With all this high capacity magazine talk because of the AWB, I have a question......


PDA






Das Pferd
July 15, 2004, 12:26 PM
Has anyone here really been hurt from only having 10 rounds in their magazine?

Will 3 extra rounds make much of a difference to you?

Or is it the principal of the whole thing.

If you enjoyed reading about "With all this high capacity magazine talk because of the AWB, I have a question......" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
July 15, 2004, 12:34 PM
Principle. Has anyone hurt others (with >10 rounds in a magazine) enough to justify revoking everyone's right to have that? Not that I can think of.

Bridger
July 15, 2004, 12:36 PM
Maybe 3 extra rounds isn't a big difference, but I think 20 is.

BeLikeTrey
July 15, 2004, 12:48 PM
Which there are plenty preban clips that are floating around but thanks to feinswine they are a mint to puchase. 50-70 bucks. availability was never affected, just the price. made 10 rounders cost what the originals did and jacked the originals to sky high.

halvey
July 15, 2004, 01:16 PM
Oh boy I can't wait. The wonder 9 will be back and the .45's will be at a discount. Yippeeeeeee!

Chupacabra
July 15, 2004, 01:49 PM
I'm pretty comfortable with 10+1 in my compact USP, but I would feel even better with 12+1.

:D

More ammo always = good!

kd7ctv
July 15, 2004, 01:51 PM
just remember that when it all goes to hell, you can't have enough ammo....

FPrice
July 15, 2004, 01:56 PM
It's the principle of the action, plus the fact that it can lead to MORE restrictions.

If 10 rounds is good (today) but 11 rounds is evil, what's to say that tomorrow 10 rounds will not be bad? After all, who really needs 10 rounds of ammunition all at once? You can get by with 9.

Then, the day after tomorrow suppose 9 rounds is bad, but 8 is good? After all, you agreed to the preceeding restrictions.

And so on and so on until we are a bunch of Barney Fife's running around the with legal one round of ammo in our shirt pocket.

You say this can't happen? It already started when they outlawed (new)magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds for us "ordinary" citizens.

Boats
July 15, 2004, 02:21 PM
All I know is that I am buying a CZ 85 next month. 10+1 on a pistol that size is nonsensical, at 16+1 it is just right.

I reacted to the AWB by upping my caliber. I am once again looking forward to some cheap plinking with a service sized pistol that can also double as an effectively lethal fighting weapon.

So I guess if I were a whiner I could say I was harmed, primarily in the wallet.

ctdonath
July 15, 2004, 02:34 PM
Kinda hard to ask those who needed those extra rounds but didn't have them - while fighting for their lives.

Kinda like asking if anyone here has been murdered yet.

BeLikeTrey
July 15, 2004, 02:42 PM
REALLY ask yourself that question... I mean REALLY. Can I not end up in a situation where I need it? Just because police have dangerous jobs, can I not end up in the middle of something just as easy as they can? I can't think of one reason a cop can have it that the same cannot be applied to me. My right to the ver best defense possible should be no less than a police officer. -- or is my life worth less? You tell me. I'll guage your worth based on your response ;)

Bacchus
July 15, 2004, 02:45 PM
Exactly as BeLikeTrey put it.

moorerwc
July 15, 2004, 02:48 PM
More than likely, I'll never even _need_ a defensive firearms much less 3-5 rounds.

Big _BUT_ when you start downloading/blocking magazines you are getting out of the original design specifications of the firearm. Thus you increase your chances for malfunctions--which are not acceptable in a defensive firearm. I'll practice with 10 rd. Klinton mags with my Glock but for real, it's loaded/tested with original pre-ban mags.

-Chad

Edmond
July 15, 2004, 02:50 PM
You think the bad guys only carry 10 round mags?:(

I'm going to pick something up when the ban expires; probably a G19 with some of those high caps. www.topglock.com is pre-selling high cap mags for $26. And they're blowing out the 10 round mags for $16. It looks like they're pretty confident that the AWB will sunset.

Tharg
July 15, 2004, 02:56 PM
As one person said - they are still available - almost 10 years later - just the prices that have been jacked. I bought a knockoff hi-power once - it came w/ its 10 rnd and 2 17 rnd clips ... was a bargain - course - to buy the 30rnd'ers for my Mini-14 cost an arm and a leg... not that i use em much - since the 5rnd factory i got w/ the gun works best. (not to say i don't have one loaded up....) Still - once again - all it does is stop regular people from spending regular money, and the criminals don't care - if they can get fully automatic weapons w/o much hassle - don't you think clips would be an afterthought? rofl

Question IS principle. If they said you were only allowed to have the small extinguishers and not the bigger one's as a "civilian" you'd think it was rediculous.... the difference is volume. I've met people who are real good w/ throwing knives... where is the law that says they can only have 10 of em on em at one time... <rofl> How about since knives are dangerous too (they are only designed to cut things ya know) that we only are allowed to have paring knives... nothing bigger... why would you need a bigger knife than that?!?! <bleh>

J/Tharg!

middy
July 15, 2004, 03:19 PM
My fun has been hurt by reloading magazines more often at the range. :cuss:

Amish_Bill
July 15, 2004, 03:24 PM
Cheap standard-cap mags for my P99 will be wonderful. The current/historical asking prices of $85 to $125 each are just insane!

ps.. yes - upped caliber too. Half a grip of empy space to carry 9mm vs a full grip of .45? It's a no-brainer. Now the cheap mags for a P14 will be icing on the cake.

Diggler
July 15, 2004, 03:28 PM
But... but... can't you just pick up your radio and call all of your friends to come swarming in to help you if it gets nasty? When you're car breaks down in the bad part of town, don't you have a buddy that you can call for backup?

:D

Mikul
July 15, 2004, 03:46 PM
I have never seen statistics where someone fired 11 rounds, but was still killed. They may not track that sort of thing. Either way I've never seen it.

I realized a long time ago that no one has ever uttered the phrase, "I wish I didn't bring all of this ammo."

sharpie613
July 15, 2004, 04:23 PM
Here's my reason for wanting standard capacity mags--


I don't need a reason. So there.

The metric Clinton mags are so lawyer proof that on my P13, I can barely squeeze in 9, let alone the stated capacity of ten. On my P99, the capacity is reduced by more than 33%. Why? So Dianne Feinstien can feel cozy in her sty, and secure in the knowledge that she is more equal than the people who supposedly voted for the #$%^. This crap is even worse in California; it's never going away, ever. This "woman" is a foul despicable wench.

DragonRider
July 15, 2004, 04:48 PM
I just want the extra mass to help control recoil:neener:




NAAHH.......

I want it the way it is designed.

John

ctdonath
July 15, 2004, 06:02 PM
Counter-question:

Do you see a need to fine, jail, or kill someone only for having more than 10 rounds in a magazine?

GSB
July 15, 2004, 07:30 PM
All I know is I can't wait to slap a Beta C Mag into the Beretta... :D

Pilgrim
July 15, 2004, 09:32 PM
Only certified winos should have access to 1.5 litre bottles of wine. Social drinkers don't have a need for anything bigger than .75 litres.

Pilgrim

Das Pferd
July 15, 2004, 11:45 PM
Do you see a need to fine, jail, or kill someone only for having more than 10 rounds in a magazine?

My question was not political. I was just thinking about it. Here I am waiting to drop a bunch of change on normal capacity magazines when I thinkl, I have gotten along just fine without them for a while. Will 3 extra rounds really be that important to me. Because that the most I can get in a firearm right now.

Then it dawned on me that I was getting caught up in the AWB sunset fever. As I am sure the gun manufacturers are hoping.

Why buy something if I dont need it.

Thats all I am saying.

nipprdog
July 16, 2004, 12:02 AM
Why buy something if I dont need it.
not to flame, but most of us see at as the 'bill of rights',

not the 'bill of needs'.

:D

Telperion
July 16, 2004, 12:17 AM
I think so. The 2 extra rounds roughly work out to being able to handle one more attacker, from my limited training experience.

Das Pferd
July 16, 2004, 12:32 AM
not to flame, but most of us see at as the 'bill of rights',

You are flaming and what you said is idiotic at the very least.

nipprdog
July 16, 2004, 07:11 AM
You are flaming and what you said is idiotic at the very least.
no,I'm not flaming you.:fire:

let me explain my point in detail so that you MIGHT be able to grasp it.

there used to be a radio ad for The 2nd Amenment foundation that went something like this;

"when people ask 'why do you need a semi-auto rifle capapable of firing 20 or 30 rounds from one mag, tell them 'its not the bill of needs, its the bill of rights. no one needs a 400 horsepower sports car capable of 150mph either, but in the hands of responsible citizens, we are allowed to own them"

we had the right to by standard capacity mags(at a decent price), and it was taken away. we want it back.

p.s. name calling is frowned upon on this site.;)

BeLikeTrey
July 16, 2004, 07:43 AM
ROFLMAO!

true, true.

twency
July 16, 2004, 08:25 AM
For me it's a question of principle more than practicality. But it's an important principle. It is bad enough to deny the citizenry of the U.S. something not inherently wrong; just because a select portion of the people don't like it (the private consumption of alcohol, perhaps). It is truly outrageous, however, when the denial is of something as fundamental as the right to keep and bear arms.

We can argue all day (and have) about how far the upper limit of that right extends (grenade, cannon, F16, tactical nuke, etc.), but 11 rounds of 9mm JHP in a magazine is nowhere close to any logical or reasonable upper limit on how much weaponry a private citizen is/should be allowed to keep and use. It is simply an arbitrary, touchy-feely limit with no basis in sound reasoning or good public policy.

As for this:
quote:
not to flame, but most of us see at as the 'bill of rights',

You are flaming and what you said is idiotic at the very least.
That's supposed to be a joke or something, right? When someone politely (with a disclaimer and everything) suggests an alternate viewpoint, albeit without a fleshed-out explanation, and you haul off and say they're "flaming", while also calling their comment "idiotic"?

I missed the funny part of that joke.

-twency

Das Pferd
July 16, 2004, 11:34 AM
Children cant we all get along?

Read my second post to see my intent of the thread. It has nothing to do with politics or some other viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the second amendmment.

I wasnt name calling I said what you said was idiotic, theres a difference. Your the one who questioned my beleifs.

we had the right to by standard capacity mags(at a decent price), and it was taken away. we want it back.

I agree but thats not what I am questioning really.

Black Snowman
July 16, 2004, 12:03 PM
I like not having to load up magazines as often. I can load up my CZ magazines at home and sometimes never have to load at all at the range making my range time more productive. It makes shooting my CZ 75B much more enjoyable. The money and time I spent getting cheap after-market pre-bans to work was worth it too me. If I can get reasonable priced factory standard capacty magazines thats even better!

Plus it hurts new companies trying to get into the market. I know I didn't buy a Steyr M40 or M9 JUST BECAUSE high capacity magazines were not available. I loved everything else about them. If the AWB sunsets there is a good chance I'll pick one up. So not only is it silly and inconvinient it hurts the free market.

So, to answer your question. Yes, I have really NEEDED to not have my guns castrated. At the same token I'm not buying a 10 round magazine for a 1911 just because it's the limit either. I like flush fit :)

yy
July 16, 2004, 12:51 PM
Pferd:

I want standard cap, non-neutered magazines (but cant while in cal) even though I shoot a compact.

I will *need* them to compensate for missed shots, to stop stubborn animals, to lay down cover fire, and to improve my score in IPSC competitions.

I posed a parallel question over on the firing line: How realistically can *you* and *I* expect to lay down cover fire? (not active-duty soldiers in a war zone) Tactical cover fire eats up ammo like crazy. It is similar to IPSC where a slide-lock and mag change can severely reduce your effectiveness.

I'd **really** like to put that 30-rd mag in my compact glock.

Diggler
July 16, 2004, 12:53 PM
If you buy a 13 round mag in a few years after one of yours malfunctioned, are you going to only load it up to 10 rounds because you don't think you'll need it?

Daniel T
July 16, 2004, 03:20 PM
Das Pferd:

Children cant we all get along?

:rolleyes:

Boy, you really need a vist from Mr. Cluebat, don't you? Better yet, google for the word "irony".

I wasnt name calling I said what you said was idiotic, theres a difference.

You're right. Everything that you write is idiotic. What, you can't see the difference?

Your the one who questioned my beleifs.

If someone questioning your "beleifs" is enough to get you that riled up, you may need to stop skipping your meds. Either that or you really need to look at why you even started this thread. Did you post so that you could get into an argument? Or did you do it so you could get other people's points of view?

If you wanted someone else's point of view, then why jump on them and call what they wrote "idiotic"?

Das Pferd
July 16, 2004, 03:42 PM
Daniel your right, I am wrong, lets move on.

QuarterBoreGunner
July 16, 2004, 04:08 PM
Let’s move on indeed.

For me it’s the principal of the thing; I find the idea of a ‘handicapped’ magazine distasteful, just as I find the idea of the newly introduced internal ‘lawyer locks’ on handguns as well as the Cali approved muzzle brake as opposed to the standard flash suppressor on the Springfield M1As.

They offend my delicate sensibilities.

No4Mk1*
July 16, 2004, 11:32 PM
I think those who feel that 10 rounds are enough are preparing only for favorable conditions and ignoring possible situations like 2-4 armed opponents moving and taking cover. I can engage stationary paper targets that don't shoot back very well and I can get 10 one shot stops if I am ever attacked by unmoving paper targets. If however I am attacked by 2 skilled opponents who use mobility, concealment, cover, and actually shoot at me, I imagine I will need more than 5 rounds for each of them. If they match my skill level my odds of survival are less than 50%, so why decrease my chance of survival by risking running out of ammo?

Tharg
July 17, 2004, 12:23 AM
As i'm sure others have said - its not about what you need... or is it?

For years i've been asking myself why i can't get hot dog buns 10 to a pack.... just doesn't make sense....

(c'mon - you know you laughed :) )

Seriously tho - it comes down to one of those arbitrary decisions that said that i've got 10 fingers - 10 rounds seems like a good number - and it sounded a lot less than 20 or 30 or 40... so the anti's went with it. Because its a win for them... any step towards making lawful people have less is a step in the right direction for them. Simply because in the place where thier brains were taken out in a lobotamy, it made sense that if law abiding people don't have guns - then the criminals don't have guns.

You know this is because us dreveling peasents ARE those criminals to these pampered gated living, housekeeping having, armed guard using, removed from real life by miles, political people. The ones making and voting on laws... not yer beginners down here running for sheriff, but the ones who are busy trying to look good in DC, hoping for that spot in congress so they can get free money for the rest of thier bloody lives... (after they give themselves a raise of course)...

ok - so i went on a tangent there... point being we aren't real people to the anti's... we are potential criminals. And to them, if we only have 10 - that is GOOD and it opens the way to say we can only have 5... or we just can't have em at all - so its not about how many - its about if yer limiting me and mine at all - then you are thinking about limiting me more, till ya limited me out of my rights all together. 10 rounds or 15, yer in a knife fight you want a big one or a lil one? a Fire, you want a big extinguisher or a teeny tiny keychain model? Big house or lil house? who needs all that house space? People live in less all over the world w/o a problem! What you need that car for? get a bike. Who is ANYONE to decide what i need or want and whats good for me, what qualifies them to guide my life based on how they live thiers? (or worse how they DON'T live thiers)

Once again - sorry to start prattling on.

J/Tharg!

ctdonath
July 17, 2004, 11:15 PM
Sad that the subject has become so politically charged that we must first assume such questions lead to limitation & confiscation. Having confirmed the reasonableness of the question...

I do know of at least one person who reasonably discharged 50 rounds when attacked in a parking lot. Three perps armed with long guns and hiding in bushes & darkness decided to use him as a target while he was standing in a well-lit parking lot at night. Unable to actually see the perps beyond their muzzle flashes, it took 50 rounds to stop them. That's, um, more than 10.

I have not had to fire in defense (yet), so I certainly have not needed more than 10 rounds. Considering my little G26 is built for 12, I see absolutely no reason to load it with less than that (aside from stupid political more-than-10-go-to-jail reasons).

Boils down to: given other constraints of gun & ammo size, load up with as many rounds as you can. Even in something as small as a G26 you can cram 12 rounds in the mag; a standard G17 with a +2 extender can load up with 17+2+1=20 rounds...so do so. You will never regret having too much ammo.

larry_minn
July 18, 2004, 12:15 AM
I plan to put +2 on my G26 mags the day after it ends. (will check to make sure it is legal first of course) Same size mag (I have finger extensions on it) and two more rds. I have shot to slide lock with this thing and got hit in leg while reloadeing. (I'm too lazy to post entire story in proper form.......It was 4 racoons cornered in shed at night. One bounced off my leg and got half way across lawn before I was reloaded/able to finish him off.

jimbo
July 18, 2004, 12:54 AM
quote "Has anyone here really been hurt from only having 10 rounds in their magazine?"

YES! I have been hurt. I have had my God-given freedom trampled and the Constitution of my beloved nation shredded.

How much more HURT do you think I could be? Frankly, as much as I cherish and enjoy the gift of life, I would far rather I was dead and your freedoms retained to you and to all Americans, than live in this world where we are losing our freedoms by the minute by socialist utopians and wet-nurse/activist judges.

Any gun owner who doesn't believe he has been hurt by the very hateful principle behind the loss of those three little rounds THEN THEY JUST DON"T GET IT!:cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :neener:

RevDisk
July 18, 2004, 05:17 AM
Has anyone here really been hurt from only having 10 rounds in their magazine?

Yes.


Will 3 extra rounds make much of a difference to you?

Yes.


Or is it the principal of the whole thing.

Yes.


Politics aside, please explain to me why I should not be allowed to decide how many rounds I want to carry?

Tharg
July 18, 2004, 06:15 AM
There isn't a reason - its an arbitrary number assigned because any limit is a step in the right direction for those who think law abiding people are the persons commiting crimes.

There are already laws people - to take care of things like murder... hell - there are even laws to add to the crime if a gun is used.

any limits at all are just an end run to see if they can get a foot hold since in thier lobotomized brain - less rounds = less crime... and less guns = less crime. Never mind the criminals don't care what they think at all since they never had a problem getting em in the first place.

J/Tharg!

Amish_Bill
July 18, 2004, 06:31 AM
Normally laws fal into two categories - Mala en se (bad on it's face - obvious why you shouldn't do it) and Mala Prohibita (bad because I tell you it is).

The 94 ban, as does a lot of law made the last 100 years, defines a new category for itself - Mala Stupida. Bad because you're too stupid to call your elected officials on their overstepping of boundries.

RWK
July 18, 2004, 09:21 AM
I support the expiration of the AWB, fundamentally because: (a) I would like to economically access full capacity magazines for my autoloaders and (b) I deeply believe the law was stupid and the Federal government does not have the right to impose this type of statutory constraint.

This said, I am compelled to add one fact, based on considerable and very sound analyses. The probability of a non-LEO truly requiring the additional rounds (beyond 10) offered by full capacity magazines is quite low. It will no doubt happen, but very infrequently.

Finally, since I love 1911A1s, I really hope their demand is reduced and their prices decline.

Tharg
July 18, 2004, 07:58 PM
No one here said that the probability was low or high. What they did say is if you can have 10 rnds of your normal calibre or more available w/o switching mags or whatever, which would you pick?

See - its not about what is "required" since you can't know what is required till the situation is already over.

Its not about need - since you don't know what you need till usually its either over or too late...

Sure would suck to be the statistical anomaly thinking "heck - this is all that is required" Then be that person who needed just one more round...

at least if its a gun limit (mags made for X gun only hold X number of rounds) instead of a govt. limit (you can only have 10 because when we made the laws we figured we had 10 fingers and 10 toes so 10 bullets seemed like a good place to be) you can't think to yourself as your are lying there bleeding - dang ... if the govt. had just let me have 13 instead of 10...... (ya know - if you were that one where the chances were "quite low".....)

of course - ALL of this being said - most would usually plan around thier magazines... sometimes it would just be nicer to not HAVE to reload.

J/Tharg!

Skirmisher
July 19, 2004, 09:04 AM
My Berettta came with both a 10 and a 15 round magazine. The only good thing has happened since the 10 round magazine limit is that the gun manufacturers have made a greater variety of 9mm and .45 pistols small enough for a woman to carry concealed. I went from carrying a 5-shot S&W .38 to a Kahr P9 and a Kimber Ultra carry .45. :D How many bullets do you really need? Enough to stop the assault! ;)

Bubbles
July 19, 2004, 01:25 PM
Or is it the principal of the whole thing?

Definitely the principle. If they get away with banning magazines that hold more than ten rounds today, what's to stop them from changing the law tomorrow so that magazines can only hold eight rounds? Or even five rounds? And at that point, why would we even "need" semi-auto pistols and rifles since most revolvers and bolt guns hold at least five rounds?

The AWB was never intended to reduce crime rates. To the anti's, it was a mere stepping-stone to more and more restrictive gun control laws. I fully believe that if so many Congresscritters hadn't lost their jobs during the 1994 elections we'd be looking at much more sweeping national gun control laws today.

Diggler
July 19, 2004, 01:31 PM
And they will feel justified in lowering it, because it's such a stupid law that has ZERO effect on crime. People will still get shot, and it will be "because the gunmen had those high-capacity 10 round magazines."

RWK
July 19, 2004, 02:29 PM
"No one here said that the probability was low or high"

I said it. Are my remarks restricted to commentary on prior posts?

Further, since I feel very comfortable with a six (and sometime a five) shot revolver FOR THE SECURITY-ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH I OPERATE, I do not believe I MUST always carry higher-capacity magazines (this does NOT say anything about anyone else’s personal defensive situation).

You know, Tharg, ANY sidearm is really inadequate for personal-defense, in comparison to essentially any long-gun. I have a couple great 12 Gauge, Remington 870s loaded with three-inch, Federal 00 Buck. We all know they are FAR more potent than any handgun. But I do not carry them for many obvious reasons.

Accordingly, we all make intelligent trades-offs between convenience (and other factors) and security. I have made the decision -- for me, not for you or anyone else -- that my likely defensive scenarios DO NOT always require high-capacity magazines (or even 10 rounds). After all, I am not an LEO, I do not frequent high-crime areas, I live/work the in vcery low-crime, affluent suburbs, and I rarely am outside my home after 2100. Who are you to question my judgment re this decision -- for ME?

If you enjoyed reading about "With all this high capacity magazine talk because of the AWB, I have a question......" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!