Sig P227; face palm for advertising

I believe it is just a play on words emphasizing a greater capacity 45 being introduced, but yeah definatly a bad choice of words.

I think they were going for "a higher capacity version of the 220" or something to that effect. Poor choice of words on their part, but I think I see what they were trying to do.

For .45acp, I consider that to be "high capacity." The term is relative to what type of ammo is being used, obviously.

If this is all you have to worry about you are extremely lucky.

Yo Mama said:

I hear you both, and understand it may be so.

I'm just thinking that's all we need is for 10-14 rounds to start being the standard for high capacity.

Click to expand...

For .45 ACP it kinda is.

I think they were going for "a higher capacity version of the 220" or something to that effect.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Sometimes words just mean what they mean unless you really try to overthink it.

Marketing hype. Whatever the marketing department feels will give them an edge in getting noticed. As Hollywood shows us every day, bad publicity is better than no publicity.

I for one am getting tired of the gun community letting the antis dictate how we talk amongst ourselves.

Why should we be so afraid of the term "high capacity"? Because the antis will try to use it against us? WHO CARES? If we start walking on eggshells around each other, then the antis are winning.

When the first generations of "wondernines" came out, those with double-stack mags were often described as "high-capacity." It's not a derogatory term.

I wish Nissan had considered a "High Capacity" gas tank on my truck. It really stinks having a 350 mile rage on an off road vehicle. Even a 25-30% boost would be really nice.

Only a idiot will give you credit for making a low capacity product. Thanks to our low capacity politicians Colorado is rapidly approaching California in a number of key quality of life metrics.

I want a X5 version of that.

I think they dropped the ball by not including a 14rd extended mag with the gun. The biggest draw of the gun is that 14rd mag. Not including one with the gun reduces the "hype" on it, especially when they don't even have the 14rd one up for sale yet(or sold out idk).

Disregarding the potential anti-gun angle lets face it, anything with more than 10rds of .45 is pretty much "high capacity."

14+1 in a .45 is high capacity when compared to other 45s. Don't see the issue here. And just a quick advertising tip, never use the word "normal" in something trying to sell your product.

Words mean things ... but not always what some people may think they mean.

For Sig, 7-rd capacity, and then 8-rd capacity, for their .45 ACP pistols has always been normal.

The newest 10-rd double stack version would then be considered high capacity, if you're comparing them to the older design/capacities. They seem to think of it that way, and it's their product to shill.

I remember when the Browning HP & S&W M59 were commonly called hi-cap guns. Why? Probably because they were hi-cap guns compared to 1911's & M39's. Not hard to understand. (This was in the 70's & 80's, BTW, before legislation ever dreamed about addressing magazine capacity.)

The canceled JCP military pistol program ('05-'06) listed a standard capacity for the then-proposed JCP .45 as no less than 10 rounds, and then stated high capacity magazines be available. Coincidentally enough, some commercial spin-off's of pistols designed at that time (with those program specs in mind) have given us 10-rd standard and 14-rd hi-cap mags. Imagine that.

http://www.cbd-net.com/index.php/search/show/893436 (but this older link didn't list specificity of mag capacity of either mag spec)

Now, if you want to think of the HGK USP 45 and Glock G21 as having "standard" capacity magazines because they were able to be built around mag bodies which held more than 10-rds, go right ahead.

Doesn't mean the rest of the handgun world is going to think of them as the established "bar" of what standard & hi-cap .45 mags ought to be, though.

As a long time owner & user of 1911's, beginning back when 7-rd was the only mag available, and then carrying either a 4566TSW (8-rd mag) or a 4513TSW (7-rd mag) as issued weapons ... I tend to think of my M&P 45, with its 10-rd standard mag, as "hi-cap".

But that's just me.

I heard one round if .45 can kill 3 men, so id say having 10 rounds of .45 is like a WMD

Considering 45's have traditionally held 7 rounds 10 or 14 rounds would certainly rate as a hi cap 45 to me.

I agree that 14 is more than many other .45s, but using "high-capacity" would seem unwise at best in an age in which guns with characteristic are targeted for extinction by antis.

Why not just say "10-round or 14-round" magazine? A serious comparative .45 shopper will understand what that means.

beatledog7 said:

I agree that 14 is more than many other .45s, but using "high-capacity" would seem unwise at best in an age in which guns with characteristic are targeted for extinction by antis.

Why not just say "10-round or 14-round" magazine? A serious comparative .45 shopper will understand what that means.

Click to expand...

You mean...tuck tail and hide in a corner?

I for one am getting tired of the gun community letting the antis dictate how we talk amongst ourselves.

Why should we be so afraid of the term "high capacity"? Because the antis will try to use it against us? WHO CARES? If we start walking on eggshells around each other, then the antis are winning.

Click to expand...

+1 !

Also, there are probably more important things to rant about like our politicians lying to us daily regarding gun owners, concealed carry, crime statistics, etc. Let's direct our energy where it matters...

Hype for sure, but I'm still interested. I may buy one next year if they come out with a stainless model.

HOOfan_1,

It's not tucking tail--it's just smart business. Antis love to use terminology that gets their supporters excited and makes pro-2A folks look (to these supporters) like bloodthirsty killers. High capacity is not a 2A term--it's anti-2A term. Like it or not, they've co-opted it.

Supporters of 2A do ourselves no favors by describing our equipment using the terms (such as assault rifle, and high capacity magazine) the antis use against us. And we don't need to; we can simply use precise terms. That's why 10-round or 14-round is a better choice than high capacity.

beatledog7 said:

HOOfan_1,

It's not tucking tail--it's just smart business. Antis love to use terminology that gets their supporters excited and makes pro-2A folks look (to these supporters) like bloodthirsty killers. High capacity is not a 2A term--it's anti-2A term. Like it or not, they've co-opted it.

Supporters of 2A do ourselves no favors by describing our equipment using the terms (such as assault rifle, and high capacity magazine) the antis use against us. And we don't need to; we can simply use precise terms. That's why 10-round or 14-round is a better choice than high capacity.

Click to expand...

That's like saying the car manufacturers shouldn't advertise their cars has having "high performance engines" or "high fuel efficiency".

Just because the antis think they can try to use it against us, doesn't mean they can....and if we shy away from using the terms, all we are doing is showing that we are afraid of those terms as well....

It is an irrational fear. I would like to think that is what sets us apart from the antis...we don't cater to irrational fears.

That's like saying the car manufacturers shouldn't advertise their cars has having "high performance engines" or "high fuel efficiency".

Click to expand...

Not at all the same. There's no anti-car group out there preaching against those characteristics and just waiting to throw then back at that car maker.

Just because the antis think they can try to use it against us, doesn't mean they can....

Click to expand...

They can, and they do, regularly.

...and if we shy away from using the terms, all we are doing is showing that we are afraid of those terms as well....

Click to expand...

It's not fear driven; it's simply smart. If I choose not to put my head in a lion's mouth, would you say that it's only because I'm afraid of his jaws and teeth? Well, if I am, it's perfectly sensible that I should be, given the kind of damage I know they can do.

It is an irrational fear. I would like to think that is what sets us apart from the antis...we don't cater to irrational fears.

Click to expand...

It is completely rational not to play to the perceived strength of your opposition, in effect, giving him the exact kind of ammo he needs for his gun. That's what we do if we needlessly use their politically-loaded language. They treat it irrationally, not us. But why give them the chance?