Would restrictions on magazine capacity affect your choice of round?

I would saw off a Glock 19 frame to take Glock 26 mags. Probably carry my shield 9 a lot more (if I could).

FL-NC said:

I would saw off a Glock 19 frame to take Glock 26 mags. Probably carry my shield 9 a lot more (if I could).

Click to expand...

"saw off Glock 19"



Why not just get a 26?

If magazine capacity became an issue (limit of 10), I still would have a few other choices than just my Kahr CM9 and S&W Model 638 for concealed carry. For instance I could go with my Ruger SR9c which has a mag capacity of 10 rounds or else my Colt Commander in .38 Super or 9mm. with a 9 or 10 round mag, would be another way to go. If home defense is also a consideration then I might switch to a full size gun like a Colt Government in .45 ACP.

Corpral_Agarn said:

"saw off Glock 19"
View attachment 521430


Why not just get a 26?

Click to expand...

Well:

1. A G26 will not accommodate a X200b or X300. (I love the X200b.)

2. Sight radius.

3. A sawn G19 can have the back strap and front strap partially left in place, and contoured, for a better grasp on the weapon than on a G26. (Doc GKR has posted images of his thus-modified G19 several places on the 'net.)

These three factors are, actually, very significant. I own a G26 because of its hide-out/back-up niche, and magazine compatibility with my duty Glocks, not because I like it.

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?

I know that prevailing current wisdom is that when it comes to handguns, shot placement and capacity trumps bullet weight/diameter, but when capacity is limited, is it worth trying to milk extra ft. lbs. out of a handgun?

Click to expand...

I am not really concerned with ft.-lbs. That, alone, would not be a reason to carry a different handgun.

I might well choose to carry a narrower/lower-profile weapon, than a double-column-mag striker-fired Glock, more of the time, if I cannot take full advantage of the grip frame's volume, anyway. A G19, for example, is a very convenient pistol, but the protruding, blocky, rear of the slide requires more care to conceal than does the slide of a 1911 pistol, for example, on my mostly-skinny frame. The outer rear corner of a Glock slide is my concealment nemesis. So, as the G19 and the 1911 are two weapon systems I now carry most often, I would probably carry .45 ACP more of the time, but not because of the bore size or ft.-lbs.

Another lower-profile weapon in my inventory, that I really like, is the SP101. Mine are .357 Magnum, which, if so loaded, can have more ft.-lbs. than 9mm +P. These can be carried better-concealed, in more places, than either a G19 or full-size-grip 1911. Yes, the cylinder is somewhat wide, but that width can fit nicely into a couple of recessed spaces on my anatomy, and the rest of the weapon is narrow.

A bit larger that the SP101, another low-profile candidate is my Ruger Speed Six, 4", with a spur-less hammer. Sweet! Then, there are my other revolvers, with hammer spurs and/or adjustable sights, that require a bit more care to conceal.

I am fortunate to live in Texas, where ammunition capacity is not limited, but when we go on road trips, several planned road trips will include time in oppressive states, and the LEOSA, as currently written, does not allow me to exceed local ammo capacity restrictions. I will probably be leaving the G34, G17, and G19 Glocks at home.

I have considered buying a G30s, which would fit some of my G19 holsters, and would satisfy states with ten-round limits. I might, perhaps, be more likely to add a G30s if I lived in a ten-round-limit area.

The answer to this question is already historically proven. The Clinton assault weapon ban limited us to 10 round magazines for a long time. This resulted in a decline in the popularity of the Wonder Nines and rise in popularity of the 40 S&W and the 1911.

If I lived in a commie state again, my firearm choices would change. But not based off trading magazine restrictions in order to get more ft lbs. It would just be a matter of convenience in tracking down X state legal magazines. It would just be easier to pick a gun that standard capacity meets the state requirement. For example, if I lived in NYS again, I would find a 1911 I liked or maybe even a revolver.

No, the .45 acp in autos and .45 colt in revolvers pretty much cover things.

Nah ... current 9mm JHP offerings offer stopping power equal to the standard .45 ACP JHPs. I'll carry a single-stack 1911 (8+1 rounds of .45 ACP of course) if the mood strikes me, and have no problem with my SIG P-225 (9+1 rounds of 9mm) or SIG P-938 (7+1 rounds of 9mm) as primary handguns if better concealment is offered. Obviously, I'd prefer to be carrying a SIG P-229 or P-226 with 15+1 or 18+1 with either 17 or 20 round spare mags, but I don't feel handicapped when I go down to California and have to carry neutered mags, even if it's in 9mm.

No. Not 10 rounds. Too many good single stack 9mms out there.

Less than 8 or so rounds? Then we'll talk .45 ACP.

NO issue here. Would not comply.

It would affect my choice of pistol for sure.
If I lived in a 10 round state, as some do now, I would not carry a gun originally designed for more than 10 in the mag (Glock 19/23)
I like that size pistol (Glock 19/23), but not with an artificially restricted 10 round magazine, on principle alone - its sickening.
My choices under an asinine 10 round limit, all originally designed for 10 rounds or less:
Glock 30SF - 10 rounds 45 acp - I carry this sometimes now and I live in a free state.
Glock 27 - if one desires a thinner pistol than the 30SF but still prefers a bullet that starts with a "4" (add a pinky rest mag base for enhanced grip)
Glock 26 - 10 rounds, low recoil, controllable with or without a pinky mag rest.
1911 in 45 acp - either full size or commander - can get 8 round magazines that fit flush, I've also carried this in the land of the free.

My current primary carry pistol is either a Glock 22, 23 or 30SF - with a 10 round limit the first two are out.
As I said, I sometimes carry the Glock 30SF now along with a spare mag and a Kahr PM9 in my pocket, do the same with stupid 10 round mag limit.

No

I pocket carry a small nine that only has a 6 round magazine anyway. There are no .reliable 40 S&W or .45 pistols with a footprint the size of the Rohrbaugh R9 (for example). I think there is a limit to how small a .40 semi-auto can be, and smaller guns can be made that fire the 9mm. If you look at the Kahr line, their PM40 is larger than their PM9.

Given that I'm carrying a small gun, recoil becomes a limiting factor.

If I use the LCR for an example... I think the recoil from the 9mm is a handful, I'm sure there are people out there who fire .357 Magnum from their LCR but I wouldn't want to. Anything that kicks more than the 9mm already does - is too much for me personally. So even if someone could design a semi-automatic in a 4" x 5.25" footprint weighing in somewhere around 14 ounces - chambered in .40 S&W or .45 ACP - I wouldn't want to shoot it.

VinnAY said:

NO issue here. Would not comply.

Click to expand...

+1. Wouldn't comply. I won't set foot in NJ or CT.

Magazine capacity restrictions will not affect my round of choice but will affect my gun of choice.

My edc is the Beretta 92FS. For several reasons I have standardized on 15 round magazines although I have option of as large as 18 round ones. The 92 is designed for use with 15 round magazines and manufacturers have figured out how to make reliable 17 and 18 round ones. Carrying that large of handgun with only a 10 rounds of 9mm is not a reasonable tradeoff for the size and weight of the pistol.

So 10 round magazine restriction means I would carry a smaller pistol such as the SIG P239 9mm (which I just happen to own ) that has a 8 round magazine. While less than 10 rounds it is a good balance of size and weight for the 9mm round.

I've seen how superior the .357 SIG and .40 S&W are in deer (to the 9mm), so those would get serious consideration. But I tend to recommend that armed citizens consider their real world speed and accuracy with different cartridges before convincing themselves they've made the best decision. I've video taped shooters with much different levels of recoil control and speed (at a given level of accuracy) with these cartridges on a realistic defensive course. Shooters with comparable speed and accuracy with the more powerful cartridges should consider them carefully. Other shooters need to slow down so much (compared with their 9mm performance) to maintain adequate accuracy that they should probably stick with the 9mm.

I hope I don't kid myself that I can handle the recoil of the .40 S&W as well in my 50s or 60s as I did in my 30s unless I have solid training performance data that backs that up. Otherwise, I might do better to stick with the 9mm.

I might consider .357 Sig or 10mm. Ideally, I would carry a high-capacity 9mm. 9mm isn't the most powerful, but the magazine size in many modern pistols is fantastic. If I was limited to 10≥ rounds, though, I would have fewer shots to work with, and would probably want something a bit beefier.

Perhaps Ruger's 8-shot .357 redhawk would fit the bill...

I would start with the premise of what round can I competently shoot. Unless, you go test yourself with the various rounds for accuracy, followup speed, etc. - it's just another BS stopping power debate as modern 9mm, 40 and 45 rounds don't show that much difference in real world efficacy.

I would still use 9x19 for most things, and just carry three mags instead of two.

Underlines the idiocy of 10 rd restrictions - so I have to recharge thrice instead of twice? "Big deal".

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?

I know that prevailing current wisdom is that when it comes to handguns, shot placement and capacity trumps bullet weight/diameter, but when capacity is limited, is it worth trying to milk extra ft. lbs. out of a handgun?

Click to expand...

Regardless how many rounds are in your magazine, you're still dead if you can't clear leather and fire before an attacker gets to you...and extra rounds don't change that.

I live in NY, so I'm limited to ten rounds. The pistol I prefer over most others is a CZ-75B. I wanted the gun; the fact that it's "only" a 9mm would not have excluded it.

Jason_W wrote:
Would restrictions on magazine capacity affect your choice of round?

Click to expand...

No.

I was trained to shoot by my grandfather. He had been a marksmanship instructor at the Infantry School in Ft. Benning, Georgia, during the first half of World War II. The instructional pamphlet he helped author was entitled, "Hits Count" and this has stayed with me to this day. If magazine capacity is limited, then it's not the power of the round that matters, but whether or not you can hit anything that you're aiming at with what you're shooting.

A 10 round magazine of 45 A.E. is worthless if you can't get any of the rounds on target.

A 10 round magazine of 22 LR is worth its weight in gold if you can do head shots on ten assailants.

Hits Count.

Balrog wrote:
The answer to this question is already historically proven. The Clinton assault weapon ban limited us to 10 round magazines for a long time. This resulted in a decline in the popularity of the Wonder Nines and rise in popularity of the 40 S&W and the 1911.

Click to expand...

A popularity that is fading - so much so that there are numerous posts across TheHighRoad about whether the 40 S&W can even survive as a commercial cartridge.

Watch this Youtube video...the more experienced of the two shooters actually takes LESS time to fire 30 rounds out of 10-round magazines, than out of 15-round magazines. Capacity makes little difference, if any.

jrmiddleton425 said:

Watch this Youtube video...the more experienced of the two shooters actually takes LESS time to fire 30 rounds out of 10-round magazines, than out of 15-round magazines. Capacity makes little difference, if any.

Click to expand...

Ol' Jim clearly was shooting faster shot to shot when using the 10 round magazines, than with the 15 round magazines. He even shot faster shot to shot with the 6 round magazines.

Why didn't Jim shoot at the quicker shot to shot pace with the 15 round magazines?

Ol' Jim did the same thing with the AR, he pulled the trigger faster with the lower capacity magazines than with the higher capacity magazines.

Not a deal breaker for me. I prefer to shop for the gun. The fact that the ones I liked came in .357/.38 or 9mm was just a bonus.
If I wasn't trying to stick to cartridges I already have? If I was limited to 10 rounds and had the choice of 9mm or .45 and the guns felt the same, figure I might as well go big.