[Happypuppy]

My carry is a 26. If is was going to get a new one and I wanted a 10 round handgun I would get a shield or the XD-S in .45.

I am a big fan of revolvers so they always an option


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[jnc54]

Thanks dkf for the link. I should have known about the 10 round mags with calif. limitations to 10 rounders. What about all these 17 and 15 rd mags I have. Would some kind of plug or insert to limit them to 10 rounds meet the new law requirements or would they be outlawed under a new high cap mag ban?

[SoldMyHat]

Originally Posted by jnc54

Thanks dkf for the link. I should have known about the 10 round mags with calif. limitations to 10 rounders. What about all these 17 and 15 rd mags I have. Would some kind of plug or insert to limit them to 10 rounds meet the new law requirements or would they be outlawed under a new high cap mag ban?

Wasn't my intention to go over the politics of it. But most legislation will probably grandfather current mags and firearms in possession. But with no ability to sell or will it to another person. If they outlawed current ones too, I would think they would have to institute a buyback program.

[SoldMyHat]

Originally Posted by barth

I think the implication of the OP is;
with the proposed 10 round mag ban there will be guns of the same size, weight and capacity in 9mm and 45.

Without the usual capacity advantages of a 9mm
why wouldn't you upgrade to a 45?

Recoil and cost of ammo are good reasons.
But the capacity argument will disappear.

In full size pistols, 10 for 10 rounds, I'll always choose a .45.

exactly my intention of the thread.

[fredj338]

Originally Posted by barth

Recoil and cost of ammo are good reasons.
But the capacity argument will disappear.

In full size pistols, 10 for 10 rounds, I'll always choose a .45.

Exactly. Although recoil is a trainable thing to deal with, how the gun fits you is more important. I shoot my XD45C as well as the G19, same size, why not carry the 45?
The last AWB ban spawned the compact pistol, lots of new 45acp designs, etc. I would expect the allure of a full size, 15-18 shot handgun will be a lot less if you only get 10+1. Then "old" guns like the 1911 will return to prominence when someone wants a full size gun.

[dkf]

Originally Posted by barth

I think the implication of the OP is;
with the proposed 10 round mag ban there will be guns of the same size, weight and capacity in 9mm and 45.

Without the usual capacity advantages of a 9mm
why wouldn't you upgrade to a 45?

Recoil and cost of ammo are good reasons.
But the capacity argument will disappear.

In full size pistols, 10 for 10 rounds, I'll always choose a .45.

I was answering the question from jnc24. I guess I should have quoted him but I thought it was pretty obvious I was answering his question.


I would not "upgrade" because I don't want to carry around Glocks thicker and heavier G21 and G30.(if had no other choice but that size it would 10mm not .45) Not to mention the .45acp has negligible at the very best performance vs the other common service calibers. Its not like I don't have or could not get preban mags anyway. Plus I already own the other guns.

Would some kind of plug or insert to limit them to 10 rounds meet the new law requirements or would they be outlawed under a new high cap mag ban?

I don't know of any aftermarket limiters for Glock mags. Some guys have made their own to be legal for hunting purposes however.

If another AWB happens it depends how it is written as said before. The anti dbags are going to have an impossible time trying confiscate mags so you would probably end up with grandfathering.

[BuckyP]

Originally Posted by fredj338

The last AWB ban spawned the compact pistol, lots of new 45acp designs, etc. I would expect the allure of a full size, 15-18 shot handgun will be a lot less if you only get 10+1. Then "old" guns like the 1911 will return to prominence when someone wants a full size gun.

I would bet it was more due to the adoption of shall issue CCW that states were adopting. If concealment isn't an issue, for most people, a G34 with a 10 round magazine is going to shoot / handle better than a G19 or G26 with a 10 round magazine.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by SoldMyHat

9mm guys, will you switch in a post-ban era?

No. Why? (Spare me the caliber, "power" & "stopping power" diatribes. )

I favored my smaller capacity compact & subcompact pistols (6, 7, 8, 9 & 10-rd capacities) even during the last fed ban, and after CA enacted their own state law regarding high capacity feeding devices ... even with the peace officer's exemption in place.

I carried my 7, 8 & 10-rd 9mm's more often than my .40's & .45's back then. Nowadays I find myself carrying my 7 & 9-rd .40's a bit more often, but my 10-rd .45 not very often.

They all see range use for training, practice & quals, of course (as I still keep my hand in things as a firearms instructor & armorer) ... but the larger .45's don't see nearly as much carry usage as my 9's & .40's, due to them not being quite as slim or as small, overall, as the 9's & .40's. (My several 5-shot J's and my LCP see more carry time than my .45's, too.)

Don't get me wrong, as I carried higher capacity issued pistols over the years, on & off-duty. It's just that toward the end of my career I found myself carrying first an issued 8-rd full-size .45, and then either a compact 9-rd .40 or a 7-rd compact .45, and not feeling particularly under-equipped.

If I'd been given my druthers, however, I'd have been satisfied to have carried a previously issued 12-rd 9mm (6906), or even a 8-rd 9mm (3913).

So ... no, I don't envision "switching". No reason to do so.

Naturally, if I couldn't shoot the smaller pistols as well (or better) than the larger ones, I'd probably have chosen the larger ones and dealt with the size & weight issues. The magazines would have been what they were.

[chief63]

No, my 9mm carries are single stack and have plenty 357 revolvers.

[dougader]

From what I have been seeing, I believe Feinstein is going for a more restrictive, literal ban of semi-autos and +10 magazines, meaning mere possession is also a crime. If that's the case I may change guns but my deep cover, "summer" gun will still be 9mm. When I wear a coat I usually have a full-size 45, but then again, it's a 14 round G21sf... so I will probably be looking at a different 45 at that point. No sense in a double-stack frame for a 10-shot gun.

Heck, even my 9x23 Winchester is on a Para-Ord frame and holds 20 rounds. I guess I could mate the Caspian slide to a single stack 1911 frame and that would make for a nice 357 mag equivalent in a 1911.

Heck, isn't a G27 a 10-round affair? I guess that wouldn't such a bad summer gun. But I've been happy with the 9mm and 45 for long...

[3rdgen40]

I already carry a 9mm with a 7 round mag.No reason for me to switch.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by dougader

From what I have been seeing, I believe Feinstein is going for a more restrictive, literal ban of semi-autos and +10 magazines, meaning mere possession is also a crime.

No, it's not, she said clearly it will NOT be retroactive.
Meet the press last Sunday quote:

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."

[SARDG]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

...It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."

I don't care about no stinking clips and bullets - what worries me are restrictions on magazines and cartridges.

[dkf]

Heck, isn't a G27 a 10-round affair?

9+1 with standard mags for both the G27 and G33.

I don't care about no stinking clips and bullets - what worries me are restrictions on magazines and cartridges.

Libtards think everyone is carrying an M1 Garand.


And Feinstein can go screw herself.

[ElectricMonk]

G26 with 10 round mags (I'm in CA). Strangely, no limit on number of spare mags.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by SARDG

I don't care about no stinking clips and bullets - what worries me are restrictions on magazines and cartridges.

She means magazines when she says clips, and if you saw the whole
interview I believe it's all banned items like last time.

The left calls ammo bullets, magazines clips and semi auto
rifles machine guns. Nothing new.

Obama is a different story. Who knows what he will do.

[JEEPX]

No, absolutely no switch.

[dkf]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

She means magazines when she says clips, and if you saw the whole
interview I believe it's all banned items like last time.

The left calls ammo bullets, magazines clips and semi auto
rifles machine guns. Nothing new.

Obama is a different story. Who knows what he will do.

SARDG knows what the libs mean. I think she is just tired of hearing the same wrong descriptions over the last week, as am I.

Calling a magazine a "clip" is like calling a revolver a pistol.

[SoldMyHat]

As an aside, I went to the lgs today and put down the deposit to order me a 17gen4.



Figured I better get it while I for sure can. Hopefully I can sneek a three set of spare mags while the wife ain't looking.

[azbuckeye]

No...I'd stick with 9mm and my .357 Ruger SP-101 for summer carry

[HKLovingIT]

Only would switch in one circumstance: JHP was banned.

If I could not have JHP then I would be going with a .45.

Otherwise I will keep my 9mms.

[pisc1024]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

No, it's not, she said clearly it will NOT be retroactive.
Meet the press last Sunday quote:

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."

How could you have a ban on possession, and it NOT be retroactive?

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by pisc1024

How could you have a ban on possession, and it NOT be retroactive?

California did it that way. Couldn't buy new ones when the law took effect, but could keep the ones you already owned.

Dunno about the other 5 states that have similar restrictions on large capacity magazines.

[pisc1024]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

California did it that way. Couldn't buy new ones when the law took effect, but could keep the ones you already owned.

Dunno about the other 5 states that have similar restrictions on large capacity magazines.

So they are illegal to POSSESS in California? Then that would lead me to believe that if a cop stopped you on a highway with an "assault rifle" in your car, you’re going to jail. The charge would be possession of an assault rifle. Therefore it is not "grandfathered" in. I might be missing something, but that was the quote.

[fredj338]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

No, it's not, she said clearly it will NOT be retroactive.
Meet the press last Sunday quote:

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."

SO you want to believe a self serving liberal? Really? Trust me, they will go for as much as they can get this time. They have emotion on their side & that turns a lot of female voters heads.