The Roland Special: A Concept Gun

[Chemsoldier]

The Roland Special Pistol Concept

Allright, if you are not a bit of a gun nerd, this will be for informational purposes only.  Do not feel this is a must have.  Apparently some of our SOF folks who were also gun nerds started it as a thought experiment, turned into an actual experiment to find a specialist application pistol and finally an exploration of what previous competition modifications could be used to increase the capability of the concealed carry duty sized pistol platform.



The Cliff Notes version (of the version in the G&A article below), is that squirrelly people from the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG), which validates concepts and tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs) for dissemination to the force, were experimenting with a concept pistol that used the best of competition shooting features mated to a compact pistol to produce a concealable pistol capable of performing way above standard compact pistol levels in the hands of a skilled operator.  This is not something conceived of by armchair commandos or by someone who doesn’t understand the pitfalls of customization.  They are very well aware of tolerance stacking, the importance of reliability and so on.
Guns and Ammo Article: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/the-guns-network/the-roland-special-glock-19/
The idea of the comp and the light minimizing muzzle climb to make it easier to keep the dot in view during recoil seems a really good idea.   While theoretically slower at closer ranges, the slide mounted red dot makes the pistol much more capable at longer ranges.  Shots become routine at distances that would take acute concentration otherwise with a pistol.

To be gauche and post a link to another forum, here is the Roland Special thread on Primary and Secondary forums:
https://primaryandsecondary.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-roland-special.827/

I am faced with having most of the guns I already need and just having projects and affectations at this point.  This might end up being one.  I think I will start building one up.  I will probably start with the match barrel and comp, I already have a light (different brand but whatever).  I am still batting around whether to buy a whole new G19 (I has several already) or just buy a new slide for the project.  If anyone has experiences with the red dot slide mounted optics I would be interested.

Here is somebody running one in an indoor match.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IaZfS4Mj4o

Some may ask about the use of a comp from retention positions, "wont you burn yourself?"  Apparently not, NSFW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV_Wr3AlSNA

Seems awfully complicated and expensive, a fair bit of training to use the capabilities well.   But could be fun.  A project for when I get back is to build one and try to be back into shooting shape to the point that I can take advantage of its abilities.

[Chemsoldier]

A Glock 43 Version for those craving even more concealable Roland Special:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/24/roland-specials-go-sub-compact-new-tbrci-micro-brake/

Here is the Glock 43 on the left with the G19 on the right for scale.



It is certainly slimmer than the Glock 19 version.

[ncjeeper]

Man is that goofy looking. Ill pass.

[Mr. Bill]

Man is that goofy looking. Ill pass.

But you will have a tactical advantage because your opponent is frozen in his tracks saying "WTF is that?"

[Carl]

  It may look funny but it is made to be USED and not just carried. It looks a lot like some of the guns
used by Jim Jr and Kay Clark for our weekend bowling pin matches at the range I used to work at.

[LVWood]

Neophyte here; Why would you need a "long range" concealed carry weapon?

[Chemsoldier]

Neophyte here; Why would you need a "long range" concealed carry weapon?

In the case of the original Roland Specials, they were designed for situations where carrying a long arm was not feasible and the pistol, concealed at that, would be your only weapon.

I can think of quite a few pistol shots that had to be made at longer range, though admittedly many were LE shootings.  Then again, most well documented shootings are.

[Carl]

Neophyte here; Why would you need a "long range" concealed carry weapon?

I have watched Jerry do this,he is better than average with most any weapon.1000 yard pistol shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxASg5uVNY

[Alan Georges]

I like the Rowland concept: take what's range-proven and make it practical for carry.  And I appreciate that this is being done by people who actually know their stuff.  Not sure it's for me though, and here are some thoughts as to why.

(1) If I have to use a concealed weapon, odds are that a nearly stock pistol will suffice.  Having something exotic and expensive... it's just fodder for the prosecutor to come after my butt.  Also something cheap and common is more likely to be returned.  Something cool and exotic might need to be kept longer (or just kept, period) for "evidence" or "testing" or any number of other excuses.

(2) Additional training and additional expense.  Bleh, got enough problem keeping up as it is.

(3) What's it really going to be better at doing?  Longer range shots, faster.  Is that really what a CCW is for?  I'm sure it's marginally better for mugging-distance shooting, but probably not enough to make it worth the extra expense and trouble.

(4) If I have an inkling that things could get that serious, I'll step up from the CCW and have a carbine at hand.  The Rowland... it's pretty cool, but it's sort of a half-step.  A little more effective than a basic concealed pistol, less effective than a 5.56, but it's neither fish nor fowl.  It does fit well in the gap, but I'm not sure it's all that important a gap to fill.

I'm not going to badmouth the idea, but it's not for me right now.  The fact is, more training is my path for the foreseeable future.

[FreeLancer]

I might give it whirl, I've been thinking about building up a custom Glock.

[iam4liberty]

The big firearm schools have been spending a lot of time with this concept.  Each has developed a similar approach tweaked in one direction or the other. Front Sight in particular has been a vocal advocate of this type of design for conceakef carry.  See this video as why this is proving attractve:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1442PFVDY

And, of course, glock is making it easier with its MOS line.

[CR Williams]

Re: Experience with pistol-mounted RDS.

I carried a G19 with a Trijicon RMR for a while. (The RMR is currently on an SI-made G35 slide with an Endo stock adapter and KAK Shockwave brace attached. I'm running a different aftermaket sight currently.)

The RMR takes some preparatory work to pickup quickly when you first get it. If you set it as recommended (close to the top of the front [suppressor height] sights, it's a pretty easy transition. The best thing about it is that you can run it just like a rifle red-dot in that you focus on the target and let the dot move into your area of vision. Once it's sighted in--10 yards is what SI recommends--the round will go where the dot is set. There is no need to move your eyes to the dot in most situations.

At the close ranges where most reactive gunfights take place you don't run sights anyway as a rule. Reference the slide, the top or edge of the slide, or use the window of the dot-sight to frame the target (sometimes called the 'window of death' or 'TV screen of death'). Done that way it's no slower than regular sights. This is good for whatever your limit is with alternative sighting techniques.

Deliberate shots and longer range is where the red dot works well--I got face-size groups at 50 yards and stayed within 8 inches at a hundred yards standing unsupported the first time I tried it. I've seen people hit IDPA-sized steel at 200 yards with one too.

If you're going to run a dot-sight on a pistol go for the higher-end systems. Trijicon and DeltaPoint seem to be preferred for fighting guns. Less than that it may not be able to handle the stresses imposed by the pistol firing. Jury is still out on some of the newer RDSs for now.

Also, get the slide milled. I've heard of problems with the multi-system guns such as Glock and S&W M&P has. And do get backup sights.

That's my nutshell version of it.

[Chemsoldier]

Thank you for the impressions on your experience on pistol red dots.

[xxdabroxx]

I'm not too keen on shooting a compensated pistol (particularly with a short barrel) without eye pro.  Seems like the comp would be bad for a concealed carry gun, particularly if the BG got close to you and you were firing from near the holster.

[danimal]

Regarding close to the body/holster shots watch a few of the videos linked in the thread for a idea of what one instructor shows.

I am 4/10 at 75yds with a 9mm. Usually, by the time we suggest trying it I am tired, coffee/blood ratio is off and the wife has called twice already. I just don't think I'd pay for, retrain and need an RMR or the like.

It might be interesting to try as a project but I haven't heard of anyone at the Ft Bragg matches using one. Lots of civilian aftermarket options similar to it but those Race guns are super tricked out.

[chrisdfw]

Looks a lot like the Glock 19 i keep by my bed. I have a milled slide with trijicon red dot, extended threaded barrel and TLR1s light. The only difference is i don't have a compensator on it, but rather have a suppressor nearby (but not attached)

[Chemsoldier]

Perhaps we are seeing a little more than concept gun now?

The first is nearly a year old
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/first-look-walther-q5-match-9mm/

A cheaper system, the RMR will cost more than the gun.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/14/canik-tp9sfx-race-gun-everyman/

While these are cast as out of the box race guns, it is worth noting that other forces may be moving the demand (if there is any).  Neither of these guns (nor the Roland Special for that matter would be competitive in Open class in USPSA Open division, The 3-Gun classes that allow comped pistols, or are even allowed in IDPA.  On the other hand the big names (Glock and Smith) have yet to make factory guns that are comped AND optics ready.

I think the interesting thing is that this may be a more significant change in capability compared to prior combat pistol modifications.
Many handgun modifications to optimize for combat such as those suggested by Fitzgerald, Jordan, Gaylord, Fairbairn and Sykes, Cooper, Cirillo and a few others focused on grips, some iron sight changes, some trigger mods and small mods to make the gun more snag free on the draw.  They made the basic gun a little more shootable in most situations, or perhaps a higher degree more shootable in specific situations.  The red dot really enhances the realistic range of the pistol (I will define as the range at which a shooter can quickly engage a target of a certain size).  Does this modification, plus the aggregate of that modification and all the small advantages of the other modification represent a real step forward in capability for handguns?

I don't have the time to do the digging but I imagine a decent way to get as some stats is to pull the results from USPSA matches.  USPSA has hundreds of standard stage designs that match directors use.  With USPSA standing up a Carry Optics division you could compare runs on given stages between similar guns and classes of shooters in Production (nearly stock 10 round mag limit), Carry Optics divisions (nearly stock, 10 round limit, slide mounted optics allowed) and Open divison (allows many modifications including comps, slide and frame mounted optics,etc).

[chrisdfw]

Yes, it does enhance the capability of the pistol to make hits at longer distance quickly.

The red dot is quicker to pick up and adjust than the iron sights at longer distances. It is still not a rifle and beyond 100 yards the drop is too much on a pistol round to make hits in a real world use situation.

It is a better tool for 15-100 yard shots quickly than iron sights. Its a trade off as you end up with a slightly less concealable weapon.

[machinisttx]

. It is still not a rifle and beyond 100 yards the drop is too much on a pistol round to make hits in a real world use situation.

This is a very weak argument. Drop is easily compensated for, and sights have been made with inset bars on the face for just such a purpose. A marker or nail polish works just as well, but isn't permanent. It's easier with revolvers due to the taller front site, but can be done just the same with an autoloader. IIRC, my handloads through my CZ 9mm's require me to hold all of front sight out of the slot at 100 yards. Beyond that distance, it's simply a matter of picking an appropriate point above the target as the POA.

That said, if I have need of a handgun beyond 100 yards, I sure don't want to be handicapped with a short barreled 9mm. I'd much prefer my 6" or longer barreled .357 mags, .44 mag, or heavy loaded .45 colt.

[iam4liberty]

For really long shots the consistency of a lighter round can help.  Jerry Miculek's famous 1000 yard shot used his namesake 9mm revolver with a 6.5 inch barrel and vortex razor red dot.  The use of moon clips enables the speed in reloads.  Net it is the same general concept but in revolver form.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FaVaaf7I4l4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

[machinisttx]

A sight misalignment of .002" with a 5" sight radius yields a 1.5" error in POI at 100 yards. That same sight misalignment on the same sight radius would be 15" difference in POI at 1000 yards.

Mr. Miculek is truly amazing with a handgun, but the 1000 yard shot is new to me. Saw another vid of him making a 1000 yard offhand shot with a barrett .50. He is far more manly than I. I have shot a barrett .50, and could not hold it steady enough offhand for even trying a shot at a tenth of that distance. The one I fired was the "carbine" version, which appears to be what he was using.

[chrisdfw]

This is a very weak argument. Drop is easily compensated for, and sights have been made with inset bars on the face for just such a purpose. A marker or nail polish works just as well, but isn't permanent. It's easier with revolvers due to the taller front site, but can be done just the same with an autoloader. IIRC, my handloads through my CZ 9mm's require me to hold all of front sight out of the slot at 100 yards. Beyond that distance, it's simply a matter of picking an appropriate point above the target as the POA.

That said, if I have need of a handgun beyond 100 yards, I sure don't want to be handicapped with a short barreled 9mm. I'd much prefer my 6" or longer barreled .357 mags, .44 mag, or heavy loaded .45 colt.

I am unaware of any sights with inset bars on the face that can compensate for drop at 200 or more yards from a pistol, I'd love to see them, because it would solve the issue, but picking a point in the sky is not a simple task and I haven't met anyone who even claims they can do it at varying distances on the fly.

[machinisttx]

If any such sights are available off the shelf today, I do not know of them. At one time, they were made by at least one of the aftermarket sight companies. I'd have to go and re-read a couple of old books to find a reference to exactly what company or companies made them.

 I did find a gunsmith offering the service of adding them though. #17 on this list. http://www.clementscustomguns.com/miscconversionoptions.html

At one time I could make first round hits on a standard silhouette target at 100 with even a 2" revolver. I don't shoot enough to make that claim anymore, nor would I claim the ability to do it any farther. That being said, if I'm forced to engage a threat at over 100 yards with nothing more than a handgun then I have made some grievous errors in judgement. At that point, it's not so much about hitting the target as it is being close enough to make them duck whilst I run for cover/concealment and escape. 

An additional thought is that a 1200fps 115 grain 9mm is going to drop about 4.5 feet at 200 yards with a 25 yard zero. An average man is about 6 feet tall, so the aiming point required would be 3/4 of the target's height above the desired POI. Or, you can use the width of the front sight as a range estimation tool if you know how much area the front sight covers at known distances and your target is of a known average size.

[Carl]

Actually...special sights are not needed and often hinder the long range pistol shooter.As they can obscure the target. I have,in the past,done long range pistol shooting though today my body is not stable enough to equal what I could do in the past..At 250 yards a half sized silhouette was always in the danger zone and I often shot metallic silhouette with service pistol at up to 200 meters. You must know your weapon wells and 357 Sig,357 Magnum,357 Maximum were the common choice calibers. I sometimes shot 357 Herrett in a Thompson Contender to gain practice as it was my primary hunting weapon of choice. 

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/long-range-pistol-shooting/

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/long-range-pistol-shooting/

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/survival/2011/06/sight-alignment-long-range-pistol-shooting#page-2

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/09/jim-barrett/training-review-sig-sauer-academys-long-range-pistol-shooting/

[machinisttx]

I agree and disagree with you Carl. If you're shooting from fixed positions at known distances, it doesn't take long to work out a zero and a sight picture that gets the job done. On the other hand, a visual reference line helps a lot when shooting randomly sized targets at random distances....helps me anyway. No second guessing as to whether you've lined up the fifth or seventh serration instead of the sixth.

[chrisdfw]

 I did find a gunsmith offering the service of adding them though. #17 on this list. http://www.clementscustomguns.com/miscconversionoptions.html

Awesome, never even knew this existed.

[Betsy4ever]

Looking superficial!!....really cool 

[Leftout]

Tooling company that did my slides on both of my Glocks are offering this build
http://ateiguns.com/product/roland-special/

[Carl]

reminds me of a 'beat to hell' artillery Luger I have in the safe ,here is a good photo of one that was for sale.

http://www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com/History%20Book/1221Arty16r.htm

[Chemsoldier]

M&P with an Optics Ready, ported model of the M&P 9mm.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/smith-wessons-mp-performance-center-ported-model-one-flat-shooter/

None of these factory ported, optics ready guns will be competitive in open division action pistol competition.  But these do seem to be a minor phenomena.  Perhaps they will take over Open Division in small club matches.  There were two types of folks shooting Limited in my old club.  Those who pushed the envelope of Limited Division guns (a gun in the thousands of dollars cost) and those who just wanted to shoot their Production guns with full capacity mags (Production limits you to 10 rounds) or want to shoot Appendix Inside the WaistBand (AIWB) (Production requires you to run a strong side hip holster).  Perhaps there will one day be defacto "Street Open" groups of shooters that run ported, slide mounted optics AIWB.  Weirder things have happened.