Thinking of Selling .44 Mag Revolver to Buy .460 Rowland


PDA






Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 11:02 AM
Howdy Folks... per the title...

Please forgive all the line breaks... trying to keep my points clear so folks will actually read them. :D

I really want to do this. Please either talk me out of it... or reinforce my desire to pull the trigger.

Please don't make this a revolver vs. pistol debate. :rolleyes:

No, I'm not going to keep both.

I'm not going to mention the make/model/barrel length of my revolver because it's not important to this discussion.

I prefer pistols over revolvers... just because. :)

I bought my revolver before I knew of the .460 Rowland.

It's very appealing to have .44 Mag performance in such a lightweight semi-auto platform.

I'm aware that the 1911 frame will recoil more than a larger heavy revolver. I doubt that'll be a problem.

I know the conversion will cause far more wear on the 1911 frame/rails. I'm okay with that.

I'm aware that a .460 Rowland will cost more than most .44 Mag revolvers... FAR more than mine.

I visit black bear country occasionally and this is for carry self-defense. I also expect feral hogs here to grow much larger over time.

ETA #1: I voted "yes" because I think the .460 Rowland is kewl.

ETA #2: Yes... I carry bear spray. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Thinking of Selling .44 Mag Revolver to Buy .460 Rowland" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CraigC
September 28, 2011, 11:31 AM
That's not a trade I would make. ".44Mag performance in a 1911" sounds like wonderful marketing but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It offers similar paper ballistics to low end .44 loads, only with vastly inferior bullets. Virtually no jacketed .45ACP bullet will be suitable for big game at the .460's velocities. Certainly not for stopping bears. Your average 1911 may or may not function well with cast SWC's, which have a very small meplat anyway. The best option is Buffalo Bore's 255gr@1300fps. Whereas the .44Mag can launch a 330gr bullet 50fps faster.

In a .44Mag sixgun you can vary from mousefart .44Russian loads to monster masher 355's at 1200fps without swapping parts or worrying about function.

Not to even mention how uncomfortable a 1911 will be at those recoil levels. There's not really anything to be gained here, only losses.

Ranger30-06
September 28, 2011, 11:38 AM
CraigC has pretty much said it. You'll get every type of performance you could want with a .44, but the .460 is more of a novelty thing and that's about where it ends. It'll beat the snot out of the 1911, it's ungodly expensive to feed, and most bullets in that size cant even handle .460 velocities. I would stick with the .44, but it's your gun!

mooner
September 28, 2011, 12:08 PM
If you want an auto with revolver power, I think the best bet is the Desert Eagle. Problem, obviously is the large size and weight that may exceed your revolver.

There is no free lunch, as they say.....

Your decision, why the hell are you asking me?????

Tony_the_tiger
September 28, 2011, 12:11 PM
I really want to do this.

So do it ;p

Loosedhorse
September 28, 2011, 12:12 PM
Will the .460 Rowland be around in 10 years? 'Cause the .44 will!
So you're rolling around with a bear one day, and you're going to use a semi-auto, which can be put out of battery with pressure on the muzzle?
Hey, you really want a .460 Rowland? Get a Smith .45 ACP revolver (with moonclips) and have a gunsmith lengthen the charge holes in the cylinder. Yeah, I know: you're a "pistol guy."
I'm not going to mention the make/model/barrel length of my revolver because it's not important to this discussion.
Sure it's important. 4 inch gun would be perfect for the woods--even if rolling around with Smokey. An 8 3/8 or 10 inch? Not so much.

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 02:11 PM
You guys are making me re-think this... :)

ForumSurfer
September 28, 2011, 02:29 PM
No...CraigC's post sums up my opinion.

Preferences change, especially with plinking and range guns. I got out of revolvers a long, long time ago. Now I find myself craving a single action for plinking and backyard range use.

Ranger30-06
September 28, 2011, 02:30 PM
You guys are making me re-think this... :)

That's what we're here for; Bashing dreams and shoving reality down your throat all while handing you 300 off topic suggestions :D

Just kidding :D

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 02:33 PM
That's what we're here for; Bashing dreams and shoving reality down your throat all while handing you 300 off topic suggestions :D

Just kidding :D
LOL!!

Okay, this is why I posted the question... to have my dreams dashed to heck.

To the Mods... please notice I didn't write "hell". :D

David E
September 28, 2011, 02:38 PM
The make and model of the .44 matters.

If it's an Excam, RG, Arminius or Astra, I'd dump it, too.

But I'd get a GOOD .44 revolver instead.

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 02:41 PM
No, no, NO!! I'm not telling what make/model/barrel length revolver I have. This is strictly a .44 Mag revolver vs. .460 Rowland pistol thread!! :D

beatledog7
September 28, 2011, 02:42 PM
Just get a 10mm Glock, load it full house, and keep your 44Mag.

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 02:46 PM
Just get a 10mm Glock, load it full house, and keep your 44Mag.
Ohhh... now you've done it!! You've gone and introduced friggin' Glocks. I hate Glocks. Okay... I don't "hate" them... they just don't fit my needs. On the other hand... a 10mm... hmm...

DWFan
September 28, 2011, 02:47 PM
Save your money and keep an eye out for a Grizzly semi-auto or AMT/IAI Automag IV in .45 Win Mag. At least when you get tired of it beating you to death, you'll have something better to trade for another .44 Magnum.

Ranger30-06
September 28, 2011, 02:48 PM
No, no, NO!! I'm not telling what make/model/barrel length revolver I have. This is strictly a .44 Mag revolver vs. .460 Rowland pistol thread!! :D
.44 Mag in that case :D For a lot of reasons but I'll keep it simple here...

aHFo3
September 28, 2011, 02:52 PM
I'll buy your 44 mag brass :)

CraigC
September 28, 2011, 02:52 PM
I'd rather have a .460Rowland than a 10mm Glock. At least a 1911 can have a good trigger pull. Bullet selection is not great for the .460 but at least it's better than for the 10mm. As one who is about to venture forth to the deer woods with the original 10mm (.38-40).

ForumSurfer
September 28, 2011, 03:34 PM
No, no, NO!! I'm not telling what make/model/barrel length revolver I have. This is strictly a .44 Mag revolver vs. .460 Rowland pistol thread!!

Ohhh... now you've done it!! You've gone and introduced friggin' Glocks.

We all saw this coming...typical, yet funny :neener:

I still say keep the 44.

beatledog7
September 28, 2011, 03:38 PM
Ohhh... now you've done it!! You've gone and introduced friggin' Glocks. I hate Glocks. Okay... I don't "hate" them... they just don't fit my needs. On the other hand... a 10mm... hmm...

Doesn't have to be a Glock. It came to mind based on a recent police Glock 20 turn-in sale I heard about.

451 Detonics
September 28, 2011, 03:39 PM
This....

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/625coldsteel.jpg

shoots all these...150gr WC, 45ACP, 45 Super, 460 Rowland, 45 AR, and the 45 shotshell...can't get much more versatile...

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/handguns/45acpammotypes.jpg

I would say get a 625 and have Clark ream the cylinder...

Loosedhorse
September 28, 2011, 03:41 PM
At least a 1911 can have a good trigger pull.So...bear is barreling in on me, I look at the Glock 20 in my hand, thinking:

A. Gosh, if only I'd brought my Delta, I'd have a better trigger, or
B. Where's my .458 Win Mag rifle?!

;)

True: in non-emergencies, you'll probably notice the trigger-pull difference.I would say get a 625 and have Clark ream the Ah: my suggestion from post #6, in the flesh! I wonder if Clark does titanium cylinders...

451 Detonics
September 28, 2011, 03:46 PM
Don't know...he charges 100 bucks for carbon or stainless... http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/revserv.htm#rowland I have thought about having my Ruger Blackhawk done but with the 45 Colt cylinder it would be sorta redundant...

I would think it would be rather unpleasant to shoot in a gun that light. I tried some of my Super loads in my 325PD, 230gr at 1100 fps...they hurt me....

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 03:47 PM
This....

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/625coldsteel.jpg

shoots all these...150gr WC, 45ACP, 45 Super, 460 Rowland, 45 AR, and the 45 shotshell...can't get much more versatile...

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/handguns/45acpammotypes.jpg

I would say get a 625 and have Clark ream the cylinder...
Please don't make this a revolver vs. pistol debate. :rolleyes:

CraigC
September 28, 2011, 03:49 PM
Yeah, because I'm more than willing to spend the time to get very familiar and proficient with a pistol that has an atrocious trigger and is only good for self defense at short ranges. Or I'll just use a 1911 that is actually a decent general purpose pistol.

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 03:50 PM
Yeah, because I'm more than willing to spend the time to get very familiar and proficient with a pistol that has an atrocious trigger and is only good for self defense at short ranges. Or I'll just use a 1911 that is actually a decent general purpose pistol.
Please expound... :)

BTW, this is only about SD against big/bad 4-legged critters at relatively close ranges. :D

CraigC
September 28, 2011, 04:06 PM
I shoot all the time. Outdoors, on my own property. A pistol that is only good for self defense and serves no other purpose does not interest me. A pistol that can be used for self defense and also for shooting well beyond contact distance does. A good 1911, like the Springfield I've been spending a lot of time with, makes for an excellent general purpose pistol. It has a crisp 4lb trigger and is plenty accurate enough to make hitting relatively small targets out to 50yds relatively easy. This is a gun I'm willing to spend a lot of time with. A Glock is fine if all you are interested in is making noise at the range or are only concerned with self defense distances. I have no use for them and would never even consider one for sporting purposes.

451 Detonics
September 28, 2011, 04:29 PM
This is a gun I'm willing to spend a lot of time with. A Glock is fine if all you are interested in is making noise at the range or are only concerned with self defense distances. I have no use for them and would never even consider one for sporting purposes.

I have to say the trigger on my Glock is almost as good (90%) as the triggers on my 1911s...yes it is aftermarket but then so are the triggers in my 1911s. It will shoot as accurately as my 1911s as well. I also have far less money in the Glock.

Please don't make this a revolver vs. pistol debate.

Your asked if you should keep the 44 revolver or sell it and buy a 1911 in 460 Rowland...I offered a very versatile alternative. I didn't say anything about one being better than the other. If you don't want opinions you shouldn't ask for them.

Loosedhorse
September 28, 2011, 04:36 PM
A pistol that is only good for self defense and serves no other purpose does not interest me. A pistol that can be used for self defense and also for shooting well beyond contact distance does...A Glock is fine if all you are interested in is making noise at the range or are only concerned with self defense distances. I have no use for them and would never even consider one for sporting purposes. Wow...Glock-hate alert!

Well, different people have different experiences, I guess. Glock 20, 6-inch factory barrel, no atrocipus trigger, and no problem with 50yard shots.

In any case, the OP mentioned SD (specifically against animals), so he seems to be after an "uninteresting" single-purpose gun. Mentioning Glock is maybe not pertinent because while it "should" be easy to modify a Glock 21 to .460, I don't see any barrels available. However, the Springfield XD and Smith M&P both have conversion kits.

I'd still take the .44

CraigC
September 28, 2011, 05:18 PM
I shot Glocks for 15yrs, LH. :rolleyes:

WC145
September 28, 2011, 05:53 PM
If you want the Rowland, get one.
Just last week I purchased a lightly used (243rds) CCG .460 Rowland kit with 98 rds of empty brass just because I like powerful, odd semi-autos and I wanted a .460. I already have an Automag V in .50AE and an original Coonan Model B to go with it. From everything I've read the recoil is not much more than a regular .45, thanks to the compensator, and apparently solid guns hold up well. A number of folks have put many many rounds through their .460's with no ill effect.

I've spoken to the folks at Clark's about their list of suitable guns for the conversion because I want to buy one for a dedicated .460 build and they do not recommend any one over the other for strength or durability. I have chosen to go with a Para GI Expert because I can get a new one through Bud's Police Supply for just $449 and it already has some features I want. The "build" will be simple - replace the MIM parts with forged, an action job, some new sights, have Clark fit the barrel to the slide, and refinish it.

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 07:15 PM
Please keep it coming, folks. I'm listening... (reading).

Cycletroll
September 28, 2011, 07:24 PM
I have several .44's and two pistols I shoot near-Rowland out of. If you handload hot .451 can be very rewarding. I shoot 275gr Hunters Supply LFN@1100fps. They penetrate like mad and make a near 1in permanent hole in anything they hit. 230gr XTP's@12-1300fps are quite impressive!

That being said a Rowland autoloader does not create an absolute replacement for a .44 revolver. I can shoot 200-360gr bullets of any shape or construction from piffle loads 700fps to crazy thumpers @1400. Also mixed loads including shotshells.
Also, revolvers are very reliable and will fire multiple times when pressed up against a foe (bear/cougar/etc).

In short, keep both!

1911Tuner
September 28, 2011, 07:39 PM
Okay. Here goes...

The 1911 was designed to handle the pressures and the recoil forces of the .45 ACP cartridge. The gun itself is amply strong enough to handle the pressure of the hot-rod
.45 variants...but the recoil forces are another matter...and it's not the frame that you need to be concerned with. It's the upper lugs...essentially recoil lugs...the slide, and the lugs in the slide.

Those tiny radial lugs are the only things that are keeping the gun together. Metallurgy has made great strides since 1911AD...but the lugs are still the same size.

Not only are they small, but the surface area is even smaller than the size suggests. The lugs engage horizontally between 10 and 2...and assuming that all three are bearing in that plane, which they probably aren't unless the barrel has been hand-fitted...it decreases with each lug because of the barrel tilt at the rear.

If the first lug is in full vertical engagement, the second lug is maybe 90%...and the 3rd, about 80. This reduces surface area in the horizontal plane. Hang on and I'll post a picture of horizontal lug damage, along with a description of what happens as a result of that damage.

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 07:49 PM
So... there are no 1911 variants with larger/stronger rails/lugs?

1911Tuner
September 28, 2011, 07:50 PM
Here's an example of lug setback deformation. This one was due to insufficient vertical lug engagement in the slide...but it occurred with just 500 rounds of .45 ball.

As the lugs deform in this manner, headspace increases 1:1 by the amount of deformation.
If the deformation is .030 inch, and you started with minimum headspace...the dynamic headspace is now .008 inch beyond the maximum allowable dimension...which means that the slide lets the cartridge case back out of the chamber and lose head support. Lose a little too much, and the case can burst with standard pressure ammunition. At double the working pressure...it doesn't take a lot of excessive headspace for things to get ugly in a hurry.

More...Under such stresses, it's possible for one of the lugs to be sheared off...and sometimes they're pulled off clear through to the chamber.

Bottom line:

If you want .44 Magnum performance...carry a .44 magnum.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/BadLugs.jpg

Mike1234567
September 28, 2011, 07:54 PM
1911... so you're saying the Rowland conversion is just too hard on any 1911 rail?

Loosedhorse
September 28, 2011, 08:15 PM
I shot Glocks for 15yrs, LH.That means that I've shot them for longer than you have, rookie. :D If that matters--but you brought it up.

And I've been shooting 1911s longer than that.

Cycletroll
September 28, 2011, 10:02 PM
As 1911Tuner pointed out, making a 1911 stay locked up and handle the recoil forces is tricky and of utmost importance. As well as proper lug engagement and barrel link geometry i have found that using an EGW (or similar) square firing pin stop can help retard reward slide movement.

FWIW, my Glock 21 which has, thus far, about 500 .45 Super to Rowland level loads through it shows absolutely zero wear and tear. The wide grip and polymer frame really help suck up the recoil and the modified Browning lockup works really well to transfer recoil forces. In my experimenting I have found Glocks to be extremely strong.
I must say that if your going to go any higher than mid .45 Super level loads you must get a fully supported chamber (I use a Lone Wolf but there are many acceptable variants). The factory Glock barrel is super hogged out and will begin to bulge even Super brass at moderate pressure levels. With a tight fully supported chamber one can load regular ACP brass to nearly Rowland levels with no brass stress issues at all other than extractor bites from the vigorous rearward slide velocity. :)
Gotta recommend the G21 for woods cary; 40 oz. of glorious power!

WTBguns10kOK
September 28, 2011, 11:43 PM
This was a bad idea even before the education on self inflicted damage. 44 mag=plenty powerful+extremely versatile. Don't let your boredom get the best of you.

CraigC
September 29, 2011, 12:09 AM
That means that I've shot them for longer than you have, rookie. If that matters--but you brought it up.
I wasn't whipping it out for a "measuring" contest. My point, is that I'm not an ignorant, closed-minded "Glock hater". Quite the opposite, I just know what they are and are not capable of. The fact that I shot them for that long and haven't owned one in 6yrs should indicate that I found a better way to skin a cat. :rolleyes:

David E
September 29, 2011, 01:17 AM
No, no, NO!! I'm not telling what make/model/barrel length revolver I have. This is strictly a .44 Mag revolver vs. .460 Rowland pistol thread!! :D

If the make and model of your .44 embarrasses you so, then get the .460

doc2rn
September 29, 2011, 01:46 AM
.44 does everything you need it to, .460 Rowland not so much. I have lit the grass on fire at the range with a Ruger Alaskan if that counts for anything. I managed 3 shots out of that thing and I will never shoot that one again. Someone has made a .45/70 revolver for the rifle shell which would beat the snot out of any man brave enough to pull that trigger, but would probably be comparable to a .500 S&W, which ballistically both out perform the .460.

1911Tuner
September 29, 2011, 07:06 AM
1911... so you're saying the Rowland conversion is just too hard on any 1911 rail?

It's not the rails or the frame that's the concern. It's the slide and the barrel.

The slide and barrel assembly is the "gun." The frame is nothing more than the gun mount and a housing for the controls.

Too much? Well...It's probably okay for limited use, assuming that the barrel lugs are equalized horizontally and fully engaged vertically...all three bearing and sharing the brunt of the recoil forces...but I wouldn't be shooting a lot of the stuff even with that.

A few years back, I heard of a conversation that a shooter had with Ed Brown after experiencing a few minor feeding issues with one of his pistols. Ed asked him about his ammo, and the guy told him that his standard fodder consisted of a handload with a 200-grain lead SWC at around 930 fps...to which Brown replied: "Whoa man! You're gonna break my gun!"

I'll leave you to do the math and draw your own conclusions.

Loosedhorse
September 29, 2011, 09:54 AM
I'm not an ignorant, closed-minded "Glock hater".Never said you were. Just a Glock hater. :Dhaven't owned one in 6yrs should indicate that I found a better way to skin a cat.And the fact that so many others DO own them indicate that there are cats the Glock is good at skinning.

Your previous comments suggested that all Glocks can only have an "atrocious" trigger, that they can't make 50 yard shots, and can only be used for SD at "short distances" (I'm not sure how many "long distance" SD scenarios you have in mind). All in a context where we're talking (well, used to be talking) about short-distance SD against animals.

All I said is that my experience with Glocks has been different. Fair enough?Brown replied: "Whoa man! You're gonna break my gun!"Had no idea Ed produced such wimpy guns! :D

(Just joshing--I've bought from Ed Brown and been very happy. He was very helpful with advice, as well.)

Mike1234567
September 29, 2011, 10:03 AM
1911: Ed Brown actually said shooting 200gr/930fps loads would break his gun? Is the person he said that to sure it wasn't a joke? :)

1911Tuner
September 29, 2011, 10:05 AM
That's what was reported, Mike. I don't know why Brown would joke about it without making it clear that it was a joke.

The 1911 is a fine pistol, but it's not an exceptionally strong pistol because of the radial lugs and the small surface area that they use to keep the barrel and slide from separating....also called opening the breech. Those lugs take a pounding. The gun was designed around the recoil forces generated by a 230 grain bullet at 830 fps under 20,000 pounds per square inch of pressure.

A carefully fitted barrel helps if the use of rounds like the Rowland and the Super is limited. A drop-in conversion kit? I wouldn't shoot it on a bet.

Mike1234567
September 29, 2011, 10:29 AM
Hmm... okay. I'll not be buying a .460 Rowland. "Maybe" a 10mm. :)

Loosedhorse
September 29, 2011, 10:45 AM
Tuner--

If you will, do you know if the XD or M&P platforms would be better at dealing with .460 Rowland, because of their SIG-Petter method of locking? Or would the single barrel lug just get chewed up, too?

WC145
September 29, 2011, 12:28 PM
Perhaps the OP should call and speak to the folks at Clark and get some info straight from the source rather than base his decision on an interweb poll.

1911Tuner
September 29, 2011, 12:40 PM
Perhaps the OP should call and speak to the folks at Clark and get some info straight from the source rather than base his decision on an interweb poll.

That's an option, as long as you understand that the people selling the device have a dog in the fight. My points were made based on understanding how the pistol handles the forces imposed on it...and from experience with damaged lugs in other pistols that have never been subjected to such forces...most notably my experience with the old .451 Detonics conversions in the 80s. We used to call'em "The Lug Busters" and they never approached the violence of the Rowland and the .45 Super.

Beyond that caveat, it makes no difference to me one way or another. Ya lays down your money and ya makes your choices.

CraigC
September 29, 2011, 12:44 PM
I certainly would not want to subject my new Springfield to such abuse. That's what .44Mag's are for. ;)

dmazur
September 29, 2011, 08:15 PM
I considered getting a .460 Rowland conversion for one of my 1911's. However, before I placed the order, Clark Custom stopped offering it for Commanders. I think the slide is just too light, compared to the full size 1911. The full size already has a pretty heavy spring requirement, and perhaps the spring for the converted Commander was just so heavy nobody could pull the slide back...

At any rate, you should check their site. One of the FAQ's is "Can I have my 1911 chambered for .460 Rowland and skip the compensator?" and the answer is, essentially, "No way! It will beat the gun to death in short order."

The more I read, the more nervous I got. As clever as the .460 Rowland conversion is, I belive it is still a marginal proposition.

So, as much as I loved the 1911 platform and really, really didn't want a different thing to learn, I caved and got a Ruger .44 Magnum revolver.

I found out it was just as the experts said. I can load stuff that is hotter than I want to shoot, or rather mild 240gr JSP's (for deer hunting), or 310gr hard cast, gas-checked WNFP's at around 950 fps for critters at close range.

I believe that, even if you accepted shortened gun life with a .460 Rowland conversion, you would be forced to shoot whatever ammo the gun liked, rather than what might be best for your purpose.

gbran
September 29, 2011, 08:42 PM
I have a Ruger SRH in 454, but most of the time I'm in the woods or wilds, I carry a 10mm Glock. It's just easier to carry and has enough punch for the critters in my area.

CraigC
September 29, 2011, 11:03 PM
Just a Glock hater.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't hate them at all. For what they are and their intended purpose, they are good guns. They're just not sporting guns. I just prefer something else and got there honestly.

David E
September 29, 2011, 11:07 PM
Odd......Glocks have been used to win National and World titles in IPSC,
IDPA and USPSA....and dominate the appropriate divisions at all skill levels, too.

Someone should tell those 1000's of guys that they chose the wrong brand for "sporting purposes.". :rolleyes:

Loosedhorse
September 29, 2011, 11:08 PM
They're just not sporting guns.Someone should tell those guys that they chose the wrong brand for "sporting purposes.".
+1, David E.

CraigC, I guess you just have a different definition of "sporting guns" than I do.

(Maybe a different definition of hate, too--but we can let that dog lie. ;):D)

DC Plumber
September 30, 2011, 12:06 PM
No, don't do it. JMO

CraigC
September 30, 2011, 12:28 PM
I'm sorry, you guys are right, Glocks are "perfect" in every way, for every application, for every shooter and in every situation. I was so silly to think that a revolver with the ability to launch a 355gr at 1200fps would be better for big critters, or that one loaded with 250's@1200fps would be the best whitetail gun, or that a 4-5" big bore would make the best packin' pistol. I was stupid to think that fine steel patridge sights may be better than plastic sights that look like they're made from bricks. Or that a crisp 2lb trigger is better than a long and mushy 7lb trigger. Or that a gun that can shoot 1"@25yds is better than one that can only manage 3". Not to even mention the ability to have virtually any type of grip fitted to its grip frame, be it fancy woods, ivory or stag. I'm gonna run right out and sell my 42 other handguns to buy two Glocks. A model 26 for concealed carry and a model 20 for everything else.

I've also got $3000-$4000 worth of books that have nothing to do with Glocks, I can get rid of all that nonsense too.

Thanks for showing me the err of my ways and saving me a bunch of money in the process. :rolleyes:

No wait, I almost forgot, I'VE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT AND AFTER SPENDING 15YRS WITH THEM I REALIZED THAT GLOCKS ARE NOT "PERFECT" FOR EVERY SITUATION, EVERY APPLICATION OR EVERY SHOOTER. NOR ARE THEY PROPER SPORTING GUNS. THANK THE GOOD LORD AND ELMER KEITH FOR REMINDING ME OF WHERE I'VE BEEN and WHAT I'VE LEARNED.

Carry on with your regularly scheduled programming.....


I guess you just have a different definition of "sporting guns" than I do.
That could very well be true, since we know you believe in fairies, myths and legends (light gathering).

1911Tuner
September 30, 2011, 01:22 PM
How did this go from a discussion about a .460 Rowland conversion to an argument for/against the use of Glocks for sporting and other purposes?

CraigC
September 30, 2011, 01:39 PM
Same way it always does, a Glockophile interjects in a completely unrelated discussion. Then other Glockophiles get their drawers bunched up when someone suggests that they are really not "perfection". Apparently it doesn't matter if you speak from experience or if you're just a closed-minded old fart that never even shot one, the response is handled the same. If you don't believe Glocks are perfect for every purpose then there is obviously something wrong with YOU. Couldn't be the guns, they're "perfect".

Kool Aid drinkers.

Mike1234567
September 30, 2011, 02:32 PM
Me wants a Glock in .44 Mag. Hey... I'd actually buy THAT Glock!! :D

Loosedhorse
September 30, 2011, 04:46 PM
Same way it always does, a Glockophile interjects in a completely unrelated discussion.That's one opinion. The other is that when I made a comment that a "better trigger" was not a big consideration in close-quarters animal defense, I got covered in unrelated, gratuitous Glock hate. :DI'm sorry, you guys are right, Glocks are "perfect" in every way, for every application, for every shooter and in every situation. I was so silly to think that a revolver with the ability to launch a 355gr at 1200fps would be better for big critters...Maybe spend a little less time writing sarcasm, and a little more time reading posts? What I said was this:
Will the .460 Rowland be around in 10 years? 'Cause the .44 will!
So you're rolling around with a bear one day, and you're going to use a semi-auto, which can be put out of battery with pressure on the muzzle?

Hey, you really want a .460 Rowland? Get a Smith .45 ACP revolver (with moonclips) and have a gunsmith lengthen the charge holes in the cylinder. And this:Mentioning Glock is maybe not pertinent because while it "should" be easy to modify a Glock 21 to .460, I don't see any barrels available. However, the Springfield XD and Smith M&P both have conversion kits.

I'd still take the .44

David E
September 30, 2011, 05:51 PM
Some people just like to spew, regardless of facts.

For HUNTING purposes, I prefer revolvers like .44 magnums and .45 Colts.

For SPORTING purposes, I still like revolvers, but also like S&W's, XD's, M&P's, 1911's and Glocks.

For DEFENSIVE purposes, I've used all of the aforementioned.

Of these guns, I prefer and use Glocks the least. But I'm sure someone's rabid hatred will misread that, too. :rolleyes:

Jaymo
September 30, 2011, 06:49 PM
When I decided I wanted a handgun caliber for hunting, I went with a .44 mag.
I love my .45s and like my 9mms, but I wouldn't want .44 mag recoil energy in either one. I wouldn't want that kind of stress on my gun, either.
My Redhawk and Taurus .44s take every thing I can give them and still taunt me to whip it out and give 'em some more.
If I were going to go with an auto pistol the size of a combat auto, and wanted it in a more powerful caliber than .45 ACP, I'd get a 10mm EAA Witness. Good factory trigger pulls that can be improved if desired (Mine haven't needed any improvement), all steel, good factory sights that can be easily replaced with better sights, good safety that can easily be replaced with extended, ambi, or extended/ambi safety.
And they work well.

Shooting full house 10mm from a Glock isn't fun. Neither is it fun from a 1911.
If you want a combat sized auto chambered for a marginal bear defense round, try to find a Star Megastar 10mm. It's heavier than the Glock, 1911, or Witness. That weight is nice when you're unleashing some blue flame specials.


For my money, I'd keep the .44mag.
If it's too unwieldy, such as an 8.5" barreled Ruger Super Redhawk, get a Smith & Wesson Mountain Gun.

If you're happy with 10mm muzzle energy, get a GP100 .357 and load it hot.
It's built like a tank, and a lot more fun to shoot than a 10mm Glock or Delta Elite with full power loads.
.357 ammo and reloading components are extremely common.

Mike1234567
October 1, 2011, 11:01 AM
Okay... I think it's time to reveal the make/model of my .44 Mag revolver. PLEASE... no Taurus hate posts, LOL!! It's a Taurus Raging Bull with a compensated 8-3/8" barrel.

I could get a shorter barrel version but, if I'm carrying a monster anyway, the extra few inches doesn't bother me. I will NOT spend the money on a "better" S&W or Ruger. :)

My question is answered... "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" even if it's labeled .460 Rowland. :D

David E
October 1, 2011, 11:45 AM
it's time to reveal the make/model of my .44 Mag revolver.... It's a Taurus Raging Bull with a compensated 8-3/8" barrel.

I could get a shorter barrel version but, if I'm carrying a monster anyway, the extra few inches doesn't bother me. I will NOT spend the money on a "better" S&W or Ruger. :)

Yet, if you owned a Ruger or S&W, you probably wouldn't have posed the question in the first place....

Mike1234567
October 1, 2011, 12:43 PM
Yet, if you owned a Ruger or S&W, you probably wouldn't have posed the question in the first place....

I specifically stated no "Taurus hate posts". :confused: :banghead: :neener:

David E
October 1, 2011, 04:31 PM
I don't hate Taurus. I wouldn't want a 6.5" fully lugged 629, either, for general woods purposes, nor would I want a Ruger Super Redhawk with a 9.5" barrel.

The gun you have should've come with wheels under the barrel for easier transport.

Taurus has other .44 mag options other than your particular one that would suit most people better.

But me, I'd pay more for a similarly featured S&W or Ruger.

Mike1234567
October 1, 2011, 04:51 PM
LOL... okay, David. :)

But I'll not be walking very far because I can't so the little extra weight means nothing to me. ;)

Loosedhorse
October 1, 2011, 11:45 PM
I own a Taurus revolver. It is also ported. I like it.

I think that the 8 inch barrel and the porting make your revolver a, uh, non-ideal choice for defense against animals.

Meaning, I'd carry it if you forced me to...but I'd rather carry a Glock! :evil::evil::evil:

1911Tuner
October 2, 2011, 10:41 AM
I've had these conversations before, and I know...just by the arguments from past debates concerning the hot-rod conversions for the 1911...that many are going to be hard to convince.

So, let's try to put it in perspective.

Assuming full vertical and equal horizontal lug engagement...the 1911 provides about a quarter-inch of surface area to keep the breech from opening. This is an ideal, and not what you can expect with a drop-in barrel. You might get lucky...but I wouldn't bet too heavily on it.

The Rowland and the Super operate at...what...about 35,000 pounds psi?

Take a modern sporting rifle in say, .30-06 caliber. Operating pressures run to about 50,000 psi, give or take. No?

Remove the bolt and go to work on the lugs with a file...shortening them until you've got about 25% of the original overlap with their recesses in the receiver. That means that you have 25% of the horizontal opposition that keeps the bolt from being blown out the back and into your sinuses.

Would you not be just a little nervous about bolting that rifle and pulling the trigger?

I thought so.

Mike1234567
October 2, 2011, 10:45 AM
^^^ I decided against the hot rod and opted for the Humvee. :)

hardluk1
October 2, 2011, 11:17 AM
Mike1234567 Good luck with your new toy. Now you own a revolver that can shoot the hottest of loads.

Red Tornado
October 4, 2011, 10:47 AM
Mike, I like the long barrel. It's gives you the perfect opportunity to say "Excuse me while I whip this out!" :)
RT

If you enjoyed reading about "Thinking of Selling .44 Mag Revolver to Buy .460 Rowland" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!