Importance of Different Standard Capacity Magazines

[Gun1]

Here in California most people can't have magazines that hold over 10 rounds, but in all other states that can, how important is having an extra couple rounds? I'm wondering because the new .30 carry caliber is making headlines because it's able to offer about 2 extra rounds in the same sized gun. Similarly, police departments keep mentioning the added magazine capability in a same sized gun for the Glock 17 vs the Glock 22 as a reason for switching to 9mm; I get the less recoil part, but they always mention getting more magazine capacity in a same sized gun and I'm starting to wonder if 2 rounds can really make that much if a difference? Also, size and recoil aside, a Glock 21 holds 13 rounds and a Glock 19 holds 15, only 2 more. However, the G19 holding more rounds is always mentioned, but it only holds 2 more rounds. Is 2 more rounds really that important?

[BillyMays]

If for some reason you used an entire mag and were unable to stop the threat then yes, you would find ANY number of extra rounds very important!

In one example you cited, G17 vs G22, there is more at play then just capacity. .40 vs 9mm- some may disagree but I generally think the stopping power is comparable. If you consider the stopping power the same, then having two extra rounds is basically "free" and who could argue with that?

My issue with the 10-round mag limit in CA has nothing to do with whether I need those extra two rounds or not. I consider 10 rounds sufficient for most situations and would be fine carrying a handgun with less than that for daily protection. My real issue is the government sticking it's nose into 2A rights and telling me "you don't need that". Why stop at 10? Why not 8? 5? Single-shot? Frankly, mags holding more than 10 rounds are in common use all around the country and therefore the government shouldn't be able to ban them under existing case law, yet here we are with the ban remaining for years and years.

[Gravelman]

Magazine capacity regulations are a direct infringement on the 2nd amendment, so they are fundamentally wrong. As to how important additional rounds are, they don’t matter until they do, it’s an individual decision. Sometimes I’m good with 6, sometimes I would choose 15+ if the government would stop fiddling with the constitution. Multiple magazines are always an option, but it complicates carrying a bit.

[Kokopelli]

10 round magazine plus 1 in the chamber = 11.

[tomrkba]

Here in California most people can't have magazines that hold over 10 rounds, but in all other states that can, how important is having an extra couple rounds? I'm wondering because the new .30 carry caliber is making headlines because it's able to offer about 2 extra rounds in the same sized gun. Similarly, police departments keep mentioning the added magazine capability in a same sized gun for the Glock 17 vs the Glock 22 as a reason for switching to 9mm; I get the less recoil part, but they always mention getting more magazine capacity in a same sized gun and I'm starting to wonder if 2 rounds can really make that much if a difference? Also, size and recoil aside, a Glock 21 holds 13 rounds and a Glock 19 holds 15, only 2 more. However, the G19 holding more rounds is always mentioned, but it only holds 2 more rounds. Is 2 more rounds really that important?

Asked by a person who has never been in a gun fight!

Try this out: go to a range and setup a moving target. Shoot it while you are moving (do multiple runs and try different patterns as the target moves left and right). How well do you do with a full mag? How many hits? Now download your gun to six rounds total. How long does it last?

You will be shocked.

*******

New York successfully implemented a 10 round limit awhile ago. They then successfully reduced it to seven rounds until the state courts ruled that 10 is as low as they can go. One court ruling is all that stands between a capacity of 10 and 1.

Perhaps five is a good limit? After all, assault revolvers are a serious issue.

[rareair]

[the_tunaman]

Thread title fail… should read “Importance of Standard Capacity Magazines”.

[jmpeal]

It should be my decision. Sometimes I carry 8 in my G43 or do 13 rounds in my G26.
I can even bring a back up 17 rounder. Regardless, I should not be told how many rounds is enough to defend myself. Then with rifles, a big gap from 10 rounds to 30 rounds.

[Gun1]

I believe my question was misunderstood by some. I'm just wondering if +2 rounds really can make a difference, in reference to an HK USP or Sig 226 that have 15 round mags vs. something like a Glock 17 or Springfield XD with 17 round mags, so I'm wondering how much real difference +2 rounds can make in a gunfight. This was most definitely never about whether magazines should be capped by the gov't. I'm a firm believer in a free America and therefore everyone should be able to make their own decisions without any gov't telling you what you can and can't do, as long as you're not committing a direct crime against someone else the gov't has no business meddling in your decisions.

[Horsewright]

There was a time when a guy felt pretty well armed when he was carrying around a Smith J Frame with five rounds. It was about the biggest bang in the smallest package available. Now there are lots of options that put that round count to shame. Can two extra rounds be important? Absolutely! Statistically how often does 17 rounds make the difference over 15? So seldom that it is almost statistically insignificant. But it has happened and will again. But good hits still count for more than lots of misses, training, training, training.

[Kyle1886]

Yes two rounds can make a difference.

One aggressor, two or maybe a third. It's not always one on one.

...and I've been know to not hit what might be vital spot to make an instant "kill". Not all hits are a stopper.

If I should not have an extra mag on me at the time, I'd prefer not to re-holster an empty firearm.

Back to, two is one; one is none: a pair and a spare.

Respectfully
Kyle

[Old Flash]

Yep.

[TMB 1]

Read what Judge Benitez said about it. He covered it pretty good.

[IVC]

C'mon guys, the OP is not advocating for limits, he's asking about the value of the extra rounds. That's a legitimate question, especially since many of us carry on occasion a subcompact with less than 10 rounds.

The extra rounds are important but not as critical for most encounters that majority of us are likely to encounter. Average shooting is a handful or rounds, so we do know how many are usually used. You will also notice that no agency switches to a new platform just to gain a round or three. There are expenses associated with the move and there are more important factors to consider than sheer capacity.

With that said, ten rounds is problematic for home defense where you can encounter multiple persons and you might be defending for a longer period of time. Even in the open, if you're attacked by a group (which happens) you might find the extra rounds more than useful. There is no need to be limited by an artificial government decree if your choice is to carry more. Just remember that if you carry a smaller gun, it's a tradeoff you're willing to make without anyone forcing you.

Government limit on the number of rounds is unconstitutional and we should be soon (enough) getting a SCOTUS ruling to that extent. It's pointless to argue with the antis about limits, we just need to get to the point where we can dismiss them with simply "you can't limit us, it's unconstitutional, we don't care about your deer hunting argument." Gay people no longer have to explain why they "need" anything, the precedent was set and they are free to act any way they want, while others are free to discuss morality of it all. Everyone wins.

[plumbum]

An extra two rounds could be the difference between life and death? Kinda situational.
Personally I tend to feel comfortable with a 5 shot revolver, but I understand the limitations and know that it is not always the best choice.