Thank you for replying. I was really interested in people with experience using the recoil device. Reducing slide pull is the goal. Power level of the round is not the question.
Thank you for replying. I was really interested in people with experience using the recoil device. Reducing slide pull is the goal. Power level of the round is not the question.
Gotcha. I've only shot the original version, both in a Glock and in a 1911. My biggest problem with the round is the need for a comp, which makes the gun so darn long. I'd only carry it for woods defense in big bear areas, and having that extra inch and a half makes it a good bit slower. I can't help with racking the slide.
It's an uncomfortable gun to shoot when compared to a 45 or 10mm. I'm not recoil sensitive with a pistol, and I can shoot 350 gn hardcasts from a 5" ruger 44 without any issues. But I think that, if you are talking about bear defense, the Rowland is a lot faster back on target with the compensator than it would be without.
The correct answer for the Rowland is to buy the Wilson Hunter, but I could never convince myself that it was worth doing that for whatever the round offered. I built up a Springfield with one, flat firing pin stop, heavy springs. It ran fine, shot fine, but the length eventually was the killer for me.
I'd prefer to take my chances with a 10mm over a 44 or 460. I am just faster on target than with the longer 460 and it shoots flat. I have a problem with accuracy with large framed double actions. I can shoot them, but it takes a lot of concentration for me to get the side of my finer off the frame so that the trigger pull can be straight, and that is not what I want looking at a big bear.
Much appreciated.! The Add suggests reduced recoil spring for whatever round used. (like 9# for .45 and .460R shot intermixed) Too, good to be true? Again thank you.