Switch to Larger Caliber with Mag Ban?

[Walt Sherrill]

I'd dump the 9mm for a 40. 15 rounds of 40 is alot better than 10 rounds of 9.

Most guns that will hold .40 rounds will hold MORE 9mm rounds. If you can get 15 rounds of .40 in it, you might be able to find another one that hold 20+ of 9mm. Why limit 9mm to 10 rounds?

Regardless of capacity -- if you can shoot a larger caliber better than a smaller one, go with the larger one.

I've never been able to do that with .40 (I've had some nice .40s, including several well-tuned Glock 35s, and S&W M&P Pros), and it was only just recently that I stumbled onto a .40 that I can shoot well. (An FNS-40.)

Not everyone shoots the larger caliber guns that well, and .40 seems to give some folks problems.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

I was referring to a magazine ban that would limit the 9mm to 10 rounds. Colorado has a limit of 15 rounds, so hi-cap 9mm mags are a no-no.

My Ruger SR40-C holds 15 rounds with the extended mag.

If the limit were 10 rounds, I'd rather have 10 rounds of 40 than 10 rounds of 9mm, absolutely.

 

[psyopspec]

@ Mr. Sherill

Not everyone shoots the larger caliber guns that well, and .40 seems to give some folks problems.

I think what a lot of people have realized is that if you can shoot a .40 or a .45 very well, there's probably a similar 9mm that can always be shot just as well, with more bullets, more quickly. With the ammo advances many have mentioned in the thread, that's tough to square for personal defense.

Personal preference is another matter, and a stronger one at the end of the day. But generally it's hard to get the mind around how someone could be better with .40 as a platform than 9mm.

 

[oneounceload]

If there were a ban I'd continue to use the standard capacity mags I already have.

Pretty easy

Exactly, and for Glocks, a 33 round 9mm magazine is a standard capacity mag that also just happens to fit the G26, G19, and G17

 

[MachIVshooter]

Exactly, and for Glocks, a 33 round 9mm magazine is a standard capacity mag that also just happens to fit the G26, G19, and G17

Have to respectfully disagree there. While the antis certainly throw the "hi capacity" buzz term around way too much, there is such a thing, and magazines that hold ~double or more what the original weapon was designed with/for/around absolutely qualify. 33 round magazines for Glocks, 75 round AK drums and 100 round Beta-C mags are definitely high capacity, since the weapons were originally conceived/designed with 17, 30 and 20/30 round magazines respectively.

The term itself does not have to carry a negative connotation, and we as a group should be honest if we expect to earn people's trust.

 

[C0untZer0]

We've seen intellectual dishonesty from anti-gunners, and they have tried to drift the number of what constitutes "high-capacity" below 10.

If they could get a way with it, any firearm capable of firing more than 1 round without a reload would be a "high-capacity" firearm.

But anyway, I wouldn't switch. This argument of going to a larger caliber because of limited number of rounds seems like an extension of the "One Shot Stop" - out to 10 rounds. Even if I only had 10 rounds, I personally think for myself I can put more 9mm rounds on target more quickly than if I were to use .40 S&W or 45 ACP.

 

[MachIVshooter]

We've seen intellectual dishonesty from anti-gunners

Of course we do. That's their game. But it shouldn't be ours. Facts are on our side, no need to make stuff up or play games with semantics. As such, I'm not interested in bending definitions, distorting statistics or using gentle, PC euphemisms. So, when it comes to terms like "high capacity magazine", I will call BS when it is used to describe what is truly standard capacity, such as 30 round AR mags. But I will not try to label one that is far more than that as standard when it clearly isn't. When the M16A5 or M4A2 enters service equipped with 60 round surefire mags, then we can re-evaluate what is and isn't.

 

[jmr40]

During the last AWB I sold my hi-cap G-22 at an insane profit and bought a smaller 9mm designed to hold 10 rounds. Can't see having a big gun with a neutered magazine. I've never seen any proof that a 40 or 45 offers any advantage over 9mm on human threats either.

During the 1994-2004 ban folks went one of 2 ways. Some did like I did and bought smaller guns. Lots of newer, smaller models came out at the same time. The timing probably also helped 40 S&W which had only been introduced a few years earlier. The logic at the time was that bigger calibers made sense if you were limited to fewer rounds. Most standard capacity 40's held 11 rounds so limiting them to 10 wasn't that big. Glock was the exception holding 15 rounds.

I think people are smarter about that today. With the FBI and many LE agencies going to 9mm most are figuring out that bigger doesn't mean more effective. There is simply too much data out there proving there isn't any difference between any of the top 4-5 handgun cartridges. There would still be a few that would go to a bigger caliber, but far fewer than 21 years ago.

 

[Lost Sheep]

If there were a ban I'd continue to use the standard capacity mags I already have.

Pretty easy.

What if the ban brought magazine capacity limit down to less than what you now use as standard?

I believe it is New York that proposed instituting a ban on a capacity greater than 7. (Suspiciously coincidental to the G.I. 1911 45ACP which was reportedly a favorite of one of the advisors on writing the bill.)

What if a ban brought the maximum capacity to three?

Lost Sheep

 

[tarosean]

I believe it is New York that proposed instituting a ban on a capacity greater than 7

It was overturned.

 

[psyopspec]

What if a ban brought the maximum capacity to three?

For me, the same concepts would apply.

• Negligible difference among service calibers; and

• 9mm is faster to shoot accurately out of the same platform.

 

[edmo01]

I would first try to get the anti-constitutional representatives voted out.

If this failed, I would move to a place which believes in our God given rights and liberties.

Edmo

 

[Browning]

What if the ban brought magazine capacity limit down to less than what you now use as standard?

I believe it is New York that proposed instituting a ban on a capacity greater than 7. (Suspiciously coincidental to the G.I. 1911 45ACP which was reportedly a favorite of one of the advisors on writing the bill.)

What if a ban brought the maximum capacity to three?

I'd use them anyway. Just like I did in California when they did the same thing there.

They can go ahead and legislate whatever they want really. I won't be complying.

 

[TimboKhan]

Meh. Capacity bans are dumb, but at the end of the day they wouldn't change my shooting habits all that much. I have started to get a lot more into revolvers these days anyway, so maybe that would just push me in that direction even more.

Not to say i am abandoning autos, though!

 

[HammsBeer]

We have to use proper terminology.
A 15 round mag for a G19 is standard capacity.
A 30 round mag for an AR is standard capacity.
If we let the anti's control the language by calling anything over some arbitrary number a "high capacity" mag, then we've already lost.

 

[Old Dog]

I suspect, that if magazine capacity limits were again established, that it would affect the guns carried by ... oh, say, maybe 2% of all those who actually carry concealed firearms.

My observation over the years has been that (1) most folks I know who possess CPLs (or CHLs/CWLs/CWPs/CCW licenses, whatever they're called in your state) DO NOT actually carry a firearm on a REGULAR basis; and (2) that most folks who actually do carry on a regular basis already carry small guns, typically .380s, compact/sub-compact 9mms, J-frame .38s or even smaller, and that very, very few people are dedicated enough to carry full-size handguns.

So, no, I do not believe magazine capacity limits will cause more than a handful of folks to even think about going bigger in caliber, because I believe most folks that carry, already carry small handguns with small capacity.

Now, I'm sure many here (on this dedicated firearms forum) will jump up to contradict me, but seriously, guys, consider: what do most of the (non-law enforcement, non-dedicated gun-carrying) people you know REALLY carry? And I live in a state where open carry is pretty well-established, and our shall-issue concealed carry law is (arguably -- sorry, Indiana) the oldest in the nation.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I suspect, that if magazine capacity limits were again established, that it would affect the guns carried by ... oh, say, maybe 2% of all those who actually carry concealed firearms.

My observation over the years has been that (1) most folks I know who possess CPLs (or CHLs/CWLs/CWPs/CCW licenses, whatever they're called in your state) DO NOT actually carry a firearm on a REGULAR basis; and (2) that most folks who actually do carry on a regular basis already carry small guns, typically .380s, compact/sub-compact 9mms, J-frame .38s or even smaller, and that very, very few people are dedicated enough to carry full-size handguns.

So, no, I do not believe magazine capacity limits will cause more than a handful of folks to even think about going bigger in caliber, because I believe most folks that carry, already carry small handguns with small capacity.

Now, I'm sure many here (on this dedicated firearms forum) will jump up to contradict me, but seriously, guys, consider: what do most of the (non-law enforcement, non-dedicated gun-carrying) people you know REALLY carry? And I live in a state where open carry is pretty well-established, and our shall-issue concealed carry law is (arguably -- sorry, Indiana) the oldest in the nation.

Very sagacious.

 

[RA40]

Regardless of size or capacity a gun is still fun to shoot. I find the magazine capacity an irritating aspect though. The Sig 2022 in 9mm that joined me last week has 10 rounds. The thought that $40 buys a factory 10 round while in other states that mag holds 15. Part of the enjoyment is factoring cost and the 9mm is acceptable.

I also pondered what could be bought with a 10 round capacity and not feel to crippled in handgun size. CA choices are . A buddy that moved from CA to AZ has a whole different gun culture there. All I can think of as far as CA is concerned is :banghead: I'm thankful for what is dangled for us but wish it was like friendlier firearm states.

 

[Crayfish]

No, would not affect me in any way except I would be against it from a 2A perspective. I don't own any handguns that hold even ten rounds. Mostly carry 5 shot .38 or 6 shot .357. My zombie gun is an 8 shot .45 acp. I feel totally covered as far as handguns. I am one of those that carries everyday. Its not dedication that prevents me from carrying the 5" .45 its just not possible with my frame and my daily wardrobe, except in winter. And its just much slower to present than a revolver (for me). All said I would much rather have 6 .357 than 9 .45 acp. but, the platform is also a factor.

 

[ku4hx]

If I were equally proficient with the larger caliber I'd be tempted. But, more than likely I'd just buy more magazines in the smaller caliber and continue on with a gun I trusted and could operate and shoot well.

 

[TruthTellers]

If in the future there were a 10 rd capacity for all detachable magazines, I'd probably get more single stack 9mm's and .327 revolvers. Actually, I wouldn't limit it to .327, I'd just get more revolvers in general.

 

[Nom de Forum]

If I were equally proficient with the larger caliber I'd be tempted.

The problem is that equal proficiency is rarely achievable because the shot to shot recovery time of larger calibers is longer if pistols of very similar dimensions are used. You can easily be equally proficient in accuracy but equal rates of fire is more difficult to achieve.

 

[justin22885]

capacity bans wouldnt change my shooting habits either, quite simply because i wouldnt obey them ;-)

non compliance for the win.. corrupt laws are only granted the permission to exist by those who obey them

 

[Ellsnjel]

capacity bans wouldnt change my shooting habits either, quite simply because i wouldnt obey them ;-)

non compliance for the win.. corrupt laws are only granted the permission to exist by those who obey them

I wouldn't comply with a magazine ban either, but neither would I carry said banned magazine because if I had to use it in a self defense shooting I wouldn't want to chance getting caught with it.

So I would switch to carrying my 7 shot 1911 in .45 ACP which I shoot better anyway.

 

[justin22885]

if you shoot it so much better then why arent you carrying it now?