Switch to Larger Caliber with Mag Ban?

Because I can have fifteen rounds of nine millimeter in my Glock 19

 

I'm not too worried about mag bans in TX. But if it were to happen, I have it covered. Of our auto loaders, we have 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP. I happen to shoot my 45's very well because I practice with them. A lot.

I love a good 1911 and my primary carry is a Kimber Aegis with two spare 10 round mags. It's easier to conceal than the double stacks. But that too will become a non issue on January 1st when TX open carry becomes effective.

I do keep a Glock 22 in my truck with a pile of 15 rnd mags and a rail light.

As I approach retirement age here in the next 10 years are so, I will never live in a state that infringes upon my constitutional rights.

 

I would not change from 9mm as one of my edc's. Instead if in the market for a new gun I would choose something along the.line of a Ruger SR9c which is designed for 10 rounds.

As it is right now I have 9 rounds with one in the chamber with my SIG P-239 so it is not worth the change for me.

 

I already made the switch to 45 acp. Mag bans, UBC's and lots of other onerous things on the horizon after the election. Just trying to prepare myself.

 

I'd keep 9mm for concealed carry and might switch to .45 for a home defense gun.

 

What mag ban? Ain't no stinken mag ban in Texas.

Deaf

 

Unless/until I can shoot my ten-shot G26 as well as I can shoot a G19, I may well carry 10-round G19 magazines when I travel to states with a ten-round legal limit. I will be taking a long road trip next year, so this is a serious, relevant issue for me. FWIW, I have "qual'ed" with 9mm Glocks as duty and off-duty weapons, and train with Glocks more than most weapons. (The FLEOSA does not exempt active or retired LEOs from state magazine laws!) This would be a "no" to the question posed in the title. Let's call this Plan A.

Plan B would be to, instead, carry a 4" S&W Model 19 revolver, with its six shots of a much more powerful cartridge of about the same bore size. I carried revolvers as "primary" handguns on duty for about nine years of my 32 years of policing, and have maintained DA shooting skills all along. My Glock accuracy has yet to surpass my sixgun accuracy. A revolver is arguably better for situations in which I may have to secure my weapon at a check point. As I believe NY has a seven-round limit, for cartridges actually loaded into a weapon, a revolver is very near that figure. As .357 is a fraction of an inch larger caliber than .355/9mm, this would be a "yes" to the original question.

Plan C would be to train-up and renew my qual with my 1911, .45 ACP, and take it on the road trip. This would be a true increase in caliber, but I hesitate to leave such a nice weapon (Les Baer) at a check point, if others will be handling the pistol, so I will need to do some research first. I also hesitate to fly with such a nice weapon in checked baggage, so if I will be flying part of the distance, Plan C will be less likely.

(For that matter, it is difficult to find really nice pre-owned pre-keyhole S&W revolvers, so flying would probably prompt me to choose Plan A.)

Another option would be to simply carry more than one gun, with each meeting the magazine capacity limitations. Two revolvers provide up to twelve shots before a reload is necessary. One gun can be larger than the other; perhaps a PPK/s carried along with a revolver or 1911? Each jurisdiction's laws must be checked before trying any magazine capacity work-arounds.

I am glad to be living in an area where magazine capacity limits are unlikely to be enacted, in my home state of Texas, or in adjacent states. Really, however, I mostly own double-column-magazine pistols because of my occupation; specifically, my employer's list of authorized primary duty pistols. I tend to like revolvers, original-capacity 1911 pistols, and some other single-stack European pistols.

 

As with the caliber wars, proficiency is a wholly personal sort of thing. But to say you can't be equally proficient in more than one gun, or type of gun for that matter, just doesn't ring true.

Over the years, I've known plenty of shooters with rather awesome abilities with a variety of guns. To deny that, and rather greater occurrence than you might suspect, is likened to denying an accomplished musician can't demonstrate virtuoso abilities on a variety of instruments: violin, classical guitar, electric guitar, piano, voice or whatever.

Some people do need to stick to one gun as abilities dictate, but some just don't have that limitation. And it's up to the individual to make that call, hence the "If I were equally proficient" comment.

 

Hard to say. I'm pretty confident in the 9mm round but it would really gall me to carry a full sized gun with half a mag of ammo. One answer would be to switch to a smaller 9mm gun but that would come at the cost of shootability. It would be tempting to pare down my collection a bit and get an HK45C but no .45 ACP is as easy to shoot quickly & accurately as a 9mm.

I would probably start shopping for a Walther PPS in .40 S&W to carry at least part of the time.

 

i would go back to the old days using a 1911 45acp with a backup snubnose 357 mag.

 

Not too worried about a mag ban. I won't comply if there is one.

 

Please take notice of the very important words "bolded" below.

ku4hx if two pistols that are identical in always other than caliber and trivial differences are used to test an individual's proficiency; the pistol firing a noticably less recoil producing cartridge is almost always going to have faster averaged shot to shot recovery times. Go to the range and have yourself tested using a Glock 17 9mmP and a Glock 22 .40 S&W if you don't believe me. Last time I did a test like this it was with two S&W M&Ps. I was faster getting multiple shots off with the 9mm. Rapidity of fire is a component of proficiency in using a pistol for self-defense.

 

I already carry a handgun with less than a 10 round magazine most of the time.

Mostly I carry a single stack compact 9mm with a 7-round mag. I do this any time the weather is warm enough to make concealing a full sized pistol difficult.
In the colder months when I can leave a blazer on all day, I carry a full size Sig .40 with a 15 round mag.

My reasoning is ease of concealment. If the mag ban occurred, I suppose I would just carry the single stack 9mm all the time.

But I am comfortable with that handgun anyway, as I carry it 80% of the time to begin with.

 

I'd just move over to my XD Mod.2 .45 with a Pierce extension (makes a 9-round mag into a 10-round mag). I still have my SR40c for backup!

Perhaps terminal ballistics are only "slightly better" in a .45 vs a 9mm but the hole will be larger. And if you go with the 185 gr rounds in the .45, you can have your cake and eat it, too!

 

Like I said ... "If".

 

I generally don't carry a pistol sporting more than 10 rounds in a mag anyway. If the ban were set to 10, I'd be fine with my fns 40c.

If it were 7 rounds, I doubt I would purchase a gun just to comply. I'd probably just stick with my Nano and grumble about it. Or I might just pack a 6 shot .357 with a .380 back up and be done with it.

 

I'm on the other coast, also in a ban state. Carried 1911s for decades, but changed over to polymers a few years ago. CCW guns are usually a Shield9, G26 or G36 in summer (snakeshot in the G36 first two rounds), a G30 in winter, and a 1911 as the mood strikes. I own several handguns with higher capacity, but they are range and HD guns.

If I had to pick ONE to carry all the time, the G26 would win out. It's a lot of performance in a small package.

 

I don't think a G26 would ever be a bad choice for carry. Maybe a little chubby.

As for the original question. I only have two handguns that hold more than ten rounds. I don't carry either one.
I must not be very high speed low drag. Funny thing, I have a ton of AR mags, all twenty round.
Suddenly I feel very old school.

 

assuming there was a magazine ban, and assuming i was some neutered hipster liberal whiner who blindly does whatever the government tells me to do, theres not that big of a step up in kinetic energy at all between a 9mm and a 45acp.. people seem to think because ones phsically so much larger that it must be so much more powerful too and this just simply is not the case, especially when you consider one has greater than 50% more pressure than the other, a 9mm is much closer to a 357 magnum given its pressures than it is to the 380

if you want to go "big" to make up for a lack of capacity, youd have to skip over 40S&W and 45acp, you would need something like 9x23 winchester, 10mm, 45 super, or even 460 rowland to get enough of an energy boost to even care and while most 45acp guns can be converted to 45 super and 460 rowland with minor modifcations, figure youre going to be significantly shortening the lifespan of your pistol as youre increasing the bolt thrust exponentially

 

That conclusion actually rings true regardless of one's politics or social pigeonhole of choice.

 

I'm a little chubby these days, so we get along fine....

 

Yep, and I have a G17 mag in my G19, thank you very much.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if there is a high capacity mag ban (10 rounds or less) I think I might just start carrying a wheel gun. I mean, a major reason why I carry a semi auto pistol is because I can carry a high capacity magazine with it. If the gov. takes away my right to own a high capacity magazine, I might as well shoot a wheel gun (It's reliable, accurate and powerful).

 

A ban on 10+ mags wouldn't't really effect my pistols. My two carry guns are 7+1 and 10+1 9mm.

I have a 12+1 and a 15+1 (which is still on layaway) but 10 round mags exist for them.

It would suck only somewhat because I'm sure 10+ mags would not be grandfathered. If they were, I'd go about my business as if nothing changed. New mags would be 10 or less, but as long as I can still get standard springs and followers, it won't make any difference.

I'd just get a .450 Bushmaster AR upper sooner than planned.