I was looking for recent 460 Rowland internet activity tonight and stumbled onto this. Since I have some experience and data on this subject, I thought I'd weigh in. I am by no means an expert (although I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!). So here it goes.
I own and reload for 44 Mag, 460 S&W Mag, 45 Super, and 460 Rowland in an XD45 Tactical 6" compensated barrel. I use the Quickload Interior Ballistics program as reference when reloading so I don't blow myself up. I use these guns for bear and moose protection.
I got into the 460 Rowland initially by converting a friend's 1911 to a 45 super and that led to this. I've had my 460 Rowland for 18 months and have mainly been experimenting with 255 gr. and 265 gr. cast bullets. I've been getting velocities of 1400 fps with the 255 gr. bullets and 1270fps with the 265gr.cast bullets. I find that the recoil isn't anymore (maybe a little less) than my Model 29 with a six inch barrel loaded with my 240gr bear reloads of twenty years ago. It's definitely less than my current 310 grain bear loads in my 44mag.
The following is my recoil experience with the Ruger Alaskan 454 Casull. I normally load 460 S&W for my 460 S&W, but a friend in Kodiak asked me to make him up some hot loads for his Ruger Alaskan 454 Casul. I didn't have access to his gun so I worked the loads up in my 460 S&W with 5" barrel. When the loads started kicking a little bit in my gun, I stopped. I figured the loads would kick a more in his lighter gun. When we tested the loads in his gun, we found out that they kicked substantially more. The recoil in that gun felt like the recoil of my 460 S&W 360gr cast loads in my 460 S&W! The recoil was very high.
The load was a 275 gr. hardcast that chronoed at 1580fps in my 5" barrel. This produces 1522 ft. lbs. of energy. My Quickload program put the load at 50,796psi. When I changed the barrel length in Quickload to 2.5" (Alaskan barrel length) the results are 1194fps and 870ft. lbs. of energy. This is less than the 460 Rowland 255gr load generates. I know this is an apple to orange comparison. Here's an apple to apple Quickload calculation comparison.
460 Rowland 255gr 6" barrel- 40,000 cup, 1325psi, 994ft. lbs
454 Casull 255gr 2.58" barrel- 65,000psi, 1283psi, 931ft. lbs
So what's this all mean (and this is IMO). Before I piss anyone off, I will say that the 454 Casull is a vastly superior cartridge to the 460 Rowland and size does matter. In this case though, I'm talking about barrel length, not the cartridge size. The above comparison shows what a huge disservice a short barreled handgun does to such good cartridges as 454 casull or 44mag. I know from the loads I worked up for the 454 Casull Alaskan, the recoil was approaching "ouch levels", and those loads were well under max pressure for the 454. There may be an advantage to using heavier bullets (300+ gr.) in a Ruger Alaskan, but personally I'll stick with my longer barreled 460 Rowland, or my 460 S&W when I'm on Kodiak, because those bears are FREAKIN BIG!!!. IMO, my XD460 Rowland is more manageable than the Alaskan 454 Casull .
As far as choosing between revolver and handgun, that will be debated forever. I initially had some problems with my Rowland cycling. I narrowed this down to magazine and OAL problems. Once I figured these out, I haven't had any operational problems (but it's always a possibility). I've never had a revolver fail to fire.
A semi auto offers more rounds than a revolver (until you double spring the magazine), but if anyone ever actually gets six - ten shots off at a charging bear, the bear wasn't charging when the shooting started(IMO). I know two people who have had to shoot bears in self defense; one of them has been unlucky enough to have to shoot two. They both only got off one shot in each occurrence and it was enough. They were also using 454 Casulls, but with longer barrels.
The 460 Rowland is the first semiauto I've ever owned. I was always a 44mag revolver guy. But after using it for 18 months, I'm a fan of it. The trigger pull is less than my Model 29 and 460S&W. I think this is an important consideration in accuracy under a rushed pressure situation where I'm only going to get off one or two shots…if I'm lucky! I'm still going to use my 460S&W when I'm on Kodiak. I don't know if I mentioned it, but those bears are FREAKIN BIG!!
Also, if one is leaning toward the 460 Rowland, I think a double stack will offer a little more power because the wider magazine nose allows for longer OALs than the single stacks offer. This translates to more powder and velocity. When I converted my friend's Remington R1 1911 to 45 Super it seemed more finicky to get it working properly. The 460Rowland.com conversion I put into my XD Tactical had very little problems and had fewer parts to switch out. It also kicks less than my buddy's 45 super. I'm sure this has to do with the compensated barrel. At some point though, I am going to find a 1911 and convert it to a 460 Rowland. I have a 6"compensated 45acp barrel and all the springs. I just need to find a 1911 and a finish reamer.
Hope that info helps anyone who is interested in this subject.
