I'm not carrying a pistol designed for more than 10 rounds with a 10 round mag.

The thought of it is sickening.
I've got a Glock 32 that came with two 10 round mags during the stupid pointless 94-2004 AWB.
Also have a Glock 35 that I bought off GB which was CA compliant and came with 10 round mags.
There is no way I'd carry either of those pistols with a 10 round mag.

Glock 26/27/33/29SF/30SF or a 1911 in 9mm, 10mm, 45 acp - plenty of options originally designed for 10 rounds or less.
A 1911 conceals easily IWB, mercifully pictured with a t-shirt, just add cover shirt (in warm weather I wear an a-frame / thin tank under a cover shirt).

 

They have 12 round magazines for the P-365 now, right?

 

I like my Glock 17 and if some reason I’m limited to 10 rounds, I want to keep carrying my full size gun and I don’t care if it’s not popular.

We are getting ahead of ourselves though.

 

I carry an M&p shield in 45acp with 6+1 capacity as it is. Spare 7rnd in the pocket. I’m happy with 14 rounds on me.
I usually shoot revolvers so when I get out the XD9 with the 16 rnd mags I feel like it never runs out. Great fun.

 

Personally I'm hoping for renewed interest in single stack, hammer fired, DA/SA pistols. I opened a thread on that topic a week or so ago.

 

Whatever happens, legislation-wise, I'll still be packin' a pistol with 17 or 18 round mags... until I retire, when I will have a vested interest in what I can no longer have.

 

I'm confused. You refuse to carry a large heavy gun that is designed to hold up to 18 rounds, but would be restricted to 10 rounds, legally, but then say you would carry a full-size 1911, that I'm pretty sure is a large heavy gun that only has a capacity of 8 rounds.

I don't get the logic.

I thought I was tracking when you said that carrying a large pistol with only ten rounds is ridiculous. I agree; why deal with the weight and bulk when there are dozens of good pistols that are much smaller and lighter and can still carry 10 rounds?

But choosing a giant pistol with only 8 rounds capacity doesn't make sense to me...

 

Indeed, BUT.

I would not go down to tiny gun because of capacity limitations, just like I wouldn't necessarily go to a big caliber for the same reason.

Capacity aside, my main requirement for a CCW pistol (apart from general concealment needs, which can be variable, and of course reliability which goes without saying) is shootability. I had a basic set of performance levels that I require for a carry gun to fall within to "make the cut" for me.

A big heavy steel .45 1911 is not on my list for carry anymore, back does not like that much weight. But a lightweight 9mm 1911 works fine.

The more I think on it the more I think I might actually just get smaller mags for a gun I'm already perfectly happy with carrying and have plenty of trigger time on. Possibly use the excuse to delve into .357 or .40 depending on how performance shakes out.

Certainly would use such a hypothetical as an excuse to buy a new gun (or two), but it sure doesn't take much for me to make up an excuse for a new gun!

 

Next years Glock purchase hangs it the balance, will it be a G42 or gen5 G23?

 

Mmm. Walther PP, PPK; Sig 239, S&W Mdl 10.... lotsa good guns without jumping on the hi-cap bandwagon. I've never cared for double stacks (can't seem to shoot em accurately); but that doesn't mean I think Joe Bob shouldn't have an M1 Abrams and a private fleet of destroyers if he wants....

 

I glossed over a much needed adjective: BULKY.
I'm not going to carry a grip like that of a Glock 17 or 92fs with only 10 rounds when it will hold 17. I dont mind the 1911 so much because it is slim (if too heavy for me to lug around every day), and I like the principle of it holding what it was DESIGNED to hold.
A Glock 17 stuffed with 10 rounds just doesn't sit well with me.

 

I'd have to carry my Tokarev or my P38. Both go pretty good with a brisk goose step. Nothing political here, just saying they go well together

 

The Last awb I was "forced" to suffer through carrying my Beretta 96 with a 10 round mag.

Of course standard is 11 so I don't guess it was all that bad

 

I would carry a glock 26 over the 19 or 17 if I was forced into 10 rounds.

I'm not forced into it and I own a 22,23, and 27. I carry the 27

 

My single-stack 3rd. Gen. S&W 908 will ship Monday.
My P6 is also a single-stack.

If I owned a .45 acp gun as a single-stack, it would be guaranteed to be more accurate than double-stack 9mms, because .45 acp can't miss vitals in a stressful situation.

All of this is just one reason why I began studying Krav Maga (Israeli self-defense, hand-to-hand, or "foot-to-crotch") a year ago, at age 64.

 

Geez, you guys are missing a real opportunity here. Buy you a bunch of 10 rounders and and put your old high capacity mags on the black market and the BGs will snap them up or steal them from you in a heartbeat.

 

My G35 came with 10-rounders and an awful 10lb trigger. It was a MA or some other commie state compliant pistol.

Not a big deal. I used it for GSSF indoor matches, which are strings of 10-round fire. The mags and pistol were 100%. But, when I ordered extra mags for it, I went with the normal 15-rounders.

 

Playing the game, if I had to live under a 10 rounds magazine limit I would probably go with a 1911. Even with "extended" mags it is pretty easy to stay under a 10 round limit.

 

I've been thinking about buying a Glock 48, an AWB being passed would make that decision easy for me.

Heck, it might even encourage Walther to build a single-stack PPQ. If they did that, my wallet would come out so fast it would leave scorch marks.

 

So, I suspect the actual point of the discussion (at least for some of us) is that, if the worst happens and there are some magazine capacity limits foisted on those of us that haven't had to live with them, we simply don't want to be carrying a handgun any larger than we have to -- so why carry a fatter, heavier gun that's been neutered by reducing its formerly formidable capacity?

For me, it would not mean resigning myself to carrying a micro-compact for my primary handgun; I simply posted a pic of the 43X as a good example of a small pistol that handles and shoots like a larger one (as do the SIG P-365s). And, it's a great example of size/weight to favorable capacity ratio.

So, no, I don't think magazine capacity restrictions mean not carrying a full-size gun -- something like a SIG P-225A1 (or a P-239) or a Commander-sized 1911 are examples of easily concealable and slimmer full-size pistols -- that still shoot like full-size pistols but are designed around their magazine sizes.

In the meantime, we still must keep up the good fight and battle to the end the stupid people who would have us believe that magazine capacity restrictions save lives or prevent more crime.

 

I wouldn't carry a pistol designed for mags larger than 10 rounds with a 10 round mag either, but they are handy when handing those pistols to others to shoot at the range......

 

DO IT...youngest son traded his G43 for one..older son and I shot it..I traded my G26 for one, other son his G43.....Easy to carry, GREAT to shoot..10+1 plenty(altho I DO have a BO for the Shield 15R).....Carry, reliability, ease of shooting WAY more important than raw capacity..otherwise I'd 'carry' my G17 with 17 or 33R mag...

 

For most of you this is a thought experiment, but here in Connecticut it is the reality. Though by virtue of my military affiliation I'm "allowed" to carry more than ten in my primary mag, backups are still limited to ten rounds. Non-military citizens are limited to ten for all mags. On top of that, if the laws don't change before I get out, I'll have to register any mags over ten rounds if I want to keep them at home.

Infringements aside, my three preferred carry pistols have 12-round mags (H&K USP .45 full-size and Sig P229 .40) or 7-round mags (S&W Shield .40). For the former two, giving up two rounds is annoying but not a deal-killer for the type.

 

Well, in my hands, most double-column-mag pistols, that I have tried, are annoyingly wide. HandSguns, rather than handguns. Had I not worked for a PD that started mandating specified .40 duty pistols, in the late Nineties, it is possible that I would not have any handguns with a capacity of 10+ cartridges. My Gen3 Glocks are long gone, replaced my SIG P229 pistols, in 2004, and I kept only one P229R, mostly for old times’ sake, as I transitioned to Gen4 Glocks, in 2015, when my chief authorized 9mm duty pistols. Gen4 fit OK, if none of the included adapters are installed. I was able to return to carrying single-column 1911 duty pistols in 2016, but have kept the 9mm Glocks.

My first handgun, acquired in late 1982 or early 1983, was a 1911. Today, no autoloader fits me better than my Les Baers. I reckon that other 1911 pistols, with the junction of the front strap and trigger guard similarly sculpted to allow a higher hold, would fit as well. I do not feel handicapped, with magazines holding seven or eight rounds.

I like defensive handguns that “fill my hand,” but not to excess. A “gunfight” might well require that my support hand perform tasks other than making contact with the weapon. I am not arguing against ammo capacity, but saying that some things are more important than the number of rounds, per mag, regardless of the legal/political environment.

 

There are some many unexpected instances in life. Having extra is fine but if did not get the thing done with 10, you will probably have no more chances to use another mag.