Does caliber choice change?

[Inebriated]

If a capacity limit came up, I'd most likely switch to 10-round mags in my 19, or just carry my 26. I shoot the 19 better, though, so it would be a tough choice to switch back to the 26. I'd likely only carry the 26 if what I'm wearing won't allow a 19.

 

[olderguns]

I'll still carry my g29 only problem is, i only have 4. 10round mags for it and they are all +2 extensions, what worries me is my 14 g20 mags,, that if anyone thinks they can Take them for nothing after me paying $29.99 each for them, they will have to be really persuasive...

 

[19-3Ben]

The premise here seems to be that you don't already have spare mags. If that's the case then shame on you.

I don't think that was part of a premise at all. It has to do with the fact that you can't have as many rounds in a gun or in the spare mags anyway, so would it make sense to carry mags that are already lower capacity but higher caliber?

In my mind, the answer is yes. I would go back to carrying something like my K40 rather than M&P when I do carry semis. However, I'm in the same boat as RCmodel. I'm perfectly happy with a little J frame.

 

[C0untZer0]

9mm is a very versatile caliber. 9mmepiphany pointed out why it will remain popular - concealed carry.

I just think if you look at what is available today in 9mm - The Khar PM9/CM9, MK9, Diamondback DB9, Kinber Solo, Rohrbaugh R9, Sig Sauer P290 and P938, Glock 26 - and other small nines, there is a huge selection, and the cartridge lends itself well to that role.

I think we've seen that semi-autos designed to fire .45 and a .40 S&W can only get so small and at some point they're not reliable. Also, just going on a bell curve, for most people a 9 is going to be easier to shoot than a 40 or 45in the same wieght and form factor. I think that is exacerbated the smaller the pistol gets.

 

[jim243]

Crazy idea, but not so crazy question. I have both 9 mm & 45 ACP, it would be easy enough to get 10 round mags for the 9's & mag changes are FAST. But, if I was to go with another handgun it would be a 45.

Jim

 

[eldon519]

I could still get ten 9mm rounds fired on target faster than ten .45 rounds, so no, it doesn't change anything. I think that is an important consideration for a situation where there may be multiple assailants, especially if they start moving, and I start missing. Speed is another important tradeoff with power which often gets forgotten.

 

[captain awesome]

1911's are already extremely popular right now, and for good reason.
I for one never felt much need to have a ton of rounds in my carry pistols. I already went big, I carry a 460 Rowland or a 44mag. That being said, I'll be damned before I give up the right to carry more than their arbitrary limit on mag capacity they want to set.

 

[mj246]

Since my SD gun of choice is my 5 shot 38 special revolver, I'd have to go with a no.

 

[Bovice]

If such a ban were in place, I wouldn't use my hi-cap pistols much. For a pistol I am ok with 7 or 8 round magazines. There's something classy about single stack pistols anyways!

I saw it mentioned above, that mag changes are fast. I agree. Even a moderately versed action pistol shooter can swap magazines in under 3 seconds. The idea behind the law is silly, anyone bent on violence toward the innocent is going to do it with whatever means are available. And it doesn't always have to be a gun. The Oklahoma city bombing was a homemade device, and look at the results. Absolute devastation. But yet 10 round mags make us safer.

 

[Landric]

Of the four guns in my regular carry rotation (S&W M&P45 4" .45 ACP, Beretta 84FS .380 ACP, Ruger SP101 DAO .357 Magnum, and S&W 642 Airweight .38 Special), only the Beretta would be effected by a "hi-capacity" ban. In that case I would probably replace the 84FS with the single stack 85FS and not change anything else.

 

[oldbear]

capacity limits?

It will make no difference for me, and the other "old dogs" I hang with, all of us grew up with wheel guns, and learned that shot placement was generally the most important aspect of shooting. I'm sticking with my assorted .357 magnum revolvers. For most if not all civilian S/D needs I just don't see the need for the ultra high capacity magazines they just add weight and bulk as far as I'm concerned.

Happy Holidays All.

 

[CDW4ME]

I have "high capacity" (Glock 23) pistols as an option, but typically carry a subcompact that holds 10 rounds or less (Glock 27, 30 SF) or sometimes a full size 7 round 1911.
So, if they do restrict the sale of "high capacity" magazines (Again: I lived thru the 1st time) it won't affect me (again) for two reasons.
-I already have them (and did during the original assinine ban).
-I don't typically carry them anyway.

 

[sleepyone]

deleted. started a new thread.

 

[Dnaltrop]

I'll need a different BUG...

Perhaps a Second .45 Colt Blackhawk? Perhaps something with a DA trigger instead?

S&W Model 25? Super Redhawk? Nagant Obrez?

I'd make do, but the only standard capacity Semis in the collection are recent acquisitions, and I'm big enough to hide just about any Pistol I wish on my person comfortably.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I have basically 5 handguns that I carry. The two that are carried most often only hold 6+1 and 7+1. Only one of the five has >10 round capacity. So no, my carry choices really wouldn't be affected by a mag capacity limit.

 

[22-rimfire]

I expect that the 40 S&W will pick up some followers if the 10-round magazine limit becomes the law of the land again. But I don't see many people with 9mm's or 45's changing anything. Many already carry 10 round or less in their ccw guns.

 

[doc2rn]

I am in the same boat as rc and .22, I don't need a mag dump when shot placement is crucial. My six shooters work just fine for me too.

 

[CountGlockulla]

Not for me. There is not enough difference in terminal effect to make me switch from 9mm to .45.

 

[golden]

Not really

For pistols, I prefer a 9m.m. I would carry my 8 shot magazine SIG just as soon as my 15 shot magazine. I also have some 10 round mags in case I went back to CANADA and took my BERETTA 92.

In the end, they can pass laws, but fools can only accomplish foolishness.

Jim

 

[Skribs]

I believe capacity is a good thing. If you need 5 rounds then either a J-Frame or a G26 will do, but if you need 10 rounds a G26 is the only option. After seeing the analysis by another member on this forum based on hit rate, capacity, number of attackers, and number of hits needed to stop the BG, I've come to the conclusion that 10 is the minimum I'll carry, more if preferable.

This is one of the big reasons for going 9mm. If I were limited to 10 rounds, I might pick a .45 instead of a 9 for my full-size gun, but stay with a 9 in compact. The other option would be to switch to the .50 GI Glock, just to say "yeah, they want to ban these dangerous guns, so got a legal .50 cal pistol just to stick it to em".

I'm a younger gun owner without a lot of disposable income to spend on parts and ammo; I've been more trying to find a gun/holster combo that really works for me. I don't have a stockpile of "high capacity" magazines that will last 10 years into another AWB.

 

[BigJimP]

No, capacity won't make any difference to me....its all about shot placement ...and capacity is irrelevent to me whether its a 9mm, .40S&W or a .45 acp in a semi-auto.

My primary carry guns now are all 5" 1911's ...and while I have them in 9mm, .40S&W and .45 acp.....the .45 acp with 8 +1 rds has been, and will always be, my primary defense weapon.....but once in a while, I will carry a
5" 1911 in 9mm and its 10 +1 rds ....and either one is just fine.

While I understand the academic discussion of high capacity handguns....to me, guns with the high capacity mags tend to lend themselves to more of a "spray and pray" mentality ...vs effective fire on target.

Effecitive fire on target....out of a holster - and 100% on target with double taps...and some reload drills .../ to a drill competency level of 2 - 3 seconds, practiced from 9 Ft - 30 Ft once a week or so, will make all of this capacity issue inmaterial in my opinion.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Nope. I carry a 1911, and prefer the ergonomics of the single stack. What I've got on my hip right now won't be affected if the AWB is re-enacted.

 

[Rexster]

I tend to carry .357 Magnum and .38 revolvers, and a .45 ACP 1911. I am mandated to carry .40 while at work, in my primary duty pistol, but generally dislike the concept of fat-butt pistols with double-column magazines. My P229 will probably be retired to the safe when I retire.

I did recently acquire a 9mm G17, when it looked like my chief would allow 9mm as an alternative duty pistol cartridge, but that idea was shelved indefinitely. Prompted by the recent troubles, I did acquire some extra magazines (at normal prices) before they ran out.

 

[PabloJ]

If political winds DO effect a change in capacity, will it impact your caliber choice? We often discuss the merits of additional capacity of 9mm over various choices, so if limits are imposed would you be prone to move up in caliber? I REALLY don't want this to be yet one more caliber war and I totally buy into shot placement, accuracy, etc. And I love the affordability of 9mm, but I admit it would be tempting to go for a bigger hole with each trigger pull.

Yes. My latest buy is five shot 9mm revolver. I'm returning unused 15rd pistol magazines so I can get Crimson grips and nice holster for it. You see, not everyone has "lost" their mind. Cognac is good, people are crazzzzy.

 

[petepeterson]

This whole thread is based on a revival of the 10-rd ban...what if it's eight? Or five? A call to your congressman relaying his consituents views is always a good idea.