My curiosity on the 460 Rowland peaked last weekend and I ended up doing a few hours research on whatever I could find online. Long story short, I'm really impressed with conversion options, specifically for the Glock 21. There's a good video here by MrRedbul616. [ame="http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AhGM0hhsGEg"]Glock 21 460 Rowland Ammo Test: Accuracy, Velocity, Recoil - YouTube[/ame] At 10:20 in the video, there's a good side shot to show recoil, and it looks very manageable with the compensator and of course good technique. I saw a fair amount of concern for beating up the pistol with that kind of pressure and recoil in discussions, though that also could have just been based in fear and myth. It's looking like from reports in the last year that those guys making the conversion packages are pretty well dialed now and G21's and G30's are working flawlessly. Granted, as long as the owner/shooter dots their i's and crosses their t's. The problems that I've ready about were from folks trying to be extra creative along the process. So that puts me in an interesting situation. A month ago, I was really really happy with my 10mm because I could have it loaded somewhat lower for urban needs and higher for wilderness needs. But honestly, if a G21 or G30 converted for the 460 Rowland can reliably throw the 460, 45 super and hot 45 ACP with comparable recoil to a 10mm and with no more than the ammo change, why would someone looking to cover those bases not prefer the latter? I do understand the slight edge in sectional density that the 10mm has, but that is only very slight compared to the ballistic advantages. And, from what little actually comparison between the two cartridges in actual tests, apparently the 460 Rowland was still better. But then again, I can't say how those tests were done. If you started from scratch right now and wanted a set up that could be a fullsize carry/nightstand piece and serve well for light wilderness protection, would you go 10mm in Glock 20 or 29, or 460 Rowland in Glock 21 or 30?