I would stay with 9mm.
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; Hi, everybody, so this question has been bugging me for several days. We've all heard talk about how Obama is trying to limit legal magazine ...
Hi, everybody, so this question has been bugging me for several days.
We've all heard talk about how Obama is trying to limit legal magazine capacity to 10 rounds or so. For the sake of argument, let's say that happens and it becomes illegal to carry guns with more than a 10-round magazine.
In this event, would you exchange your primary caliber? (This isn't another argument of small vs. large calibers, just a discussion of whether you'd pick a different one if there was a legal limit.)
For me, both of the handguns I'm currently interested in (Walther PPS, S&W M&P Shield) have a low magazine capacity anyway, so such a ban wouldn't affect my choice of caliber. Thoughts or opinions?
I would stay with 9mm.
"If you don't want to get eaten, don't be food."
I carry a 380 or 45, both have under 10 round magazines.
NEVER point a gun at something you are not prepared to destroy!
AND for GODS sake, get your finger off the trigger until you are ready to squeeze the trigger!
If it effects us in my state which i doubt then im going back to old school. .357 probably sp101 bug 38spl 12 ga pump 22 lr 243 hunting rifle and 357 lever action rifle to enhance the sp101 ammo. None bought new or from a shop. All the ammo I can get for each as I can afford it before theres some check on it. Cant fight a war with those but I can deal with about anything from heavy duty SD to puttin meat on the table with just those. I wouldnt rule out a 45 either unless they go to 7 rd mag limits like NY.
That is all worst case scenario which I doubt we will see.
No, 15 round magazines make my shirt look like I have a boomerang in my pocket.
I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.
If I had a .223 rifle and a full size 9mm as my primary home defense and carry weapon(s), I would definitely switch it up. I don't care about people who love the 5.56 (McChrystal) or people who dislike it (glockman), because arguments can be made in either case. I don't care about politics, or anything else for that matter, because the best argument for the 5.56 m16/m4 is that the average infantryman can roll outside the wire with 300+ rounds on him. Same logic applies to the 9mm. You can carry a bunch of ammo when weight becomes a factor.
If 10 (maximum) round magazines become all that is legal, then I would be looking at full size 1911, smith and wesson 686+, and m1a to replace the aforementioned weapons for home defense if I was really looking to get a good amount of bang for my buck. If you are carrying a glock 26 or a s&w shield, it won't matter. If you like the .223 round because of the reduced risk of over penetration because you have children in your house, then it won't really matter, but otherwise, you might as well step up the caliber.
Reason i picked what I did above is this. If the gubment gets by with this, Lord only knows where they will go next. Economy is already in the toilet and talk of the government being defunded while the politicos wage war over ideals gives me the willies about the whole mess collapsing of its own weight.
If that happens I cant see 357 being a primary gun grab target nor shotguns or the 22lr. 243 maybe later on but its primarily thought of as a hunting round. So suppose at some point everything takes a header into a deep hole.
I want to be able to defend my family and feed them and be able to hold onto what we have from anyone that wants to take it like say ehhh food?? I can hunt with that collection. Sd with it. Gather up a lot of ammo for it and store it. Defend my home with it. And likely those calibers in revolver and rifle wont have had time to have become high priority for the gun snatchers. Plus all of em are tough low maintenance weapons. I dont mean to sound like a survivalist here but if somethings go like I think they wont then I will start thinking in those terms.
its this particular concern that has me pondering my first 1911 acquisition..
No way for me to provide a link to my source, but a local radio station today they listed the 19 recommendations of the Ben Biden task force. The recommendation on magazines was a max of seven rounds. That puts a crimp in my style, all of my auto loaders come with ten round or more magazines with the exception of my mouse guns, and my S&W Night Guard .357 8 shot, but they didn't mention a 8 round cylinder. LOL
US Army 1953-1977
‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
— Abraham Lincoln
I think this is going to cause a huge rift between pro gun states and the Feds,I'm not worried about it in Texas
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
I'd go back to my 1911s and Winchester 94s.
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper
"Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow.
End the cycle of hatred, don’t give them a tomorrow."
If it goes beneath 7rds ill just get a revolver chambered in .357mag or a Shield in .40 s&w.
I'd buy myself a shiny new 1911, but I would never turn in or sell my other "killer hi cap mags" I might not carry them for SD, but they would stay in my lock box in case I ever needed them.
That is an interesting question which quite frankly never occurred to me. Not trying to be difficult here but let me see... so someone illegitimetely tramples all over my rights and I'm suppose to pitch my caliber of choice along with all ammo and retool at significant expense to comply with a bunch of petty tyrants? I guess I'll have to respectfully decline.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations” – James Madison 1788