Switch to Larger Caliber with Mag Ban?

I shoot all 9mm, but if they banned any possession or use of full capacity mags then I'd just shoot with 10 round mags in my full size 9mm's at the range, mostly because of ammo cost.

For carry I'd either get a smaller single stack 9mm, or a larger single stack 45. I would not bother carrying something like a G19 with a neutered 10 round mag. The 9mm still has it's place in small easily carried pistols.

But we can see how "obedient" people are to mag bans in states like NY and CT, as if the people are willingly going to give up millions of mags at the stroke of a pen. Mag bans are a bad joke that accomplishes nothing but political brownie points to their faithful misguided supporters. Unfortunately there are also alot of boating accidents that follow any kind of ban.

I currently carry a 9mm with 8+1 capacity. Brand and model irrelevant to this conversation. I always carry a spare mag in case of a mag malfunction, not to increase available ammo in case I am attacked by 12 Spetznaz. So I would answer no for myself.

HGM22

If there were a large capacity magazine ban I would still keep using the guns I already have. My large caliber handguns are all single stack magazine designs so there's no change there. I already have some 10 round magazines for my large capacity pistols as they came with the guns when they were purchased during the last magazine ban. So except for a couple of guns which would require new 10 round magazines it would pretty much be business as usual in this regard.

Plan2Live said:

I currently carry a 9mm with 8+1 capacity. Brand and model irrelevant to this conversation. I always carry a spare mag in case of a mag malfunction, not to increase available ammo in case I am attacked by 12 Spetznaz. So I would answer no for myself.

Click to expand...

+1, though I do see my extra mag as a means to have on hand additional rounds, just in case... I also keep a supply of extra rounds in the truck. Looking for a KelTec sub-2000 to keep in the truck in case I'm ever in a situation that requires more that a compact 9mm pistol

That's what we've done before. .45 was really popular during the 10rd ban.

I wouldn't go out and buy full size guns in smaller calibers anymore.

For carry? Probably not. I shoot .40S&W right now in competition for scoring reasons, but the simple fact is that I'm faster and more accurate with 9mm. Since I'm most confident putting rounds on target in that round, I generally never carry anything larger than that.

I would buy .45 caliber handguns and .45 and .50 caliber AR pistols too .

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I live in a ban state. When I moved here, I went from carrying a Glock 19 or Glock 26 to sticking with the latter exclusively.

Regardless of location, 9mm remains a preferred caliber for costs and negligible ballistic differences with lesser recoil and greater capacity in the same size package. Glocks remain a platform that I'm comfortable with, find reliable, can shoot well, and can service on my own.

During the AWB I believe capacity limitations were part of the reason that the wondernine/1911 debate raged like it did. Changes in ammunition effectiveness and the now longer-term life span we've been able to observe on plastic pistols have changed that debate, along with the turnover of time to new ways of thinking. 1911s remain in many holsters, and that's great. But the years have yielded more data points in favor of the 9mm.

There are a lot of people out there who are carrying 6+1 380 ACP pistols for their primary anyway - they're obviously not going to switch.

There are a lot of people who carry pocket pistols in general, including revolvers, and they're not going to switch.

I have guns that I like and that I shoot well in various calibers and a magazine cap law would have no affect on which guns I kept and which ones I sold. But let's say a 10 round mag cap law went into effect where I live. Let's also say that my existing guns are not grandfathered under this new law. I would sell off the mags I have which exceed 10 rounds, which is most of them, and buy factory 10 round mags. I would not have my existing mags plugged to 10 rounds, these modified mags are unreliable and unsafe.

The idiot politicians that enacted these stupid laws don't realize that the more powerful semi automatics are limited in mag capacity anyway, and there hasn't been a mag cap ban yet that limited the number of mags you can own anyway. So carry more of the low cap mags and practice your tactical mag changes, which is a good thing to practice.

.
What's it like to have a pistol that uses a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?




<--- *wonders*

That's what we saw during the Clinton ban. .40 and .45 sales were higher relative to 9mm than they are today. For carry, though, not that many of us are packing something with more than 10 rounds in the mag anyway. They just get too large, especially in width. My carry piece 95% of the time is a Diamondback DB9, a pocket size 6+1 9mm that is only .8" wide and well under 1 pound fully loaded.

200Apples said:

.
What's it like to have a pistol that uses a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?




<--- *wonders*

Click to expand...

It's 20%-100% more fun, depending on the model you are shooting.

It's also 20%-100% more expensive as you spend less time reloading magazines on the range.

I imagine a magazine limitation could affect people looking to buy a carry gun after the restriction was put in place, but that takes us into a bit of a caliber war, as arguments about shot placement, follow up shot speed, and modern bullet tech would come into the conversation.

I would think that people already well versed in 9mm would keep on shooting 9mm due to the quality of modern ammo, and the cost of target ammo.

If there were a ban I'd continue to use the standard capacity mags I already have.

Pretty easy.

Absolutely, I'd switch from my P226 to a P227. Same gun, fits same holsters, 10x .45 ACP vs. 15 9mm. Or, get a smaller 9mm with 10 rd or less capacity. I don't like the the idea of carrying around useless size and weight.

wouldnt change what I carry, as neither guns even hold 10.

.

460Kodiak

It's 20%-100% more fun, depending on the model you are shooting.

It's also 20%-100% more expensive as you spend less time reloading magazines on the range.

Click to expand...

My point, exactly! Hahaha... Thanks for the reply in spite of my rhetorical Q.

I've been shooting so long w/ (factory blue, factory stainless for both pistols) 7-rds of .45ACP that I feel armed to the teeth when I slap a McCormick 10-rounder into my Springfield. To. the. teeth. I can even slap a 10-rounder into the shortened grip of the little Kimber (the mag release-to-bore-axis remains the same, regardless).

It's all a matter of perspective, see. Yeah. That's the ticket! "Perspective".

Hee.

200Apples said:

.
My point, exactly! Hahaha... Thanks for the reply in spite of my rhetorical Q.

Click to expand...

No prob

No!

For my uses 10 round .45acp magazines make pistols too fat or too long and cause clumsier handling in my hands.

I have come to believe the terminal ballistic differences in 9mm/.40/.45 are not significant enough to take priority over the faster speed of accurate fire with 9mm, a belief held by more and more people who study defensive use of handguns. Depending on the situation, I shoot 9mm and .40 S&W in identically sized pistols that are not too fat or too long for best handling. I especially like the fact that the same sufficiently powerful ammunition can be used in my full size pistols and my pocket pistols. While "big holes" may be better, faster made big enough holes are betterer .

MachIVshooter said:

That's what we saw during the Clinton ban. .40 and .45 sales were higher relative to 9mm than they are today.

Click to expand...

That's been a while, and 9mm self-defense ammo has improved a bit over the past 10-15 years. I suspect that we'd not see as big increase in the focus on .45s were something similar to happen again.

Shoot the gun/caliber that you shoot best and are willing to carry.

That said, most self-defense shootouts don't seem to go much beyond three of four rounds fired by each party -- so high capacity may not be a big deal in the real world. If you think it is, you can practice reloads! I continue to be surprised by the number of people who are content with 5-round revolvers...

I'd dump the 9mm for a 40. 15 rounds of 40 is alot better than 10 rounds of 9.

HGM22 said:

If there was a mag ban that limited magazines to 10 rounds, would current smaller caliber users switch to a larger caliber? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

I would.

Well actually, I use revolvers for most uses but if I were using semis, I step it up to a .45 ACP or 10mm. Probably a good 1911 or Colt Delta Elite, or one of the new .45 SIGs that has a 10 round mag.

If they limit me to 10 shots, by God they'll be damned powerful ones at that!!!

The 9mm still gives you cheaper ammo and lighter recoil. I know some shooters can't shoot accurately with the .40 or .45, but the 9mm is just fine.

Another possibility is carrying a smaller gun. One of the biggest draws of the Glock 17/Beretta 92 full-size type is that they can carry a large amount. People may decide to go with something more like compact or sub-compact in order to get the same capacity in 9.

Then you have people who carry revolvers or pocket pistols that would be completely unaffected. Well, until they limit it to 4 or 5.