45 ACP shooters, do you know/care about 45 Super and .450 SMC?

[Ruger45LC]

I played around a good bit with reloading for the .45 Super. My setup was a Gen4 Glock 21 with a KKM 4 port compensated barrel and I used Starline 45 Super brass. Long and short of it is, with a comp and well supported barrel the .45 Super (450 SMC is essentially a small primer version of the 45 Super) will match the 460 Rowland. I played with 185gr all the way up to 300gr bullets and even with bullets north of 250gr, getting 850-900+ ft-lbs was no problem. Side note, had the barrel leade extended slightly so that it could chamber revolver profile bullets, which is why I was able to run up to 300gr (which btw ran 1150 fps from the 5" barrel).

It's a cool setup, very potent and unlike the 460 Rowland, you don't need a special barrel and can easily shoot .45 ACP from same setup (with a lot less recoil). Seeing what it was capable of was cool but I ultimately settled down a bit, probably wouldn't want the gun to live on a steady diet of top end loads, it'll wear the gun out quicker.

I think the reason most people aren't into the Super/SMC is because they're just not widely available and not many even know about them, plus even in "factory form" (read: boutique ammo makers), which is really "full power", they still recoil more and may or may not be reliable in many traditional 45 ACP guns. I think they're great options for those wanting big power in a semi auto, but many also don't see the point in that, either.

 

[Pistoler0]

I played around a good bit with reloading for the .45 Super. My setup was a Gen4 Glock 21 with a KKM 4 port compensated barrel and I used Starline 45 Super brass. Long and short of it is, with a comp and well supported barrel the .45 Super (450 SMC is essentially a small primer version of the 45 Super) will match the 460 Rowland. I played with 185gr all the way up to 300gr bullets and even with bullets north of 250gr, getting 850-900+ ft-lbs was no problem. Side note, had the barrel leade extended slightly so that it could chamber revolver profile bullets, which is why I was able to run up to 300gr (which btw ran 1150 fps from the 5" barrel).

It's a cool setup, very potent and unlike the 460 Rowland, you don't need a special barrel and can easily shoot .45 ACP from same setup (with a lot less recoil). Seeing what it was capable of was cool but I ultimately settled down a bit, probably wouldn't want the gun to live on a steady diet of top end loads, it'll wear the gun out quicker.

I think the reason most people aren't into the Super/SMC is because they're just not widely available and not many even know about them, plus even in "factory form" (read: boutique ammo makers), which is really "full power", they still recoil more and may or may not be reliable in many traditional 45 ACP guns. I think they're great options for those wanting big power in a semi auto, but many also don't see the point in that, either.

<<probably wouldn't want the gun to live on a steady diet of top end loads, it'll wear the gun out quicker. >>

No, definitely not. It is just a good option to have when going into the woods.

 

[The Happy kaboomer]

No. I'll stick with my 45acp.

 

[Drm50]

In short, no. If I want more power I’ll break out a 44 mag.

 

[44 AMP]

If I want more power I’ll break out a 44 mag.

Which, is what I do, only I don't limit myself to revolvers. I have semi autos in that power class, actual .44 Magnum, and .44AMP and .45 Win Mag, as well as a S&W M29 and Ruger Super Blackhawk .44magnums, along with several Ruger Blackhawks and Vaqueros capable of taking the "Ruger Only" handloads.

I actually like the semis better for shooting than magnum revolvers. They are big, and heavy, but that helps soak up recoil, and the grip shape gives a much different, and for me, much more pleasant feel to the recoil. Sights on the Auto Mag, Wildey, and LAR Grizzly are excellent and fully adjustable. The Desert Eagle stock sights are adequate, but only drift adjustable.

Trigger pull on the DE is fair, and so is the Wildey, on the Auto Mag and LAR Grizzly its, excellent.

For "social use" I'm quite happy with the .45acp and see no reason to hot rod that case or those guns. When I want more power, I have quite a few options that go well beyond what the .45 Super can do.

Not guns for everyone, or every use but I like them alot.

 

[HiBC]

I'll put in my main gripe for the 460 Rowland.

Due to magazine length,the COAL must be the same as 45 ACP.

The cartridge case is longer. That means less length is available for bullet ogive.

Of the bullets designed for the 45 ACP,some cannot be seated to an appropriate depth to work out in the 460 Rowland.

One dead end I tried was a 230 grain Copper Jacketed SWC, I believe it was a MagTech.

The shoulder of an SWC has a reputation for causing more trauma than a hardball.

What is the niche for 460 Rowland? IMO, its for a bear 1911 with more penetration. Why go to the trouble for 185 gr flying ashtrays or to overdrive JHP's designed to work with the 45 ACP?
I'd want a Rowland for penetration with heavier bullets. I do not see the Rowland as "better" for self defense against human threats on the whole.

To that end, the hard cast Keith SWC bullet has long been a standard.

In my experience,its a challenge to find a 230 gr + SWC that can be loaded to proper length with the longer case.

Of the heavier (250 gr +) revolver type bullets,one design is the LBT,or very wide meplat flat nose design might work.

The issue there : As I have described the mag feed lips are at the same altitude in a 1911 that is a ramped 38 Super. The ramp works fine. But the larger diameter of the 45 cal rounds means they strike lower on the feed ramp with the lower edge of the bullet nose.
In some cases, particularly with wide meplats and big hollow points,snagging the lower edge of the ramp becomes an issue.

OBVIOUSLY!! Both the 45 ACP and the 460 Rowland can and do work with ramped barrels!! PLEASE,I don't need testimony. It CAN be done!!

Clark barrels,who make 460 Rowland kits suggested a little magazine lip tuning would fix it right up.

My point is NOT that "It can't be done"

My point is ramped 45 1911 barrels have a narrower window of operation.

Its aggravated by wide meplats.

The longer Rowland case combined with a COAL fixed by the 1911 mag length means a narrower window of suitable bullets.

A Rowland enthusiast I know solved the problem by having a custom bullet mold made. That can work.

If you like the idea of custom tuning mag lips ,that can work.

For myself, the cost,efforts ,time and trouble of building a reliable running 1911 in 460 Rowland with a custom bullet mold and tuning magazines does not balance well against a $600 Glock shooting Buffalo Bore or Corbon type 10 mm ammo loaded to over 1200 fps with 200 gr + hard cast bullets.

But I do not own a Glock. I do own a 5 in bbl Ruger Super Black Hawk.

And I have not been near a bear in a long,long time.

To each his own!! I can't prioritize my limited resources on Deagles,AutoMags,Wildeys,etc...or,at this point,even a 45 Super.

And thats OK.

 

[Forte S+W]

I honestly feel like .460 Rowland is a cartridge made by a tinkerer for tinkerers, because for anyone else, it just doesn't hit the mark. Yes, it's the most powerful cartridge that can be squeezed into a 1911, but the extent of the modifications necessary to make a 1911 .460 Rowland ready are so extensive that it's just not worth the time, effort, or expense necessary for the average shooter. Sure, you could send out your 1911 to be custom converted, but then what? It's still chambered in what might as well be a wildcat cartridge, and while it can still chamber/fire .45 ACP post conversion, it's no longer going to function as a semiautomatic pistol if you shoot .45 ACP out of it, and it's to my understanding that the compensator is held in place with thread locker, so you can't easily break it down to swap out the springs to make it capable of reliably cycling .45 ACP anymore.

So in my mind, .460 Rowland is meant to appeal towards those who enjoy tinkering with firearms, experimenting with different modifications on what are essentially project guns which are separate from their main weapons, not really too concerned with the practicality of the finished project, just enjoying the ride. In other words, a .460 Rowland conversion is for those who have a spare el cheapo 1911 lying around that they like the idea of playing around with, tricking it out, yet for no definitive purpose but to enjoy doing so, or otherwise purchased with the express purpose of converting it. Same goes for any other .460 Rowland conversion. Nobody converts a .45 to .460 Rowland because they've done the research and want to actually carry it, but because it's something fun/cool to do.

For that matter, I don't think that anyone who converts their gun to .45 Super or .450 SMC does so with the intent to carry it, not anywhere except for the woods maybe. Most folks these days are satisfied with the performance offered by conventional Self-Defense/Duty Cartridges. Stuff like .45 Super, .450 SMC, and .460 Rowland is generally used for recreational purposes, something cool and out of the ordinary to show off and shoot at the range without breaking the bank or taking too much effort to obtain. Sure, they can all be used for Bear Defense in a pinch, so I'm sure that a small amount of folks do modify their .45s to handle the more powerful loads because they can't afford to go out and purchase a whole new gun chambered in a more powerful cartridge, but I think for most it's just because it's cool/fun.

Or at least that was my attraction towards .45 Super. I didn't already own a .45, I really liked the H&K USP45 Elite to begin with, and it's ability to handle the more powerful .45 Super cartridge was just icing on the cake. I don't plan on taking it with me on hikes to fight off wild beats, or even to shoot a steady diet of .45 Super at the range, I bought it because I liked it, which is ultimately why I purchased most of my firearms. (My SD Guns are all more average, utilitarian guns which aren't necessarily anything special aside from being good self-defense tools.)

 

[44 AMP]

For myself, the cost,efforts ,time and trouble of building a reliable running 1911 in 460 Rowland with a custom bullet mold and tuning magazines does not balance well against a $600 Glock shooting Buffalo Bore or Corbon type 10 mm ammo loaded to over 1200 fps with 200 gr + hard cast bullets.

You know, it always spoils the game when you bring practical considerations into it.

Particularly price. Or availability....Those almost always spoil a good discussion of a cartridge's merits by bringing real world practical considerations into it.

Not blaming you, for a lot of people, practical is the prime consideration. They are interested in things that are practical to use, practical to carry, practical to afford, etc. Nothing wrong with that, for them.

I have lots of practical guns. Often, they're boring. Sometimes, they're great. I have a tendency to pursue the uncommon, oddball, stuff over the '"everyone has one" kind of things, but not exclusively. The practical part of me is that I don't go after every single new (or old) oddball or niche caliber or gun. Just SOME of them.

 

[HiBC]

44AMP. IMO.I was relaying real world experience as a PSA for purposes of informed choice.

As far as practical in rifles... I have a 257 AI, a 30-338, a 375-338 and a 300 BLK. All of which can be argued!!Also, the last time I took a big game animal,I used a straight 30-06 1903A4 Springfield replica with a Lyman Alaskan 2.5 x scope for a pronghorn.My 257 AI and my Win M-70 Laredo 7mm Rem Mag stayed home in the safe. Practical guns.

Now,picture if you will,this dilemna. Colorado has a max 15 round magazine law.
I have two Caspian 1911 first gen 1911 double stack frame raw castings and the small parts.

Cost? Negligable. I can machine them.

I have an STI True-Bore 38 Super barrel,Comander length,with an integral bull barrel and comp...one piece,race gun style.. Its never been installed in a gun Cost,negligable.

I have a very nice 38 Super Colt slide with the old school S+W revolver sight mod.
And a Foster/Blem Caspian 1911 slide. Either is good. Take my pick.

The available workable double stack magazines exceed 15 round capaciy in 38 Super (Or super Comp ) . I want to stay legal,so after I would have to do a legit job of limiting capacity.Maybe press a roll pin in the bottom of the follower.

I won't build it if I can't get at least seven good,legal mags.

How is this for a wild and crazy impractical idea. I can get 14 round capacity 10 mm magazines. Those can ship to Colorado,no problem.

To overcome the administrative magazine problem, I'm considering rechambering the barrel to 9x25 Dillon. A 14+1 9x25 Dillon. (necked down 10 mm) I have not found a rental reamer. That likely means buyng one. Then I have to find dies.
Starline 10mm brass and Starline 38 Super Comp are same price.

So how is that for kinky? No,I make no claim for practical!! Its honest 357 Magnum performance in a 15 rd 1911.

I can do it.

There!! All better?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) or 45 Auto (11.43×23mm) is a rimless straight-walled ... with large-caliber sport shooters,

Isn't .45 ACP a rimless, straight-wall cartridge for everyone? What is it for other than large-caliber sport shooters?

 

[MarkCO]

I know about both, have shot both, don't want either.

I have a 10mm, .40 Super, even a .414 SuperMag. I like the 40 calibers better in handguns for high horsepower loads. But I still shoot a good amount of .45 ACP.

 

[TRX]

> the extent of the modifications necessary to make a 1911 .460 Rowland ready are so extensive that it's just not worth the time, effort, or expense
----
Eh?

Remove slide, disassemble (no tools required)
Replace barrel and guide rod with .460 parts
Replace firing pin spring (I don't know why)
Reassemble with .460 recoil spring

You might not clean the firing pin channel every time, but otherwise it's plain old field-strip-and-clean.

For that matter, if you do run into some weirdball problem, just send the slide and conversion kit to Clark Custom and they will do any needed smithing for free; you just pay shipping.

It just took a few minutes to put the Clark kit into my Norinco 1911.

 

[44 AMP]

Isn't .45 ACP a rimless, straight-wall cartridge for everyone?

Not to the people who put the dimension numbers on case drawings!

it's considered a straight wall case and discussed as such but it actually has a tiny bit of taper according to the case drawing dimensions (Hornady is the book I looked in).

.476" at the case head, .473" at the case mouth.
Effectively a straight case, but not actually a perfectly straight case.

Replace firing pin spring (I don't know why)

TRX, the why is because changing the stock ACP springs to ones that handle the Rowland changes the slide velocity. Heavier recoil springs do more than just absorb energy when the slide move back they also return that heavier energy pushing the slide shut again. This can result in the slide moving forwards faster than the inertia firing pin set up of the 1911A1 is designed to handle safely. The way you overcome this is by either a lighter firing pin (lower inertia) or by using a heavier firing pin spring to keep the firing pin from slamming forward too much when the slide shuts "harder" than originally designed for.

 

[Forte S+W]

Is that really all? I've heard that it also requires a compensator which must be held firmly in place with thread-locker, a flat firing pin stop, and a shock buffer for the frame on top of everything you just listed, not to mention the obvious expense of the ammunition.

At any rate, my argument is that the total amount of effort/expense of upgrading a 1911 to shoot .460 Rowland exceeds that of simply buying a new Glock 20 or something.

 

[Pistoler0]

For that matter, I don't think that anyone who converts their gun to .45 Super or .450 SMC does so with the intent to carry it, not anywhere except for the woods maybe. Most folks these days are satisfied with the performance offered by conventional Self-Defense/Duty Cartridges.

I modified my G21 to handle 45 Super, and it is my EDC loaded with regular 45 ACP. Because yes, I am satisfied with the performance of conventional self-defense cartridges, and my modified G21 can handle them fine. Also, the cost of the modification is negligible compared to that of buying a G20.

Sure, they can all be used for Bear Defense in a pinch, so I'm sure that a small amount of folks do modify their .45s to handle the more powerful loads because they can't afford to go out and purchase a whole new gun chambered in a more powerful cartridge, but I think for most it's just because it's cool/fun.

For me it is not that it was cool, it was for practical reasons. When I venture into the woods, I can just load 45 Super into my EDC pistol and that is all I need to do: 1 (pricey) box of Underwood is all it takes. No need to buy a separate pistol for 4 legged critter defense. And in CO, it is legal for big game hunting so I have ONE pistol than can do triple duty: regular EDC, woods carry and hunting. I find the conversion to 45 Super to be very practical and affordable.