In the event of a "high-capacity" magazine ban, would you switch calibers? - Page 2

In the event of a "high-capacity" magazine ban, would you switch calibers?

This is a discussion on In the event of a "high-capacity" magazine ban, would you switch calibers? within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; No... thanks for asking though....

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: In the event of a "high-capacity" magazine ban, would you switch calibers?

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member
    Array whoppo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southern Maine
    Posts
    1,378
    No... thanks for asking though.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    The Second Amendment *IS* Homeland Security
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------- Μολὼν λαβέ ----------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,848
    I knew people would try to turn this into the "I'm not going to comply. Cold dead hands blah blah blah" discussion. But that's not the question. Whether you'd turn in an evil black rifle or get rid of a 33 round Glock mag isn't the issue. When you're out and about I'd guess most would seek to remain within the legal parameters just to eliminate needless heartache when you had to use your blaster and ended up in a federal prison because your Glock had 17 rounds in the magazine. I'd assume everything we have would be grandfathered under a federal ban, but there's a chance it wouldn't.

    In honesty the 1911 benefited from the 1994 ban. An argument of 17 9mm vs. 8 45ACP is much more difficult for the 45 to win than a 10 vs. 8 discussion. Not that it is the only reason the 1911 is still popular, but it helped. I'd assume we'd see the same things again. If it did become a crime to carry my pistol concealed with a standard capacity magazine I would change to a 45. If I can't have more rounds I may as well have more round per shot. My 1911 still wouldn't be my carry piece though. The Glock 30 would become my new carry piece.
    Hobo_Hunter and Alarm Guy like this.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  3. #18
    Member Array FLSurfdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Palm Bay Fl
    Posts
    142
    So basically, they just turn millions of semi-autos into boat anchors and wipe out the hundreds and thousands of dollars most of us have invested. Demand for a full sized G17 and similar would certainly drop. Most guns of that size don't even have a less than 10 rd option. Like everything they do, its calculated. I'll have to be a concientious objector on that one.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array Smarshe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville
    Posts
    534
    .45 her I come. 1911 as soon as possible.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,336
    After the 1994 ban all but killed the "wonder 9" trend, 7-10rd larger-caliber alternatives became much more popular.

    I don't see that it would be much different if the same unconstitutional banning were to stand this time around.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array palmcoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,190
    1911 would definitely become an addition

  7. #22
    Member Array RandyatOBX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    46
    No, I have found that when carrying concealed as I do with a IWB holster it’s not the length of the barrel you have to compromise with but the length of the grip. Concealed carry IS a compromise. A sidearm with a high capacity magazine will just not cut it when you want to be inconspicious.
    bigwill72 likes this.

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    I knew people would try to turn this into the "I'm not going to comply. Cold dead hands blah blah blah" discussion. But that's not the question. Whether you'd turn in an evil black rifle or get rid of a 33 round Glock mag isn't the issue. When you're out and about I'd guess most would seek to remain within the legal parameters just to eliminate needless heartache when you had to use your blaster and ended up in a federal prison because your Glock had 17 rounds in the magazine. I'd assume everything we have would be grandfathered under a federal ban, but there's a chance it wouldn't.

    In honesty the 1911 benefited from the 1994 ban. An argument of 17 9mm vs. 8 45ACP is much more difficult for the 45 to win than a 10 vs. 8 discussion. Not that it is the only reason the 1911 is still popular, but it helped. I'd assume we'd see the same things again. If it did become a crime to carry my pistol concealed with a standard capacity magazine I would change to a 45. If I can't have more rounds I may as well have more round per shot. My 1911 still wouldn't be my carry piece though. The Glock 30 would become my new carry piece.
    My nines have never been a compromise from larger, more powerful rounds, so I won't bail on them if I have to reduce their capacities. Recoil, follow-through and follow-up shots are still viable considerations for me.
    Hobo_Hunter and JD like this.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  9. #24
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    I'm not changing crap!

  10. #25
    mkh
    mkh is offline
    Distinguished Member Array mkh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Foxhole somewhere in NE FL
    Posts
    1,668
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyatOBX View Post
    No, I have found that when carrying concealed as I do with a IWB holster itís not the length of the barrel you have to compromise with but the length of the grip. Concealed carry IS a compromise. A sidearm with a high capacity magazine will just not cut it when you want to be inconspicious.
    I have to disagree. I carry a Sig P229 with a 17 round magazine IWB and it conceals well.

    But if we get limited in mag size then I'll revisit the .45 issue.

  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,219
    I have a flintlock pistol on order. It's only a 7-shot pistol so it is NY compliant too!

    flintlock-pepperbox.jpg

    OH wait...those were a salt weapons in 1787? So is it now non-compliant within NY's ban too?

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array Cuda66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    2,365
    No.

    But then, I already usually carry a single stack .45.
    There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.--RAH

    ...man fights with his mind; the weapons are incidental.--Jeff Cooper


    There is a reason they try and make small bullets act like big bullets--Glockmann10mm

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    3,043
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni View Post
    I have a flintlock pistol on order. It's only a 7-shot pistol so it is NY compliant too!

    flintlock-pepperbox.jpg

    OH wait...those were a salt weapons in 1787? So is it now non-compliant within NY's ban too?
    No, that was not a salt weapon - It was a pepper box.

    Regards,
    Jim

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,554
    In the event of a "high-capacity" magazine ban, would you switch calibers?
    No. I'll stick with 9mm. Same as I did during the last ban.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array Civil_Response's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,558
    My carry guns wouldn't be effected...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

hi cap mag ban

,

hi cap magazine ban

,
high cap handgun magazine ban in minnesota
,
high cap mag ban forums
,
how to reduce magazine capacity
,

what about those with high capacity mag s before ban

,

what does a ban on high capacity magazines mean

,
what is a high capacity magazine
,
what would a ban on high capacity magazines mean
,

will a magazine ban pass

,
will i have to turn in my high capacity magazines
,

will magazine ban pass

Click on a term to search for related topics.