Would restrictions on magazine capacity affect your choice of round?

I carry a 9 daily and feel confident with it. My carry now is a Glock 17, but I could carry the Ruger SR9C with 10 rounds, or my Range Officer 5" 9 with 10 rounds, or my Range officer Champion 4" 9 with 10 rounds and be just fine. I'd carry a few extra mags and be comfortable with any of them. The Range Officer 5" I shoot better than anything else so that would be my first choice.

That is, if I was to comply. I already avoid places where I can carry, any place that limits that even more I'd be hard pressed to be near.

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...

For me its not big deal.

My main carry gun is a 9mm (7+1) so I'm already ok with that. You can practice more to be proficient and carry extra mags if needed.

Changing to a larger caliber may decrease the capacity or increase the weight/size. If I change to 40sw in The same pistol it becomes 6+1 and has more way more recoil for a very small gun.

A good side effect of the mistaken AWB was to make a whole class of pistols fit for conceal carry.

bnolsen said:

A good side effect of the mistaken AWB was to make a whole class of pistols fit for conceal carry.

Click to expand...

I would argue that the market would have reached the same conclusion by itself.

RPZ said:

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".

Click to expand...

That would be my thinking. Carry a gun using a smaller round which means smaller magazines. Then carry more magazines.

I'd probably be carrying more ammunition than with the gun with a large capacity magazine.

However.... Such restrictions should not be acceptable on principle alone.

badkarmamib said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have several .40 compacts with 10 round mags, and I don't feel undergunned with any of them. While I wouldn't necessarily feel undergunned with 10 rounds of 9mm either, I'm honestly more confident with the .40.

During the last magazine restriction (1994-2004) I carried either a 5 shot 38SPL revolver or an 8+1 9x19. With either I felt I could defend myself adequately.

Magazine capacity doesn't have anything to do with anything. Except what the assorted anti-firearm ownership gangs think.

I don't think it would make a bit of difference to me.

I carry a pocket .380 or 8 round 9mm 1911 most days as it is.

Not much difference to me , either. I'm limited to 10 rounds by NY state and if and when I'm carrying it's sometimes a Glock 19 with 10 rounds of 9mm. The 9mm has proven itself an adequate self defense round for over a century now. If I want a more powerful round, then I would be limited to the seven rounds of .357 in my 4" S&W 686, or else seven rounds of some .38 Spl. +P+ handloads with 158 gr. hard cast SWC's. Any of those options should be adequate for my needs. Once had a S&W 642 J-frame 38 Spl. snubby and never felt insecure with that in my pocket either.

I like 9mm, .40 and .45. I don't think one is obviously superior to the other, and each have slightly different strengths which IMO justify owning all three. That said, while I sometimes carry a 6-8 shot (depending upon using the flush or extended mag) SIG P290RS, I do tend to like a .40 or .45 when carrying lower capacity. I feel just as good with my 8 shot 1911SC as a 10-12 shot .40 or 9mm, and I feel just as good with my 10 shot S&W M&P40c with 1 15 round reload as I do with my 14+1 CZ P01 with a 14 round reload.

I do live in a state with purchase restrictions. In MD, I can not buy any mags over 10 rounds. However, there are no ownership restrictions. I can legally go into any state where I can legally purchase standard capacity mags and bring them back home, I just can't buy or sell them within the state. In fact, just this weekend I went to the Cabelas in Northern VA to (among other things) pick up a 15 round mag for my S&W M&P40c. Now, since I have to go to a store or gun show to purchase in person, that does make standard mags with over 10 rounds more expensive than they would be if I could buy online. So, even with MD's somewhat looser restrictions, it actually does make lower capacity .45s and .40s more attractive. Going back to carrying my 1911 (and ordering more), I can get all the 7 and 8 round mags I want online instead of paying a premium to buy in person. I also avoid buying guns that will be difficult to find mags at most gun stores and gun shows, unless they are designed to hold 10 or fewer rounds and I can buy standard mags online.

So, I guess if MD went to a Clinton gun ban style mag restriction where you could only have what you already own, or the nation went to it again (or worse, a ban with no grandfathering), I'd probably buy more .40s and .45s than 9mms and most of my 9mms would be single stack.

Balrog said:

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...

This is exactly how I remember it as well.

I take it by "round" you mean caliber. Yes, a 10rd limit would affect that for me. If I was to carry a mid to full size double stack, then I'd probably switch to .45 from 9mm. The idea of extra gun size for nothing would drive me bonkers. For example, my main carry gun now is a 9mm P226 with either flush-fit 18rd or 15rd mags. So, I could switch to a 10rd P227 and have basically the same gun I'm familiar with and keep using the same holsters, but at least get better terminal performance in exchange for the reduced capacity.

My P225 OTOH is already just 8+1 so no change there.

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...

It also resulted in the design and explosive popularity of sub-compact 9mm handguns such as the Kahr series etc. Before that, there were basically "Wonder Nines", 1911's and snubs.

For EDC carry I carry either a compact 9mm or a compact 45 with a spare mag. I do this for the smaller size and lighter weight. So both are less than 10 rounds per mag.

That said I believe mag size restrictions are both unconstitutional and pointless as one can quickly change mags.

I feel that if I need more than 10 rounds that I made multiple bad decisions that have nothing to do with my firearm. My choice is a 40 shield which carries less than that. I have a spare mag in truck door pocket.

No.

I'd probably just carry my 1911s more. Still keep the Glock 26 for extra concealment days.

So yeah, kinda.

currently i carry a 9mm, either 15+1 (glock 19) or17+1 (ruger sr9). this wouldn't affect my choice of caliber, but it would affect my choice of firearm. i would most likely go to a single stack of some sort, more than likely one of the larger kahr pistols or a 1911 of some variety.

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...

If you'd have asked me that questions as a much younger man and gun enthusiast, I'd have answered, "Yes", without hesitation.

After a career in LE, and 26 years of it spent being a firearms instructor, the answer is, "No", similarly without hesitation.

When the federal magazine capacity restriction went into effect (and CA crafted its own magazine/feeding device restriction), you could hear lots of gun enthusiasts debate this question and end up answering, "Yes" to it.

At that time I was working as a cop (and firearms instructor), and could buy any pistols or hi-cap magazines I wanted using my peace officer exemption.In all that time, the only pistol I bought which used hi-cap magazines was a licensed model of the P99 series, and it only used 12rd magazines. (I have a bunch of 10rd magazines for it, though, in case my honorably retired peace officer exemption is ever legislated away by a change in state law.)

Instead, I was buying a bunch of lower magazine capacity guns, and the calibers included 9's, .40's and .45's. The magazine capacities ran 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10rds.

Now, I only own 3 subcompact/compact .45's, but a bunch of subcompact/compact 9's & .40's ... and when I was still able to buy off-roster guns (CA thing), I bought a couple of LCP .380's (6rd mags) and a 3913TSW (compact single stack 9, 8rd mags) ... so, I guess I could still answer, "No", without hesitation.

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...

Given 10 round capacity I would take compact .45ACP.

I've rethought this question a little and need to refine my answer...

It is true that, living in a state with purchase restrictions (but no ownership/possession restrictions), mag capacity and availability is a major consideration when buying a new gun. Since I can only buy mags over 10 rounds in person when in other states, I only buy guns with mags that hold over 10 rounds when it is easy to find mags for them. I can't buy them here, I can't order them on the internet. I'm also finding guns with lower capacity where I can order standard mags for that gun online a little more attractive.

However, when I started shooting we were in the middle of the Clinton Gun Ban. New mags over 10 rounds were LEO only. There were smaller guns that held 10 rounds so why buy a full-sized 9mm pistol? There are other reasons other than just capacity to buy a gun. My first auto was a Ruger KP89 with 10 round mags. A full size gun is usually a little better at the range than a compact or smaller. Better sight radius, it may fit your hand better (unless you have small hands), handling, recoil absorption, etc. So, once we were used to it, I suspect more small guns will sell (though I think that has more to do with CCW than any gun mag limits), but people will still be buying plenty of full-sized 9mms and .40s when that best suits their needs. IOW, things will go back to normal after an initial adjustment.