If limited to 10 rounds, what do you carry?

[BC38]

Is anyone else noticing the seeming inconsistency between the majority "no problem with a reinstated 10-round mag limitation" opinions being voiced here and another thread that's running currently in which 3 out of 4 members stated that they carry at least one spare magazine? Should that confuse me or not? Is it a contradiction or an accommodation?

Yes, I know some said they carry a spare magazine because the magazine in the gun could fail... ... but I think most are carrying a spare magazine because it offers more total rounds.

Can someone help me to understand.

Sure.

Even though I live in a state with no mag restrictions (yet), I still can't carry 21 rounds of 9mm in a gun that I can put in my pocket.

Even a high cap 9mm that holds 15 or 16 in the mag doesn't add up to as many total rounds without a second mag, and isn't nearly as concealable.

With my P365 and a second 10-round mag I can carry 21 rounds with the gun in one pocket and a spare magazine in another.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Is anyone else noticing the seeming inconsistency between the majority "no problem with a reinstated 10-round mag limitation" opinions being voiced here and another thread that's running currently in which 3 out of 4 members stated that they carry at least one spare magazine? Should that confuse me or not? Is it a contradiction or an accommodation?

Yes, I know some said they carry a spare magazine because the magazine in the gun could fail... ... but I think most are carrying a spare magazine because it offers more total rounds.

Can someone help me to understand.

I'm not in favor of mag limitations for political reasons.

I'm totally OK with 9 rounds in a pistol and no spare mag. From mostly Active Self Protection videos I've watched, as a civilian if you can't do it with 9, you're done. You won't get a chance to reload until after it's all done.

 

[BAM-BAM]

Is anyone else noticing the seeming inconsistency between the majority "no problem with a reinstated 10-round mag limitation" opinions being voiced here ..............

Can someone help me to understand.

Not going to war....... in my world EDC doesn't require a ultra-hicap-mag........

but don't mess with my right to have the option................

I'm good with my 3913 at 7+1 and one or two extra mags..... so far haven't needed my gun in my "Burb of the Burgh"

That said ...... don't piss me off!!!!

 

[Fastbolt]

Is anyone else noticing the seeming inconsistency between the majority "no problem with a reinstated 10-round mag limitation" opinions being voiced here and another thread that's running currently in which 3 out of 4 members stated that they carry at least one spare magazine? Should that confuse me or not? Is it a contradiction or an accommodation?

Yes, I know some said they carry a spare magazine because the magazine in the gun could fail... ... but I think most are carrying a spare magazine because it offers more total rounds.

Can someone help me to understand.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Perhaps you're conflating some different viewpoints that may not necessarily belong together in the minds of some others.

Me, for example ...

I'd hope to see the CA mag capacity law overturned in the pending en banc hearing in the 9th. Then, next year I want to see the SC take up the waiting case challenge against CA's new gun Roster and declare it unconstitutional (and take the microstamping law with it).

Why? Not because I want to add any hi-cap pistols to my safe. Just because I think it would be the right thing to do for CA's people.

Do I carry a speedstrip or a spare magazine? Sure. Is it because of having "extra" ammunition on hand? Sure. Kinda.

On the other hand, that spare mag I carry may only have 6rds in it. Maybe 12rds, for the only hi-cap pistol I own (unless it's a 10rd mag for it) ... and maybe only 7rds ... or 8rds ... or 9rds. Maybe even 10rds.

So, I'm apparently not all that overly concerned about the "extra rounds" if I'm willing to carry a spare 6rds, instead of a pair of 6rd spare mags.

So why, mostly? Because I've seen a primary mag in an occasional pistol experience a mag-related problem in fast and dynamic conditions.

I've also seen a primary mag experience a problem due to an unrecognized issue, like a floorplate that was unknowingly damaged, compromising the integrity of the mag and its function.

I've also seen a mag get unintentionally dropped if the mag catch gets operated during a chaotic moment.

So, being able to address these mag-involved issues by having a spare mag close at hand can be downright handy ... even if not specifically for the "extra capacity".

All of that said, do I ever not carry a spare mag? Sure.

Consistent? For my way of thinking, yes, but then it has more to do with the "consistency" of listening to my inner voice and experience guiding me for deciding on a priority that may have changed since last time. And may change yet again the next time.

I don't see ammo capacity being the "answer" to all gun problems any more than I see guns being the "answer" to all problems.

Spare ammunition is handy if you need spare ammunition.

A spare magazine - or magazines - may be handy if you need them ... and/or the ammunition they may contain.

Then again, all the magazines and ammunition someone may be able to trundle around with on their person may not prove particularly helpful.

Suit yourself. You're the one who has to try and live with the consequences of your decision.

I'm no longer having to consider the potential of invoking peace officer powers off-duty and inserting myself into the middle of some fracas. Trouble is going to have to work harder to find me, because I'm no longer going to be looking to find it. (And I still have to keep my career-honed "radar" looking for trouble on the horizon over which I may trip ).

No right or wrong "answer" ... unless you carry a gun for your employment and are given the "answer" by your employer.

 

[TTSH]

Not going to war....... in my world EDC doesn't require a ultra-hicap-mag.......

No offense Bam, but this is the second time someone has called anything over 10 rounds a super-duper-maga-high-killer-capacity magazine only suitable for a war zone city in Iraq.

But wait. My 11-round 4006 magazines are... wait for it... high capacity feeding devices in my loony moonbat state and soon the whole country maybe. Welcome all of you to Massachusetts!

Same with my 12-round 6900-series magazines.

Mine are pre-bans, of course... but that won't matter for very much longer I fear.

 

[TTSH]

I don't see ammo capacity being the "answer" to all gun problems any more than I see guns being the "answer" to all problems.

Spare ammunition is handy if you need spare ammunition.

A spare magazine - or magazines - may be handy if you need them ... and/or the ammunition they may contain.

Let me pose the question a slightly different way: For all the folks who say they would have no problem with reinstitution of the 10-round mag capacity limitation (for both handguns and long guns incidentally)... would you all be okay if instead a law was passed to limit you to 10-rounds in total on your person? Isn't that the real goal of the anti-2A folks after all? To limit what you can carry? So far, I don't think the antis have thought too much about spare magazines.

I admit that I'm making my point rather poorly. Either ammo carry quantity matters or it doesn't. Yes, sometimes you don't need it and maybe other times you do. I'm not sure those who are readily willing to give up their (11+up round) magazines have fully thought that through.

 

[Fastbolt]

Let me pose the question a slightly different way: For all the folks who say they would have no problem with reinstitution of the 10-round mag capacity limitation (for both handguns and long guns incidentally)... would you all be okay if instead a law was passed to limit you to 10-rounds in total on your person? ...

I admit that I'm making my point rather poorly. Either ammo carry quantity matters or it doesn't. Yes, sometimes you don't need it and maybe other times you do. I'm not sure those who are readily willing to give up their (11+up round) magazines have fully thought that through.

I think you're trying to frame something as an absolute, when it's probably more of a variable spot on the curve, or just one of many circles making up a Venn Diagram.

Trying to re-frame the question about magazine capacity to being the number of magazines someone might be permitted to carry on their person, is ... awkward.

Might as well ask what if "they" made a law that only permitted someone to carry an Even number of rounds in their magazines instead of an Odd number of rounds.

I never said I didn't "have a problem" with a new federal 10rd magazine capacity restriction. On the contrary, I'm opposed to arbitrary restrictions. What's with 10rds, anyway? Someone liked a nice round number? Someone realized they had 10 fingers on their hands? Why not 9rds? Or 11rds? (NY tried their unusual magazine restriction, right?)

What if "they" passed a law that require everyone to carry their firearms on their off-side, meaning the opposite side of their dominant hand?

How many gallons of gasoline may I have in my veh's?

Either ammo carry quantity matters or it doesn't.

Careful trying to apply absolute thinking to such a finite influence.

Either accuracy matters or it doesn't.

Either skill matters or it doesn't.

Either knowledge of the laws matter or it doesn't.

Either caliber matters or it doesn't.

Either the make/model of gun matters or it doesn't.

Obviously, magazine capacity seems like an important matter to you. To me? Not so much. However, while I don't have any particular wish to buy, carry and use most hi-cap pistols (yes, we called them that before anyone even dreamed of magazine capacity restrictions ), neither do I favor incremental over-reach of laws that increasingly fail to tread lightly upon matters of individual rights.

Obviously, the stated ultimate goal of most of the ardently vocal "anti-2nd/anti-gun" folks is to prohibit Americans from owning and possessing guns. If they could, I suspect they'd really prefer to bypass all the magazine restrictions and right to complete gun restriction. More than a few politicians have already said so, and more are seemingly becoming brave enough to finally voice their support of the idea.

 

[TTSH]

What if "they" passed a law that require everyone to carry their firearms on their off-side, meaning the opposite side of their dominant hand?

How many gallons of gasoline may I have in my veh's?

You win. I give up.

 

[Muss Muggins]

That's silly . . .

I think you're trying to frame something as an absolute, when it's probably more of a variable spot on the curve, or just one of many circles making up a Venn Diagram.

Trying to re-frame the question about magazine capacity to being the number of magazines someone might be permitted to carry on their person, is ... awkward.

Might as well ask what if "they" made a law that only permitted someone to carry an Even number of rounds in their magazines instead of an Odd number of rounds.

I never said I didn't "have a problem" with a new federal 10rd magazine capacity restriction. On the contrary, I'm opposed to arbitrary restrictions. What's with 10rds, anyway? Someone liked a nice round number? Someone realized they had 10 fingers on their hands? Why not 9rds? Or 11rds? (NY tried their unusual magazine restriction, right?)

What if "they" passed a law that require everyone to carry their firearms on their off-side, meaning the opposite side of their dominant hand?

How many gallons of gasoline may I have in my veh's?

 

[gamboolman]

Same as everyday, G-26 OWB with untucked shirt

Spare mag will normally be 17 rd

But alot of times I do carry a 10 rd spare mag on my belt as it is obviously smaller and to be honest, I prefer the spare mag on my belt vs pocket.

If I am having to dress up and have tucked in shirt then will use Tucker Cover Up and carry spare mag in pocket.

 

[junglefighter]

As much as I and many others like semi-autos for CCW, everyone needs a good revolver.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

5" 629 Classic (full-underlug) .44mag. It's my EDC, from pajamas-off until pajamas_on. In a homemade under-the-shirt vertical shoulder rig.

 

[pistolpete10]

I'm curious what folks who live in states with restrictions on magazine capacity are carrying or otherwise what folks would carry should they move into a state with said restrictions.

I've been considering this lately and I've narrowed it down to either a Smith & Wesson M&P40 Compact 1.0 or an M&P45 Shield, but I'm curious what some other options might be.

What do you or would you carry?

Two 642s?????????

 

[otis24]

Just sold my Sig P365XL (12 round). Replacement is a Kahr K9, 9mm. It came with 3 seven round magazines.

I have four 13 round magazines for my Browning Hi Power. The mags were recently lost in a boating accident! I'm sure that they will be recovered....in about four years. I purchased two Mecgar 10 round magazines as a replacement.

 

[message_board_expert]

In reply to Muss Muggins earlier today regarding constitutionality of gun laws, local and state governments are unable to get rulings that cannot get past the burden of strict scrutiny once a case goes to SCOTUS. Not to mention they can't afford it. Thanks for the reply. It is a never-ending topic of contemplation.

 

[Ranger514]

Open Carry: Sig 1911 Tacops .45 ACP, or 686+
Concealed Carry: Sig P239 or P225 A-1 semi-autos; 642 PC or 66-3 snubby revolvers
I lways carry a spare reload.

 

[lrrifleman]

Is anyone else noticing the seeming inconsistency between the majority "no problem with a reinstated 10-round mag limitation" opinions being voiced here and another thread that's running currently in which 3 out of 4 members stated that they carry at least one spare magazine? Should that confuse me or not? Is it a contradiction or an accommodation?

Yes, I know some said they carry a spare magazine because the magazine in the gun could fail... ... but I think most are carrying a spare magazine because it offers more total rounds.

Can someone help me to understand.

TTSH, I think that you may be referring to my survey question about how many magazines people carry.

Since that survey is finding itself in this thread, let me provide some background that led to my survey question. Prior to 21 May 2007, I was whole, I could both walk and run, and I had full use of both arms. I was self confident in most situations. In the blink of an eye, all of that changed. Now disabled, I feel vulnerable with only one good limb and the need to provide security for my children. Because of how I now walk, cane, limp, visible braces and a scarred leg, I feel like there is a neon sign over me identifying me as a potential victim. Am I paranoid? No. Am I insecure? Better believe it!

Now, we have "peaceful protesters" roaming in packs like wolves, looking to make a statement. Honestly, I don't think I would be as apprehensive if I faced a traditional one-on-one threat, but today, wandering packs appear to strike out at anyone and everyone. Looking at the situation that Kyle Rittenhouse found himself in, those "peaceful protesters" didn't scatter like roaches in the light, as many here suggest.

 

[fredj338]

Is anyone else noticing the seeming inconsistency between the majority "no problem with a reinstated 10-round mag limitation" opinions being voiced here and another thread that's running currently in which 3 out of 4 members stated that they carry at least one spare magazine? Should that confuse me or not? Is it a contradiction or an accommodation?

Yes, I know some said they carry a spare magazine because the magazine in the gun could fail... ... but I think most are carrying a spare magazine because it offers more total rounds.

Can someone help me to understand.

Not sure I understand the confusion. If I carryba semi I like to also carry a spare mag, 10 or 15. I jave seen carastrophic mag failures on the range. No reason to think that couldnt hapoen in yoyr carry gun. Plud extea rds are nice to have if something really goes bad.

 

[fredj338]

Now, we have "peaceful protesters" roaming in packs like wolves, looking to make a statement. Honestly, I don't think I would be as apprehensive if I faced a traditional one-on-one threat, but today, wandering packs appear to strike out at anyone and everyone. Looking at the situation that Kyle Rittenhouse found himself in, those "peaceful protesters" didn't scatter like roaches in the light, as many here suggest.

Because many bad guys today arent really afraid of guns. In a group, even less so. So yes, imo, I want more than 5rds a rabbits foot in my pocket.

 

[fredj338]

Pardon my boldness, kind sir. May I interject?

Notice to newbies: the Second Amendment gives me 2 rights: the right to keep, and, bear arms. Because of those rights, I don't need a government "permit" to carry a gun. Neither do you.



--------

Ah but you do. 2A has been regulated since handguns were invented. Like many 2A idelogues, you talk a good game but get caught in someplace like NYC, you are going to jail, do not pass go & no $200.