629. One of the first in stainless. Great gun. Accurate and powerful. If I can't take something with a 44mag, my next choice is a rifle. Just my two cents. Though I would love to shoot a few rounds through some of the newer super magnums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
My experience with this conversion.

Really like my 460rowland alot but not convinced it ballistically outperforms a 44mag ruger single action fullhouse or SRH type load, except that I have quicker follow up shots, as a semi-auto, in my original 5 inch target grade 1911 platform. I could be wrong about ballstics but from tests and Quickload models, my memory is that this 45 is more like low end range and maybe midrange 44mag power 'type' ballistics.

Still, it is very powerful and its one of few guns where I dont mind a forward heavier barrel with the muzzle compensator. In context, however, this is using my extremely accurate 200g Sierra Matchking loads at about 1300fps or so, its the only incredible load(for my gun anyway) that I use now.

The magazine bottom can come apart on recoil dropping all your rounds, if using light duty 45 magazines, perhaps a custom mag is called for. Have not had a Kimber magazine come apart yet, however, and these were built 15 years ago.

Gotta say, I have had alot of fun with this project. The other potential drawback is the stiff racking of slide to chamber its first round but my muscles got used to this pretty quick, with the hammer back before working slide.

Finally, I had to find an accurate load that is near maximum recoil that the kit is designed for, to reliably cycle gun. So, you want a well built gun for the conversion is my take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
Correction on my gun's best load, it is the 200g Sierra tournament master bullet. This one also cycles great in my gun.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top