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

Sell .44 Mag Revolver & Buy .460 Rowland?

  • YES, and here's why.....

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • NO, and here's why.....

    Votes: 34 54.8%

  • WHY are you asking me?? Just man-up and make a decision.

    Votes: 25 40.3%
  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Just a Glock hater.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
That could very well be true, since we know you believe in fairies, myths and legends (light gathering).
 
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.
 
Same way it always does, a Glockophile interjects in a completely unrelated discussion.
Click to expand...
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. :D
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...
Click to expand...
Maybe spend a little less time writing sarcasm, and a little more time reading posts? What I said was this:
  1. Will the .460 Rowland be around in 10 years? 'Cause the .44 will!
  2. 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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
Mike1234567 said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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

But I'll not be walking very far because I can't so the little extra weight means nothing to me. ;)
 
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:
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
.460 Rowland on the "Men's Channel"
Replies
19
Views
2K
Nimble1
N
CLP
  • Locked
.460 Rowland conversion question
Replies
11
Views
3K
Robert101
R
Elkins45
  • Locked
Best stainless 1911 for 460 Rowland conversion?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Elkins45
Elkins45
B
  • Locked
1911 or Glock 21 for .460 Rowland conversion?
Replies
16
Views
4K
hentown
H
G
  • Locked
Why do you Limit Yourself?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
32winspl
3
Back
Top