Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Anyone do a .460 Rowland conversion?

I'm seriously considering a .460 Rowland conversion for my Kimber.
Have you done one? Experience with it? Are you happy with it?

I’ve done hundreds of them for customers when I was gunsmithing.

My preference is to cut the frame for a Clark style ramped barrel and use a 6” barrel in Government model sized 1911s. I’m not a compensator fan due to the noise and extra cleaning of the expansion chamber, but they do work if recoil is an issue for you.

The Clark 5” kit with the comp is a good unit though it doesn’t offer as much chamber support as a ramped barrel does. If you go this route and have function issues it’s most likely the spring. They ship with a couple different recoil springs that are both really heavy. I never saw one function %100 using these extra power springs. A change to an #18 spring always resulted in much better reliability and I never experienced any signs of battering.

I converted a pile of Springfield XDs and S&W M&Ps as well. I think we were the first to offer these conversions. The M&Ps won’t hold up to the violence of the 460 and we discontinued them pretty quickly. The plain 5” XD works well and holds up fine. The main issue is grip and limp wristing. The geometry and weight of the gun makes them difficult to manage for a novice hand gunner. I couldn’t tell you how many times I could run two full mags flawlessly through one and hand it off to it’s owner only to have it jam on them on the first shot. It’s hard to convey to a big strong guy with poor form that you have to get behind the gun and hang on like you have a pair.

In the end I decided I don’t need one. They give essentially Winchester white box 44 mag performance with more experience and hassle than just carrying my 44. So for me it doesn’t work out.

Kidd: When I talked to Clark he was adamant that the compensator in the Clark conversion kit was necessary to prevent battering. When I asked if a recoil buffer and stronger recoil spring would eliminate the problem he insisted the compensator was still necessary. Did any of your 1911 conversions without compensator develop cracks where the tunnel connected to the frame? Thanks.

Nate: What's not to like about " Winchester white box 44 mag performance" ( as Kid says) with more capacity, no cylinder bulge and quicker reloads with a manual of arms I am intimately familiar with? I also like my Mech Tech carbine conversion although I wish it were a bit lighter.

Compensators are definitely required to control slide velocity. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise

Bobmn; exactly why I want one.

I shoot the 1911 well enough and have carried one for most of 30 years. It is my choice not because I think it's ideal for bears, but for me it's a familiar, reliable, adequate for everything else. I've used big revolvers far less, so while I can shoot them, I don't think I can get as many hits with one under stress.

Given the performance of the Rowland, and it being in a familiar package, I suspect it would serve me far better, and be more effective.

i put one of those kits on a 1911 years ago, bought some brass, and loaded some ammo. ammo is still sitting on the shelf.
i didn't like that big compensator hanging on the end.
i also have more than one 44mag so figured they worked fine.
the alaskan brown bears don't live in arizona.

The 460 Rowland is rapidly replacing the 44 mag for the younger crowd up here.
LGS sells a pile of em on FN frame.

Years ago, I put a Clark kit in a Springfield 1911. I also didn't like the comp, was also told by Clark it was necessary. I like shooting the pistol, liked the performance, but COULD NOT STAND the muzzle blast! I didn't keep it long, sold it to another pilgrim. Good idea, just not practical for me.

Mike Holmes

Was wondering what the velocity was out of a 5" barrel...

I've got a Kimber Stainless Target II in .45 Super that will run a 255 at 1100 fps..not sure how much more I need..

Just can't see the expense of the conversion and having the comp on the barrel. That and not being able to shoot .45 ACP for cheap practice..

Bob

You probably know as well or better than I do that the answer is "none" with the right bullet.

I've had in mind of going to 1200 fps with a 255 grain WFN with mine, a Clark conversion Kimber, but noticed that anything past 1150 fps, recoil was getting to the point it slowed recovery and the following shot, so I loaded back to 1100 fps. Accuracy and repeat shots were much better, and I figured a WFN with a Bhn of 22 would be just fine at that velocity.

The bullet is a Montana Bullet Works LBT WFN and feeds fine in my Kimber. At 1100 fps it is essentially a .45 Super, but has less felt recoil and quicker recovery due to the comp.

But two things got me to thinking. I also have a .45 Super and I put a set of grips on my 4.62" .44 mag that really helped recoil so I returned the Kimber to its original configuration for now. I too like the versatility of firing ACP in the Super, and sprung as it is (28 lb main, flat firing pin stop, and 20 lb recoil) it dribbles ACP loads at my feet.

The Clark conversion is on the shelf for now but it wouldn't take 5 minutes for changeover if I feel like I need it.

Here are some chrono results – done over time with outside air temps from 33 deg F to 69 deg F. Chrono 5 long steps from the muzzle.

45 ACP – Kahr CW45, 3.6” Bbl
Underwood + P, 200gr Lehigh Xtreme Penetrator ………… 1,008 fps
Underwood + P, 255gr RNFP Lead ………………….……… 950 fps (avg of three different outings, 2 diff guns, one throated)
Buffalo Bore + P, 230gr JFP ……………………….………… 890 fps


45 Super – HK USP, 4.41” Jarvis Bbl
Buffalo Bore + P, 255gr RNFP Lead ………………….……… 1,067 fps


460 Roland – HK USP, 4.41” Factory Threaded Bbl (actual bbl, not Incl Roland comp)
Underwood, 200gr Lehigh Xtreme Penetrator ……………..… 1,314 fps
Underwood, 255gr RNFP Lead ………………..……….……… 1,146 fps

FWIW,
Paul

It looks like performance wise it would fill the bill. Never used a comp on a pistol before.

I also have a 1911 with the Clark 460 Roland conversion. It is quite easy shooting and recoil is less than my 10mm Delta Elite and muzzle blast isn't objectionable to me (but I somewhat hard of hearing and wear both plugs and muffs).

Here it is with a 2.75" M69 .44 Mag - still a work in progress (needs sights and further load development)



Paul

Comps/brakes have their place in the right applications. That application is generally not the guy who's primarily concerned with hunting and a single shot at a time, or who might only fire a box or two of ammo per year for practice. They do have some benefit on semi-auto pistols that see a lot of rounds with powerful cartridges, and/or for putting multiple rounds on target accurately and faster.

On a semi-auto like a 1911, a comp (not to be confused with ported barrels) can be used to delay slide/barrel unlocking by slowing down the slide velocity. It's not just about felt recoil, it's about containing the pressure and about making the gun survive a long time.


I do wonder if TheKid was thinking about the 45 Super instead of the Rowland in his comments about comps above?

No I was speaking of the Rowland. I’m not a scientist but I did see a Colt Govt we fitted with a ramped 6” barrel survive for several thousand rounds of Corbon 460 Rowland. When I left it was still ticking and being used with no cracks and no broken parts. It was always run with an 18lb Wolff spring and a Wilson shokbuff. Buffers and springs needed changes more often than a 45ACP as you might expect.

The XDs I saw two failures in a couple hundred guns. Both were broken lugs due to being machined improperly. These were mostly 6” barrels in 5” guns though we did do a handful with flush 5” barrels.

Johnny Rowland had us making barrels up for the XDs and M&Ps for him to sell at the time as well and he never mentioned wanting or needing a comp.

I’m out of the game and YMMV, I’m simply relaying my experiences.

I was reading around, don't remember which site but I believe it recommended 24hr lb spring.

The literature with my conversion stated it was dependent on the steel being used.

Now, I am going from memory so let's not get a 24 page thread started if I'm wrong (grin), but I seem to recall Clark recommending the 20-lb for chrome-moly and the 24-lb for stainless due to the higher friction coefficient.

I had a Clark on my Springfield and it worked well and was accurate. I also had a S&W Model 25 .45 Colt converted to use moon clips and fired the Rowland in it. I ended up going back to the 10mm for hunting with the 1911 and .45 Colt in the 25

Johnny Rowlands conversion uses a compensator and cycles with 45ACP

https://www.460rowland.com/shop/460-rowland-conversions/compensated-1911-standard-5/