Interesting points, but I think everyone missed mine.
My reasons are more 'aggregate' than individual. IOW, if someone were to offer me a 'HiCap' (or, should we say... "NormCap"?) for the same price as a 10 round, I'd take it. I'm not saying they're a bad idea, I'm just saying that I don't see myself paying a premium for them, because some yo-yo legislators who don't understand reality made a stupid law, and resellers are soaking us, because of it.
Look, the question was philosophy, and I gave almost a half dozen reasons in support of my view. You don't have to agree with them, or even like them, but at least give me credit for doing my homework by substantiating my rationale. Take one, or take all, it's a Chinese menu of my rationale for why I didn't deny myself the P99 just because I can't get 16 round mags at a reasonable price.
At the end of the day, my main point still stands. I'm buying a gun, not gizmos or accessories. Is capacity an issue? Yes. But it's not the only determining factor.
But, in the spirit of friendly debate (since that's one of the many things we TFL'ers do so well), here are my thoughts:
It's that I find a pistol that has an inch-and-a-half of deadspace in the lower half of the grip to be silly.
Tam, I understand your frustration, but I think we can agree that it's the LAWS that are silly... not the gun, or its design, yes? Would you be happier if Walther just didn't make 16 round mags at all, and marketed the gun as a 10 round capacity?
Why carry a G17 with 10-rounders when I can get the same number of rounds of the same caliber in the much smaller G26?
Because longer barrels are better for different shooting scenarios than shorter, more concealable guns? Form follows function, each gun design has it's pros and cons, as you frequently remind us.
That's why I have a Kimber for target/competition, my Walther for home defense and target, and a Kahr MK9 for "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind".
The Walther isn't the Kahr, and the Kahr isn't the Walther... and I don't feel deprived or undergunned with either. I also have a 7 round magazine for the Kahr that I don't use... because it makes the gun larger, and less comfortable/concealable. The exact inverse scenario of why the Walther isn't made smaller.... it's good at what it does, the way it is.
Why doesn't Walther get on the stick and produce a P99 with its' grip shortened to reflect the actual number of rounds in it?
Maybe because the mechanisms in the P99 won't support it... maybe because they don't see a market for it... maybe because they don't want to redesign the gun and manufacturing facilities for only a small segment of the market... maybe it's because it would sacrifice the wonderful ergonomics... maybe, maybe, maybe. I'm not prepared to second guess any engineer...
particularly one from Germany. Again, form follows function... let's not forget that the gun is designed around the hand (hence the term 'HANDgun'), and how many bullets it holds are after that fact. Any shorter on the P99 handle, and it would be my MK9.
...a "neutered" magazine... [is] much like buying, say, a station wagon that has the cargo area sealed off...
Not entirely a direct comparison, since you can still fit 2/3 of the designed capacity (but more than a sedan) into the wagon. How about if you just like the wagon's features and comfort? And what if, one day, that partition in the wagon could be removed? However, you still managed to make my point for me. In your illustration, it's CAPACITY you're buying... hence the wagon. If it were simply TRANSPORTATION you were after, you'd buy what you LIKED, and if it holds more, then so be it...
I don't think I'd ever complain about having bullets left over.
Yes, there is a point to be made regarding 'margin for error', and stacking the odds in your favor. However, like anything else in life, there's a point of diminishing returns, and compromise in everything is part of the decision process. My compromise was buying a P99 with 10 round mags, that felt better and I liked more and could shoot more accurately than a Glock that I didn't like the trigger on, didn't like the feel of, didn't shoot as well, yet could hold up to 16.
Why not down load your mags to 3 or better yet, give yourself 2x what you need and go to 6.
Well, there
are people who carry derringers. Why don't I download? Answer: because I don't have to. I can fit 10 in there, without any inconvenience, or extra cost. And if the Hi-Cap ban sunsets, and 16 round magazines are affordable, then I'll probably buy one or two.
I'm guessing you are right 98 % of the time here. It's that 2% that becomes the problem. VERY RARE
Yeah, you're right, too. Yes, that 2% can happen, so there is something to be said for the philosophy of "better safe than sorry". But that same 2% can leave you in trouble if you didn't have a .45, and another 2% can leave you in trouble if you didn't have a .50, and another 2% can leave you in trouble if you didn't have a 12 gague... how heavy is a Howitzer?
Where does it all end? Nobody can be 100% prepared for every single scenario, and you can spend the rest of your days conjuring up imaginary scenarios. I'm just going by documentation of actual defensive scenarios, and made my decisions based on that. We here at TFL just prefer to stack the odds in our favor using a tradeoff of knowledge and convenience. Speaking just for myself, I'd rather have 9mm than .40, for my stated reasons. Those reasons may not be your reasons, and that's cool with me... I respect your decision... and it's your money!
I guess I'd say I don't need anymore than what I can carry
This isn't a post-apocolyptic comment, but one motivated by experience. I've been at ranges where they didn't have 40 available, but had 9mm coming out of their ears. Also, one has a greater variety of bullet TYPE choice for 9mm (EFMJ, SXT, Frangible... and so on), and of course, there's the cost factor of keeping in practice. Besides... some of have LONGER belts than others, in our old age, therefore can carry more on them.
My biggest gripe is altering the gun's intended design.
Ok, and that's a fair point, However, I tend to believe this is more about our frustration with stupid laws, than about any real practical benefit.
Any more cylinders need to be plugged and engines rewired to run on just the 4. This will slow us down, stop wasting gas, lower pollution, etc etc etc.
Well, this is a red herring, but let's go with it anyway. I disagree. I used to have a car that had a high-performance 4 cylinder motor that outperformed its 6 cylinder sibling in the same vehicle chassis and body... so much for 'slowing down'. And not wasting gas and improving the environment is a good thing, isn't it? Point: everything is a tradeoff.
Getting back to my earlier point, let's be sure we're seperating our frustration with legal issues, from what we seem to be attributing to manufacturer design flaws. Ask yourself what your opinion would be if Walther (or any other maker) only designed the gun from the ground up, with a 10 round capacity. That would take the 'intended' design out of the scenario, and hopefully get you thinking along a different tangent.
Regards to all,
RK
I wonder if we shoot differently if we are limited in number of rounds? Probably not, but in the odd case that we might want to suppress a BG from shooting down a hallway while your loved one(s) cross the hall to safety.... Ok, not likely. I guess I think of paintball scenarios where one guy pins another so his partner can redeploy. Whatever the reason, I don't think I'd ever complain about having bullets left over. 