Would restrictions on magazine capacity affect your choice of round?

It depends. A lot of people decry the .40 for a perceived increase in recoil and loss of capacity (it is my favorite pistol round, so I am not among them), so would normally go 9MM, but they might consider the .40 if they get the same number of rounds either way. If I am limited to just 10 rounds, I am still going to want those 10 rounds to be in something I can put good, quick hits on target with.

I'm in Connecticut (10 round limit) and have found myself carrying .45 ACP guns more often than not.

Jason_W said:

It goes without saying that everyone here is opposed to government restrictions on magazine capacity, but if you were, for whatever reason, stuck in a locale that limited handgun capacity to 10 rounds, would that have any effect on your choice of round?

Click to expand...

Probably. It would definitely open up my mind towards hand guns that were originally not designed with double stack magazines.

Not really for me.

If the gun is meant to be concealed that means smaller and I get what I get for capacity.
Often times the smaller round means more rounds and often less than or equal to 10 anyway.
Glock 26 vs 27 is a good example.

If the gun is a larger framed shooter, then it doesn't really matter so long as it is a good performer and other shooters in my division (if competition) are shooting the same.

If you see the value in the larger round that's fine, but I don't think it alone should guide you choices.

Define the purpose of the gun, then find one that suits you needs and you can shoot well.

CLIFF NOTES:
No.

vba said:

I'm in Connecticut (10 round limit) and have found myself carrying .45 ACP guns more often than not.

Click to expand...

.45 ACP is exactly what I was thinking. I already have an "under capacity"* Glock 36 and there are times I wonder to myself, "why did I purchase that?".

*for Texas

If I carried a wonder nine, then yes. However, the largest standard capacity I have is 12 round mags in .40, so 10 rounders would be fine instead.

I'm interested to see what people who carry double stack 9mm have to say. Maybe it's no big deal.

WrongHanded said:

If I carried a wonder nine, then yes. However, the largest standard capacity I have is 12 round mags in .40, so 10 rounders would be fine instead.

I'm interested to see what people who carry double stack 9mm have to say. Maybe it's no big deal.

Click to expand...

I think it comes down to how big a gun you want to carry.

If you want to carry a full size but live in CA then I would take 10 rounds of 45acp over 10 of 9mm.

But most of us don't carry full size guns so its a moot point.

EDC probably not. Home defense yes.

I suppose I might make my 1911s more handy, but my EDC is an 8-round single stack 9mm. It would remain as such.

Corpral_Agarn said:

I think it comes down to how big a gun you want to carry.

If you want to carry a full size but live in CA then I would take 10 rounds of 45acp of 10 of 9mm.

But most of us don't carry full size guns so its a moot point.

Click to expand...

That's a very good point, and one that I had considered. Some just don't carry high capacity, and if they're comfortable with that, I wouldn't object. I'm mainly curious about how having a 10 round limit would effect the caliber choice of those that do carry 15-17 capacity 9mm guns.

Jason_W said:

It goes without saying that everyone here is opposed to government restrictions on magazine capacity, but if you were, for whatever reason, stuck in a locale that limited handgun capacity to 10 rounds, would that have any effect on your choice of round?

Click to expand...

As Corpral_Agarn said, for me it's a "moot point." I have a full size 1911 45ACP, as well as a M11-A1 15+1 9mm, but my everyday carry gun is a 5-shot, 38 snubby - has been for a long time.

WrongHanded said:

That's a very good point, and one that I had considered. Some just don't carry high capacity, and if they're comfortable with that, I wouldn't object. I'm mainly curious about how having a 10 round limit would effect the caliber choice of those that do carry 15-17 capacity 9mm guns.

Click to expand...

Sorry WrongHanded, you're quicker on the "Post Reply" button than I.
To answer your question though, I'd have to say that if I did carry my M11-A1 (15+1) 9mm, and a 10 round limit was imposed, then yes, I probably would switch to my 8+1 round, 1911 .45 ACP for several reasons:
1. I wouldn't want to buy another 9mm just because the morons in the government made the one I already have illegal.
2. Switching to my 8+1 round 1911 .45 ACP only leaves me with one less round than a 10 round, 9mm.
3. I'm a better shot, and more practiced with my 1911 .45 ACP than with any 9mm I've ever had. Note - I'm not saying I'm better with my 1911 .45 ACP than someone, or anyone else with their 9mm. I'm just saying that I, personally have practiced more with my .45 ACP 1911s than I have with all the 9mm semi-autos I've ever had.

No.

Since I usually carry a 5 shot, 38 special J frame, I guess it wouldn't effect what I carry

I've never seen anything that has convinced me that a single round of 45 is better than a single round of 9mm. As long as comparable bullets are used the outcome is pretty much identical. I know what "everyone" says. Been hearing it in gun shops and on the internet my whole life. But the all the data, research, and test results say otherwise. I have seen data supporting the notion that 40 S&W or 10mm is ever so slightly better than 9mm or 45.

I'm not however convinced that 40 S&W is enough better to offset greater recoil and cost. I see a niche for 10mm to fit into if large predators are the concern. Being limited to 10 or fewer rounds wouldn't alter my choice in cartridges, but it MIGHT alter my choices in weapons. I have several 1911's and other 45's. Like them and don't think they are inferior. I just don't buy into the notion that there is anything magical about either.

I can legally own a handgun with as many rounds in it as I'm willing to carry. But a G19 is as big as I want and gets home defense duty. My G29 is only carried as a woods gun and my normal carry guns, depending on the situation or my mood are a G26, G43, Ruger SR9C or Ruger LC9s. All with 6, 7, or 10 round magazines. Although the G26 and SR9C will take 12, 15,17, or even 33 round mags if I choose.

Jason_W said:

I should clarify that I'm examining the question through the lens of considering a handgun that will be a way to build fundamentals while also doubling as a house gun in the unlikely event it's needed in such a role, and only then after whatever long gun I'm holding runs dry.

Click to expand...

So it's not for carry, but might be for home defense. And you're wondering what type and caliber of ammo would be appropriate considering a 10 round capacity limit? And I assume you also want to target shoot so are considering the cost of ammo?

Jason_W said:

I should clarify that I'm examining the question through the lens of considering a handgun that will be a way to build fundamentals while also doubling as a house gun in the unlikely event it's needed in such a role, and only then after whatever long gun I'm holding runs dry.

Click to expand...

I think you are looking for a full size 9mm.

Jason_W said:

... if you were, for whatever reason, stuck in a locale that limited handgun capacity to 10 rounds, would that have any effect on your choice of round?

Click to expand...

Maybe. In summertime t-shirt and shorts weather, I am fine kicking around with a single stack 9 in my low threat locale. When heavy winter clothing becomes the norm, I am more comfortable with a .40 or .45, which also makes it more practical to conceal a double stack, for me.

Jason_W said:

Exactly. California and CCW aren't exactly friends, though I hear it's a little easier to get permits in my particular county than most (if you can pony up the cash to jump through the hoops).

In my case, concealment isn't an issue. Ammo affordability is an issue. As I admitted earlier, I'm not a natural handgunner and I don't find the process to be intuitive as is the case with a long gun. I'll need a lot of practice.

In my earlier experiences with handguns, I attempted too much too soon with .357 mag and .44 mag revolvers (Because Testosterone!!) and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I was able to actually score hits on target with borrowed 9mm and .40 S&W autos at the range.

Click to expand...

Okay. Well I'll second the thought of Corpal_agarn. A full size 9mm sounds like the ticket. There are other popular options of course, and if you shoot .40 or .45 almost as well as 9mm, or you particularly like the 1911 platform (just an example), they're worth consideration. But I don't think anyone will argue that the 9mm is not effective in its roll as a self defense cartridge. And you'll get the best economy for range ammo with it.

I would say save the money you would use for a gun and move out of California!
But on a serious note...
I would go with the cheapest most reliable polymer 9mm available to me and take a class. What ever the cost of the ammo you will usually need about 250 rounds and class will be cheaper than the cost of ammo while experimenting.
I like the M&P 9s because I can hit the mag release without moving my hand. I can't do that with Glock but both are good. Just fondle all the brand's available to you.
Of course I would probably run at least 250 rounds through it to make sure it'll run in class.
There's a lot of tricks you can learn to make you better and save you money even if the upfront cost seems high.

Would restrictions on magazine capacity affect your choice of round?

Click to expand...

Nope. But that is cause I have 'em all!

Deaf