Why do you need more than 10 round mags?

Why?

To defend our rights.

Caveman, in the shootout that followed the North Hollywood bank robbery LA SWAT officers also engaged a suspect by going prone and shooting under vehicles. No doubt they attempted to ricochet some rounds as well, and they were using rifles. I don't see it as a bad option at all, if anything it decreases the chance of an errant shot hitting a civilian.

It also is not wasting rounds. The suspect had good cover and the officer's only chance to hit the suspect was to try to ricochet rounds off of the pavement near the suspects feet. If the rounds or shrapnel had shredded the suspect's ankle, then it could have immobilized him.

Sent from my HTC One X

I've never tried skip shooting with anything other than a shotgun. I don't see why it shouldn't work with rifle or pistol rounds, other than possible penetration of rifle rounds into the object you are trying to skip rounds off of, and pistol rounds deforming and fragmenting instead of ricochetting.
Still, I too would rather conserve ammo and wait for both better shot opportunities and the arrival of backup over wasting my limited ammo.

People think it is like the movies. Person needs more than 10 because people miss and aim is poor when they are scared, shaking, injured, backing/running away, inexperienced, under trained, firing to fast out of fear, . . . Plus the other points, like multiple bad guys or the bad guy comes back before police arrive. Plus, police are not magic. They only show up if someone calls and they can find you.

Mine goes to 11

"Need" has nothing to do with it because by the time you "need" something its too late.

"Need" is the result of ones failure to plan.

-because people miss and aim is poor when they are scared, shaking, injured, backing/running away-

Click to expand...

Agree. This officer was an instructor and before he took slow aim at the attacker's head, he only struck COM with 18% success during the initial shootout. That equals a single, lone round maybe hitting COM if you're carrying no more than a 1911, PF9, LCP, revolver, etc.

Same here, I know combat hardened vets who wouldn't leave the wire without more than the prescribed load. Always better to have too much than not enough.

mljdeckard:

Wow, I didn't realize Utah was so dangerous. I wouldn't go out riding unless I was armed to the teeth.

Do any LEO's carry FN FiveSeven's? What do they hold, like 18 rounds? I can't help but think that would be a pretty lethal round.

Statistically, no, it's not dangerous. But statistically, you have very little chance of ever needing a gun at all.

I'll put it this way. If I were that worried about it, I wouldn't go out anymore. But I have found pot grows, and major ones have been found in places I have hunted before.

I have never needed even a 10 round magazine. Have only had one instance when hunting when a 4th shot would have been useful. But then I've never been in a shoot-out, and am not a police officer, etc.

My objection to limiting the # of rounds in a magazine is strictly constitutional. If we agreed government officials can limit magazines to 10, why stop there? Or why couldn't the next administration limit them to 9 rounds. And then to 5 rounds, or 3 rounds, or 1 round. There is no apparent legal reason to stop at any number other than one.

Another well-reasoned opinion supported by hard data - http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=127423

I don't have to justify why I want or need any magazine. I have the right to own it. Period.

As I read somewhere -- perhaps on this forum -- Rosa Parks didn't "need" to sit at the front of the bus either.


.

if a terrorist was on the loose in your neighborhood how many bullets in your gun would you feel is enough?

Why do you need more than 10 round mags?

My first instinct is to ask back, why do you need to ask?

Do I ask strangers why they own something, with the implication that I not only think that they should not own it but also think they should be penalized for owning it? No.

Some folks need to realize federal gun laws carry criminal felony penalties, and us "gun nuts" don't take kindly to folks calling penalties down on our heads over "shoulder things that go that-a-way" when it is really no skin off their noses (which should be up their own business, just as I keep my nose in my business).

I personally have several guns with ten round or less magazines, including the family's three designated home protection go-to guns. So I do not need more than 10 round magazines. I have single shot hunting rifles, including muzzleloaders, so I don't need for than five in a semi-auto for hunting (unless I take up feral hog hunting, magazine limits don't apply in varmint hunting).

I also have guns as collectoble for historical or design study, including "assault rifles" I shoot in vintage (used pre-1946) and modern (used 1946 or later) matches. They use standard capacity magazines of 15, 20 and 30 shot capacities, as issued or exact reproduction. Because that was what was used, and a non-issue magazine would be ahistorical for collection and not suitable for civilian marksmanship training for family eligible for volunteer military service.

JERRY said:

if a terrorist was on the loose in your neighborhood how many bullets in your gun would you feel is enough?

Click to expand...

Well normally, I prefer the 20 round mags in my AR but for that situation, I'm thinking the clunky looking 30 rounders I have a few of would get the nod.

The question I have is how many rounds are legal to have in your gun in Boston with an actual terrorist on the loose?

RKBA considerations aside, some of my guns were designed and manufactured to function with a magazine of greater than 10-round capacity. I need them to function as designed because that's the functionality I purchased.

If you buy an 18' ladder, do you want the government to tell you can only climb it to 12'?

Why do I need a standard capacity mag? Because that's the way the vendor made them! Oh, and I don't need to explain why I "need" to exercise a basic constitutional right any more than I "need" to explain what magazines I subscribe to, websites I read, churches I may or may not go to and so forth. See my signature for further details.

I feel the "right to keep and bear arms" should allow me the choice to choose something that will be equal or better to what I might encounter in protecting me and my family. Matching the magazine capacities available to the military would be the minimum.

That said, situations vary and I feel a large magazine load is not necessary most of the time. But, in instances such as Hurricane Katrina or the riots in Los Angeles I would hate to be limited.

I agree with scotjute. If you settle for 10, the next thing you know they'll be asking for 7. Then it'll be 5, and so on until we're back to muzzleloaders.

I live in NY -- I know about the slippery slope.

"If a terrorist was loose in my neighborhood. . ."

3. I've never missed 2 in a row with my hunting rifle, and I wouldn't start then.

"Why do you need more than a 10 round magazine?"

Simple actually. The criminal chooses the time, place, venue, and level of violence. One needs to be carrying sufficient for an encounter where you will NOT have the initiative, and will be on the defensive, and unlike the criminal, you don't know it is coming. So having backup is a very good idea.

Another fun answer: long doublestack magazines fit my hands better than short doublestacks or singlestacks of any kind.

Well being the police, fired 200 plus rounds and succeeded in only wounding a suspect in Boston, it should clearly show why 7-10 rounds may not be enough. With the newscaster saying those highly trained officers never miss, he will surely be dead, he still was not.
this should make people understand that it doesn't matter how many bullets you have, it's how many hit the target. If under ideal conditions with the bad guy outnumbered 200 to 1 they still didn't hit him in a critical spot, enough to stop him, that should explain why we have, and need Hi capacity magazines.