I'm doing everything I can to sunset the AWB. I already have a "pre-ban" AR-15 on my list of to dos for next October. Now I am thinking of budgeting a 9mm and 6 reasonably priced full cap mags.
So which one? I have ruled out SIGs because I don't like being a southpaw slingshot only as the slide release on a reload, and I have ruled out a Glock, S&W, & Ruger for their politics.
Which one of these would you choose and why?
If you enjoyed reading about "Which full-cap nine to celebrate the death of the mag ban?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 13, 2003, 01:26 AM
Go CZ or BHP. I love my CZ (nearly 100% reliable, incredible accuracy, long but smooth trigger pull, durable, good fit and finish and it fits me like a glove) and the CZ is a bit cheaper than the FN HP. However, the FN HP is probably a bit higher quality. I've been hearing some people w/ problem CZs lately (don't misunderstand, it is still a small number)- I'm guessing that trying to keep up with the newfound demand they probably let some out of the US distributor (CZ-USA) that they normally wouldn't. Also, the BHP is a classic. If you try to drop the price to lower than CZ (FEG) or similar to CZ (Charles Daly when it comes out or FM now) then the quality advantage goes to CZ. Which would I chose? I bought a CZ 75 about a year and a half ago and a CZ 40 shortly thereafter and I don't yet have a BHP (hopefully fairly soon). If I was to start over I'd probably go CZ due to the price difference and it is still a quality gun, though if price wasn't a consideration I'd probably go BHP.
For the rest, yeah I think I will probably own one of a few of those one day. However, I prefer the CZ and BHP.
Anyway, if you start with either the CZ or BHP I think you'll be very happy.
May 13, 2003, 01:29 AM
Personally, I've been there and done that with most of the higher-cap 9s. I would probably pickup up an LDA 18/9 if I could gets mags for it. And just for the heck of it I'd probably pick up a bunch of 40S&W mags for my EAA Silver Team and a few more mags for my Taurus but neither of the mags are prohibitavely expensive.
9mm Glock guys should be pretty happy. ;)
May 13, 2003, 02:16 AM
You can forget about that mag ban being ended, George W. Bush is not going to let that happen. He is a friend to us when he needs the NRA vote but after election, we can suck on it as far as he is concerned.
BTW, yes, I wrote him a letter expressing my displeasure in his failure to support our rights. He doesn't care about you so long as he can hunt quail in his private ranch in Texas. Must be nice to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth.:rolleyes:
It is put-up or shut-up time Bush! Repeal just one of the liberal gun bans and I will gladly eat my words!
May 13, 2003, 02:23 AM
You can forget about that mag ban being ended
May 13, 2003, 02:44 AM
If you are going to rule out S&W due to politics you might as well rule out Walther. They are seperate companies, but new Walthers are imported by S&W and they are sharing designs. Supporting one supports the other.
Bad gun maker! :fire: Bad!
May 13, 2003, 02:58 AM
Must be nice to live in your world.:rolleyes: It ain't gonna happen buddy boy.
If it does sunset, I will buy you a brand new Glock 17 hi-cap. If it doesn't, you have to buy me a Bersa 23 low-cap.:D
May 13, 2003, 03:08 AM
Must be nice to live in your world. It ain't gonna happen buddy boy.
I don't think you understand that the bill has to make it to the floor of the House for a vote (not likely). And then it has to pass the House (impossible). In order for it to reach shrub's desk for him to sign.
If it does sunset, I will buy you a brand new Glock 17 hi-cap.
Buying me a Glock 17 hi-cap is like buying Tropical Z a H&K P7M13 hi-cap. :D It just don't make sense. :D
How about a stainless Hi-Power factory 13 rounder to add to my collection of BHP hi-caps instead :)
May 13, 2003, 03:59 AM
As Brewster once encouraged us...
None of the above!
May 13, 2003, 04:24 AM
Beretta or CZ, perhaps Walther P99 since hi-caps will then be available for it at a lower price...thats my plan anyways.
The AWB will die. It's not going to get past the House, and if by some miracle it does(it won't), it will be up against 52 "NO"s in the Senate.
May 13, 2003, 04:48 AM
Where's the Glock 17 or 19?!?!?!?
My 19 is looking insulted, folks.....
May 13, 2003, 05:03 AM
Well that makes sense as Glock 19's are insulting to look at :D :D :D
May 13, 2003, 09:14 AM
Here is my math:
The original AWB passed the House 216-214 in 1994.
There was a sucessful vote to repeal it in the House just two years later that went nowhere in the Senate.
This year, (or next) the renewed AWB has little or no chance of making it out of Committee. It will simply sunset if we keep applying the pressure on the House, where such pressure is the most effective.
Therefore I am budgeting some celebratory purchases. If I am disappointed, I will merely get another left-handed Remington rather than a new AR, this time in a "fast .33," like .338, with a scope, and another Colt 1911. Or maybe one of those damascus slide Caspians and ditch the rifle idea. Either way, I come out smelling like a rose, ready to vote out some punks on election day.
May 13, 2003, 09:21 AM
If (and that's a big if) the ban doesn't get renewed, I'll stock up on full-caps for my CZs. I'll also pick up an Inox Beretta 92 and a Glock 19, and a shoebox full of full-caps for each.
May 13, 2003, 12:00 PM
A couple of the new FN pistols.
May 13, 2003, 12:09 PM
If Congress doesn't make the renewal happen, Bush will. He wants those votes. The only thing he likes more than votes is (maybe) a supersize of Compassion.
May 13, 2003, 12:59 PM
Eh, even if it doesn't get renewed, CA has taken enough initiative to ensure I won't benefit any. :cuss:
May 13, 2003, 02:33 PM
Browning HiPower, the classic.
Maybe Bush really doesn't want the renewal. If it does not pass, he can tell the gun-control crowd he was for it, and would have signed it, but they didn't get the job done. Meanwhile, the NRA tells the gun rights voters that he was really on their side - it was all just politics and appearances.
May 13, 2003, 02:45 PM
Ok I will play. I have sent my emails and such and really hope that it does go away. I don't honestly believe it will but hey I am a bit of a pessimist.
If it does go away I will buy a boatload of 16 round P99 magazines and maybe just maybe I can get funds allocated from my own personal congressional defense committy for an HK P7M13 ooooooo that would just be darn cool. Of course what would I be getting myself into as new P7M8 magazines are $45 bucks a pop. I cannot imagine M13 mags being any cheaper, probably more like $55 to $60 a pop. Hey it's better than $120.
Ahh who am I kidding chances are I will be a father buy then and all my money will be going towards toys........hopefully boy toys but Barbie does have some cool stuff too actually that Bi....ahhh young lady has everything.:D
May 13, 2003, 04:45 PM
LOL! Couldn't help myself :D You had mentioned the P7M13 w/ the term reasonably priced mags!!! :D
May 13, 2003, 04:53 PM
I voted for the BHP, but I bought one 2 years ago. I bought a CZ 75B the year before that. And quite a few mags for both of them, too. The stainless 13-rd Mec-Gars for the BHP were only $33. The 17-rd KRDs for the CZ were less than $20. I think the most I spent on any mag was $45 for a new one from CZ.
Why wait on a bunch of politicians? The guns and mags aren't that expensive now. If the prices drop by half somewhere down the road...well...I'll buy more.
You could be shooting.
May 13, 2003, 05:32 PM
Sorry. I must have misunderstood your laughing as you believing it was going to sunset. Also I got you mixed up with 9x19 in the Glock 17 comment. Your names are similar in what they bring to mind (9mm hi-cap pistols).
If by some chance it does sunset, I wonder if the price of factory hi-caps will come down to the same price as factory 10 rounders. They should because it costs the same to make a 10 round mag as it costs to make a 15 round mag but I have the sneeking suspision that they will be more expensive. Its a moot point anyway as I don't see Bush or any branch of the government giving us any more rights than they have to. Once something is taken away, it is harder to get it back then it would have been to just have fought to keep it.
I haven't done as much as much as I should to protect these rights so I have no reason to complain. I am one of the selfish people that as long as I can get hi-caps and other things I want, I don't bother helping other people. I really feel for people in CA. but that is a state issue and I don't live there so I can't influence things there.
The fact is, gun owners are a slowly dying breed. As there are less and less places to shoot and less game to hunt, people are not growning up with guns like in the old days. I try to encourge as many people as I can to get a gun because once they have a gun, all of a sudden they think about things most people take for granted. If we had twice as many gun owners in this counrty, we wouldn't have to worry about our rights being squashed by the "elite" in the government. More than anything else you can do, converting or bringing up another gun owner is the best thing you can do to preserve your rights. If we are few, we will be looked at as a special interest group, this is how the guns were taken away in England. Most of the gun owners were upper class and the majority didn't think they should have something that they didn't have.
Sorry, I got off topic and rambled on.
May 13, 2003, 05:39 PM
Eh, even if it doesn't get renewed, CA has taken enough initiative to ensure I won't benefit any.
Pretty much the same situation here in NY as I understand it.. Still pushing for it to sunset though :D
May 13, 2003, 05:46 PM
Bush is not going to do anything with this one. He may say that he supports the current AWB, but he is not going to push this new bill through. He wants to appeal to the more liberal crowd, while keeping his conservative supporters. Even though I have strong feelings about this issue, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, and I doubt he will. I'm sure his people have diagnosed the situation and know the liberals can't make it work; he can sit back and say "aw shucks, I really wish that bill would have gone through. Too bad." Even the most liberal gun-grabbers aren't attempting to push anything extreme. It's just too risky to make that plunge. At least I hope this is the scenario. I have already written my state senators (R- J. Warner and R- G. Allen). I've written to Schumer and Feinstein, too; the letter wasn't as laudatory.
If the high capacity magazine ban dies, I think the real explosion is going to take place in weapons that became popular after the ban. I would look for Kahr to come up with a high capacity gun (T9), and the XD line-up will explode. As will guns chambered in 357 Sig, a caliber that never really benefitted from commercial high capacity magazines sales.
May 13, 2003, 07:01 PM
Walther P99 hi-caps for my wife.
HK USP40 12 rounders for me.
Glock Mags, and more Glocks to use them in!
May 13, 2003, 07:28 PM
Come on, you guys know Beretta is the king of 9mm hi-cap pistols!;) That's what you need!:D
May 13, 2003, 07:35 PM
Of the bunch, I'd lean towards either the 92fs, USPc 9 or P2000. As a package, the Beretta would have more readily available, "reasonably" priced mags ;)
May 13, 2003, 07:38 PM
Any Glock that will accept G18 mags..;)
May 13, 2003, 08:02 PM
I hate to throw water on everyones hopes for an end to the ban but people often kill the messanger that tells them bad news.
I would encourge everyone to support your favorite pro-gun organization because when the bill is made permanent it will undoubtabley change and it will change for the worse.
The current loophole that allows importation of high cap magazines that were made before the ban will most certainly be closed banning importation of further magazines and if you think paying $135 dollars for a high cap Walther P99 magazine is a lot of money it will probably escalate to double that amount when the new law is signed into effect. Much, much worse could also be put into the new law.
Bush says he favors making the ban permanent and without the presidential support for sunset the law is almost certain to be made permanent and the anti-gun forces will put in all the new bans that they possibly can get away with before it is signed into law.
Although some people do not like the NRA it is, like it or not, the only powerful enough gun lobby to help us try and keep the original law very much as it is and if it does get worse keep it form getting so out of hand we don't all end up having to turn our current high caps in to be melted down with no compensation. It could very well happen if enough support is not thrown behind the NRA , they will need a lot of money to prevent this and worse from happening when the new law is made permanent.
Lets hope I am 100 per cent wrong on all this but I have been fighting these ani-gun battles since I was 14 years old and that was a long , long time ago so I do not make all these statements lightly or with a lack of prior experience.
Lets hope a miracle happens and it does sunset but I would sooner believe I am going to win my states lottery next week than believe we will have that kind of luck and have the bill actually sunset.
May 13, 2003, 08:51 PM
I've never paid more than 70 for a Walther P-99 hicap. I hope your wrong about the ban.
On a happy note, if it does sunset, you can't go wrong with a Walther P-99.
May 13, 2003, 09:00 PM
I'd get another SIG Sauer and another Glock.
May 13, 2003, 10:31 PM
I hear ya.
May 13, 2003, 11:02 PM
The ban sunsets automatically--it requires no action, legislative or presidential, to sunset. To be extended beyond September next year requires both the House and Senate to vote for and approve it (and of course, the President to sign it).
Frankly, I just don't see the House voting to extend the ban (and they have already voted to repeal it once). So, regardless of what the Senate (and the President--and I have my doubts there) may want, I'd say the chances of it being extended are slim. Representatives are more directly answerable to the voters than either Senators or the President--and they have seen too many of their colleagues become unemployed over an anti-gun stance in the recent four or five elections. The anti-gun platform has proven to be a big loser for the Democrats, and the only die-hard support I see at this time for extending the ban is from those Democratic representatives in truly safe districts--no where near a majority of the House (and maybe not even a majority of the Democrats).
As for George W. Bush's "stance," while disappointing, I see it as more astute politics than anything. By providing token or lukewarm (and totally meaningless) support (token verbal support from a functionary several layers removed from the President), he defuses a potentially hot issue for the Democrats in some contested areas--it is an issue that could cost the Republicans both black and women votes. Without his frontline, hard support ("falling on his sword," so to speak), the chances of the ban being extended are slim to none. So if the ban sunsets, as it seems likely it will at this time, he stands to lose nothing in support from the pro-gun side (and really, to whom would we go anyway--his worst is far, far better than the opposition's best--how many of you are willing to see a Hillary Clinton/Jesse Jackson presidency because you're mad at George W. Bush). I say let the media applaud him just so long as he doesn't start twisting arms in the House--confusion to the Democrats.
(Besides, how many of you are now even more motivated to get off your duffs, write your Representative and support the NRA? The battle will be won in the Committee Rooms and the Floor of the House--NOT in the Oval Office.)
May 13, 2003, 11:28 PM
G19 or BHP
May 14, 2003, 10:54 AM
Did you all know ole' Dubya was in favor of the AWB BEFORE he was even elected.
I'm perplexed people don't read more about the people we vote into political office. Of course I still voted for Bush since the other candidate would have almost garunteed more Federal gun laws.
Anyways since I live inside Occupied territory the sunset will mean nothing to me......but it's great having friends in the free states. I'll try and have some P7M13 mags awaiting my escape to freedom some day.
May 14, 2003, 11:04 AM
cuz the SIG-Sauer P228 is not on your list!
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
May 14, 2003, 11:50 AM
DeLay: House Will Not Extend Assault Weapons Ban
AK-47s and 18 Other Semiautomatic Weapons Would Be Legalized
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2003; 6:00 PM
The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said today, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, DeLay told reporters.
His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.
As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills get voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation renewing it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress fails to act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed by Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress a decade ago would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.
Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose the ban's renewal, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced into a rollcall vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.
President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers on the issue. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting hard to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.
"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game."
Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," said a House GOP leadership aide. "The White House does not want us" to vote.
In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."
It's unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.
Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal, reflecting a notable shift in the politics of guns during the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up."
The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.
In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic, rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons -- and copycat versions that don't fall under the ban -- are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
The Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes in May 1994. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them with a relentless political campaign.
The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a highwater mark following Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost pro-gun bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.
Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action won't matter.
In the House, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) last week introduced a tougher bill that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," said McCarthy.
Hill, thanks for injecting some reality into this thread.
I swear some of these guy don't want the AWB to end.
May 14, 2003, 01:05 PM
Yeah its those hi-cap mag manufacturers and importers.
May 14, 2003, 01:16 PM
In no particular order ... AR-15
May 14, 2003, 01:42 PM
Given the latest developments, maybe I'll finally invest in a Glock...
A full-capacity 10mm would be quite nice...
May 14, 2003, 10:14 PM
Mine will be a CZ-75B with a 16 round magazine, fresh from the factory. Preferably on Sept. 14th 2004, ideally on Sept. 13th, 2004, but definitely before the end of October.
I'm sick and tired of single stacks, and I've refused to buy anything with one of these "Clinton Mags" and that's what they'll be known as in the post Sept 13th 2004 era (so sayeth me). I hope those European manufacturers gear up production and have those magazines waiting for me on the pier cause it'd make my day if I could get one on the 14th. We could make an event out of it, take pictures, throw a party.
May 14, 2003, 10:50 PM
I'll probably break down and buy my second Glock...Glock 20 and many magazines.
More Uzi magazines...
Stock up on AR15 magazines if the price drops.
Oh, I've got a mildly customized FN P35...why would I need another 9mm? I'll probably get some more magazines for it out of simple paranoia but I've already got ten or so.
May 14, 2003, 11:01 PM
Bloody **********!:cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire:
Where's Glock man?!?
May 14, 2003, 11:04 PM
"Well that makes sense as Glock 19's are insulting to look at "
Only from the side. From the muzzle, not so much. :evil:
May 15, 2003, 12:06 AM
No sense in voting for the Beretta, BHP or CZ. Those mags are already a fair price.
Don't care for the p7, mildly interested in the PO, Steyr is too rare for me, already have a p99 and although the ergo's are real nice on the USPc, if I'm gonna spend that much I want a nicer trigger :)
So the winner is ...... Browning BDM. I think the lack of hi cap mags really did this one in. 15 rounds in a deliciously slim grip. I'm salivating already.
(I voted for the USPc, the trigger is not THAT bad, and I really like ambi mag releases!!!! The BDM is in the same boat as the steyr)
Now the real question is .... Will the IDPA allow full cap mags back in? Let's see those CDP guys handle 18 round friendly courses now
/evil laugh on/ ehehehehehehhhehhehhehhehhe /evil laugh off/
Edited as I spell about as bad as I shoot
May 15, 2003, 01:22 AM
Imagine just how stupid all those folks who've paid $130 a mag for their pistols, and $2500 for an AR are going to feel. They're probably greater supporters of the AWB than the anti-gun lobby! :uhoh:
May 15, 2003, 01:53 AM
That depends. I've got a couple of G20 full capacity magazines that I paid $75 each for. And one I paid a hundred for.
I've got a select fire Uzi that I've got $975 invested. I could sell it for around $3000.
I've got a HK 91 that I paid $1100 for. I could sell it for around $2K.
It wouldn't bother me a bit if the relevant laws were repealed and these firearms were suddenly selling for what they are actually worth.
Consider: I could then buy a FN Model D BAR for about $900 including the tax stamp...as opposed to $20K now.
I'll take it.
Anybody that is banking on these prices that are based on these laws...is basically sleeping with the enemy.
May 15, 2003, 10:24 AM
Out of all the pistols on the list I like the BHP the best (I have one). However I voted for the Para-Ordnance P-18. The reason being is that a search through Shotgun News will show BHP mags are available for a song and they are plentiful.
Now a Para on the otherhand, a honkin' 18 shot full size pistol, manufactured in a socialist country bent on outlawing it's own citizens from bearing arms, is a big slap in the face to antis everywhere. It's the ideal pistol to celebrate with. Especially since it hasn't been available here with it's full cap mags.
May 15, 2003, 11:21 AM
akanotken - That is why I didnt buy one. I liked the gun, a lot. But I wasn't going to buy it with only a 10 round mag.
If you enjoyed reading about "Which full-cap nine to celebrate the death of the mag ban?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!