How did the 1994 AWB affect peoples choices in calibers? If you were a shooter in this time frame was your handgun choices for caliber and capacity taken into account for your chosen carry gun?

My first gun was a G23. I didn’t become a gun owner till the ban was in effect and it did impact my choices. When it came to a G19 vs G23 I chose the more powerful caliber because the capacity was the same. If there was plenty of full cap mags available I probably would have chosen the G19.

In states that have a mag ban. Are you seeing a resurgence of 40 in popularity as there are limits to mag capacity? I’d rather have 10 rds of 45+p in a HK USPc 45 than a 10rd 9mm.

Did the mag ban add innovation into the 1911 as it was already lower capacity?

Do you hoard mags because you lived through the 1994-2004 AWB?

I think it really brought 45s back into the game. When your choice was 15 vs 7, 15 wins easy. But 10 vs 7 is a lot closer.

I bought and carried a Kahr MK9 during the AWB, and a long time after its sunset. Smallish caliber, small capacity.

I keep a stash of mags for large capacity guns today, but nothing excessive.

Why not 10 rounds of 10mm rather than 40S&W?

Go big or go home

Or 460 Rowland instead of 45acp.

I own a 460R and it’s fun but it’s a niche caliber. I know someone who carried one during the AWB as well. The10mm well, It’s an option but I left out CrossFit and Vegans from the consideration.

Jokes aside. The 10mm may have gotten a boost from the AWB as in 1911 form it kept it near 10rd still. There wasnt a lot of 10mm options. 460 was its own beast and with large comps was a huge gun to carry. I do like mine and it’s fun to shoot. I have used it as a CCW before but it’s really too big large of a gun. It’s like trying to CCW a DE 44/50.

I got into guns reading magazines around 1990 and owned my first around 91-92 Ruger P85 15+1 9mm

Traded it off 6 months or so later for a Glock 22 15+1 .40 and never looked back.

.40 was touted as a significant improvement and it may have been given bullet designs of the time.

Recoil was never an issue for me. Loved 1911s in .45 and I still own a few. Got into LE in 97 and duty gun was the G22.

First year or so we carried 165gr Fed Hydra Shok but quickly switched to 165gr Federal Tactical bonded ammo.

On paper that round was nothing special but we had a ton of OIS with it and it performed outstanding

I was in my first fatal OIS in 2004 with .40 carrying a personally owned G23 working UC

The G23 was ideal for me during that time at 13+1 and I’ve owned 5-6 of them over the years putting several thousand rounds a year on them.

As far as hoarding mags… absolutely.

40 produces wounds indistinguishable  from 9mm. I don't think it makes sense under any circumstances.

Its kind of all over the place. Back in the 90s I think that the 1911 got  a new lease on life thanks to the ban and there weren't a lot of smaller guns in larger calibers on the market, except for the smaller Glock models.
I talk to some of my old customers about their current buying habits and I'm hearing that some are going towards the smaller Glock 10 MMs. Some are sticking with 45 ACP. Not many are picking up 40 S & W since most of the local police agencies have shifted to 9 mm in recent years. Some are sticking with the big guns and resigning themselves to being limited to 10 rounds.

Yeah go with 45acp during the ban, that or just buy pre-ban expensive high capacity mags. I bought a Beretta 92FS during that time. Picked up some pre-ban 15rd mags and tossed the 10rd mags it came with. And yes I have bought many more mags since the expiration of the Clinton ban. All that ban did was make things more expensive.

props Gunslinger.

i carry a 9mm because it's hard to say no to 18 rounds on tap

The pistol I keep in my office is a .45 acp with ashtray hollowpoints .

I figure if it's inside my wire I want the biggest hole I can put in them while I'm on my way to getting a rifle

For yers we had the 9mm vs 45 wars. "I get 15/17/more 9mm!"  . "No, I get 7+1 Bigass .45's, cuz St. John Moses Browning didn't make a .46"

With the AWB, it sort of neutered the 9mm camp.  At that time, ammo technology wasn't what it is today, and there were no Federal HST or Speer Gold Dots.  It was usually take teh same old bullet, and try to drive it faster.  Some State Agencies issued +p+ 115 loads....

If I've only got 10+1 rounds, 9mm of that era was NOT what I wanted.  My choice was more "do I go 7+1 of .45 or go to .40 and get one or two more?".

In my case, it was a Glock 27 in .40.  THE (and I meant "THE") load then was Cor-Bon 135 JHP.  Again, take the same old bullet and try to drive it faster.  A Nosler 135 JHP over a max load of Bluedot in that short little 40 was IMPRESSIVE.  Fireballs about a yard across...

Magazine capacities were, in my opinion, a significant contributing factor in handgun selection.  And the Ban capacity mags really made larger rounds more attractive.

Ammo tech has improved wildly.  One could argue that any technology that made 9x19 more effective would ALSO make 40, 45 more effective too.  But undoubtedly stuff like HST, Ranger and Gold Dot has helped improve the current success of 9x19.

The perception of crime has changed too.  The "anticipated" crime scenario was often the mugger.  A solo antagonist.  The thinking of the time was often "well, its a caliber tested on HORSES:  one or two rounds of 45 can effectively deal with that".  Now, we are witnessing more group crime activities....  Swarming by 6,8 10 urban youths.  Flash mobs.  etc.   With multiple targets now, larger magazine capacities are becoming more desirable....

This is minor, but I think some shooting sports like IDPA, Practical Pistol, etc are bringing people in and having them try the sport.  One thing becomes REALLY apparent in a BIG hurry:  Mag changes suck.  Yeah, you can get good at it.  But a pistol that holds 16 and needs no mag swap is blazing fast compared to a pistol that hold 8 and needs a change mid string

Mediocre 9mm ammo and mag cap limits hurt 9mm and helps bigger bore sales.  Now, with no mag limits, and better ammo, 9x19 is the most popular

Im still in New York, and still have a mag cap limit.  I see a LOT of Glock 48s here.  The thinking:  Why carry a neutered G19 with 10 rounds when I can carry a G48 with the same 10 rounds.

I had a Glock 19 & 23 and standard capacity mags during the asinine AWB but usually carried a Glock 26/27/33.

Point of impact, split times, and precision matter more than caliber.  If we went back to the 90s with today's guns and more importantly, ammo, I would have no issue with an STI Trojan or Springfield 9mm 1911 and an adequate number of 10 round magazines.  

When I could see irons clearly there was little to no difference in my match performance between the Trojan in single stack division and a Shadow 2 in production division.

Always Indian not arrow.

I either carry 1911s or 6 shot revolvers in .357 mag or 45 colt.

The capacity argument is overblown

If you are in the Capacity camp, then 30 Super Carry is better than 9mm for the same reasons you think 9 is better than .40.

30SC, 9mm, 357 Sig and .40S&W all have the same cartridge length, so will all fit the same pistol frame.

I will never own a 9mm.  Prefer .40, but since Shield Plus doesn't come in .40, got a 30SC.
Won't own a Glock either.

All the ban accomplished was a massive amount of hand gun innovation, basically created full power sub compact pistols.

FPNI. Definitely pushed me to .45 when you’ve only got 10 rounds.

It's important to remember that 9mm being on par with .40/45 is a result of newer bullet designs that did not exist during the AWB.

Even still, .40 tends to outperform 9mm in defeating barriers.

When you're only getting another round or two in a magazine, you are left primarily with a tradeoff between terminal ballistic performance and recoil management.

Well stated.
Keep in mind that bullet design improvement also apply to 30SC, .40 & .45.
9mm would not pass the old FBI standard protocol.  They changed the standard so 9mm would be (barely) acceptable.

The FBI had an agenda.  9mm had better capacity, lower recoil, faster followup and better scores for slightly built agents.  Those factors now outweigh actual cartridge performance though barriers, etc.

If you follow that same logic, then 30SC is better than 9.  Nearly same performance but more mag capacity.  30SC is also magnum rated at 50K psi chamber pressure, which is higher than 9mm +P+.

don't forget revolvers changed too.
went from 6 shots all the way up to 9 shot 357 revolvers just because why not if you are limited to 10, a 9 round 357 mag isn't that bad a choice.
but I do remember picking 40 cal at the time specifically due to the idea it was a better stopper than 9mm at the time and 7 rounds of 45 wasn't ideal.
I don't know when 8 round 1911 mags came in to play, but that probably couldn't be too far off. so it is 9 rounds of 45 vs 10 rds of 9mm isn't much of a choice.

9 in .45, 10 in .40, and 11 in 9mm if you're counting +1s.

Then again I'm not really sure they had 9mm 1911s figured out at that point (I was 13 when the AWB expired) so I wonder if .38 Super became more popular during the ban.



I believe .45 still has some issues with barriers, but you are absolutely correct that all of the arguments made in favor of 9mm over .40/.45 also apply for .30SC compared to 9mm-with the main downsides being ammo cost and availability, and availability of pistols chambered for it.

One shot of 45-70 wins the pistol caliber/capacity discussion!

.40 and 9mm fit in the same size small frame gun. 10mm and 45 use a large frame semi. Lots of small frame 9mm and 40 compact guns were developed during the ban.
I’ve never had a problem with.40, if I was limited to 10 rounds that’s probably what I would go with.
But nowadays I have at least 10 mags per pistol.

Curious what sort of velocity you'd get out of that 4.25" barrel, considering .45-70 was originally fielded for a rifle with a 32.5" barrel and tends to benefit greatly from longer barrels.

probably 700 fps

If you’re forced to have fewer rounds, you might as well up the power of each round of you can still shoot well with it.

I would expect 1911 and other single-stack guns to gain in popularity for people that carry full size. And for people that still want to carry 9mm midsize slim style guns like the Kahr P9 and Glock 48 would become pretty popular… they’re pretty much single stack Glock 19s with 9-10 rounds.

Of course people carrying p365 and the like probably go on like nothing happened.

Same. I've got one in the back of the safe from the AWB days, but can't remember the last time I shot it.

PITA inspecting headstamps for 45 vs 460 when I had both at the range.

To answer the initial question, I was a 45 / 1911 guy all through the AWB.  What switched me to 9mm Glocks was a combination of greater capacity and I discovered to my shame, that I was more accurate with the Glock.

Also, autocorrect on the phone keeps trying to change "Glock" to "Block", which I suppose is acceptable.

Does anybody actually make a gun designed from the ground up to leverage the .30SC though… thinner slides and either full sized with ridiculous flush-fit capacity, G19ish midsize with 20rnd mag, or a pocketable gun getting 12+ rounds.

Most of the .30SC guns are just rechambered 9mm guns. Which is about as dumb as taking a .45-sized gun and just rechambering it for 9mm.

9mm - 45 all kinda suck. Go shoot a deer or coyote with them. It doesn't matter which one you use.

This was the perfect carry gun during the Clinton AWB era
Attached File

I thought we covered this before OP?🤦🏻‍♂️ Lesser caliber rounds than 45acp were given higher capacity, to make up for their inadequacy in the stopping department, hence 15+rds for 9mm, 40sw, 10mm, etc...
One more time :
Pistol=45acp
Revolver=357/44mag

when applied to the diameter of a hole, penetrating both sides, causing hemorrhaging at both sides; no, the difference isn't really significant

I don't think a trauma surgeon cares whether it's a 9mm or a 45ACP hollowpoint. Capacity is significant. Attached File

I think ammo tech improvement is more of a benefit for 9mm because it has allowed that caliber to consistently achieve proper expansion and penetration where it might have struggled before.  The "bigger" handgun calibers didn't struggle as much with previous generation ammo, so they were already as effective as a reasonable autoloading handgun caliber could be.  If an expanded 9mm hollowpoint through a human heart causes an instant loss of blood pressure, no additional damage from a bigger bullet is going make the target's brain run out of oxygen faster.  We see this in hunting as well where a big magnum might do more damage to the vitals, but unless it hits the spine or something, the deer can still run just as far as it would if shot with 5.56 in the same location.

That said, I think one advantage of .40 in particular is that just about every JHP round made in that caliber works.  You can't say the same for 9mm.  I'm gonna keep carrying 124gr HST as long as I have it, but if HST or a proven suitable 9mm replacement isn't available, I'll switch to one of my .40 guns and run whatever JHP I can get.

I also think an argument could be made for hot 357mag or faster rounds doing more damage in marginal hits on extremities since a hit to the leg or arm that causes your attacker to immediately fall on his ass or not be able to hold his weapon up anymore could win the fight.

Er, no.
The original series of FBI tests disqualified all 9mm duty loads extant.
This prompted ammo companies to first, adopt the FBI's testing protocols(a first in the industry) and then begin designing bullets that would pass. They did so with a year or so, first with the Winchester Match Grade 147 subsonic(that had been specifically designed for the SEALs for use in their MP5SD to give them headshot accuracy at extended ranges) and then a plethora of bonded designs.
By the late 1990s, all manufacturers had multiple duty loads that passed all the FBI Protocol tests.

In the ensuing decades several things began to clarify: across many shootings the actual performance difference between all service calibers was indistinguishable. This was apparent in both autopsies, witness reports and then surveillance video.
If the bullet penetrated vitals and upset enough(1.5x diameter is the minimum standard) to cut a ragged hole-you don't want "icepick" holes either, then that was enough. The difference between a .75 caliber expanded bullet and a .65 caliber(that any 9mm could achieve) that penetrated 12-18 inches in Ordnance gelatin simply did not produce an actual difference in blood loss that mattered, especially in the compressed time frames of pistol fights. In the body, arteries pinch off, the mass of surrounding tissue slows blood loss and there's simply not enough of a hole to cause catastrophic blood loss that forces incapacitation. A man with his throat cut from ear to ear can still function for several seconds, long enough to empty a magazine, and no pistol bullet does that much damage.

.40 and .45 had their own issues. The .40 was very hard on guns, especially Glocks, and .45s were substantially bigger in the grip.
Both calibers were substantially more expensive in ammo costs.
And it was clear that 9mm was measurably easier for officers and agents to be trained and qualified on. While you may be better and faster with a .45 than I am with a 9mm, you aren't as accurate and fast as you are with a 9mm.
That adds up, and it matters. So it's not just for girly men.

Over time, the focus on the individual cartridges wounding power began to diminish in significance to placement. That was the factor that produced the most effect. Lip service was always paid to it, but it was always with the caveat that the larger caliber was needed to properly service the affected vital zone, especially when barriers were factored in.
Once gunfight videos became prolific, it became clear that the more controllable the gun was in rapid fire, the more likely it was that penetrating hits to the vitals would be achieved.
The capacity issue is really of secondary concern. With rare exceptions, police gunfights are over in under 10 rounds*. When they go longer, it's usually because of the most outlier Black Swan events, or more commonly just irresponsibly spraying the neighborhood.

For CCW incidents, the number of rounds fired is much lower, simply due to to having no requirement to pursue, subdue and arrest.

Her's a link to a 1990 article on the FBI Protocol.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/16/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/


* A lot of ideas about round counts and ranges over the years came from two primary sources: The FBI annual summary of officers killed and the NYPD SOP-9.
The FBI report was not really applicable because it didn't analyze gunfights, it analyzed murders. Most of the officers killed by homicide were the victims of ambushes at close range. Which is cautionary, but not indicative of the circumstances of a gunfight.
The SOP-9 was a deeply flawed document that was referred to colloquially as a "gunfight" report, when in fact it was a "firearms discharge summary". All discharges of an NYPD firearm was included in the "money shot" number that was commonly quoted.
So, that included negligent discharges at home cleaning the gun, suicides using the departments guns, shots fired at dogs, shots fired at unarmed suspects and shootings that involved multiple officers. So a single incident where four officers fired two shots each would be an eight shot incident.
Worse, the initial discharge reports were either filled out by the officer or his supervisor immediately in the aftermath as part of the requirement to file an exhaustive account to the Chief by the next day. So these were not forensic data, they were hastily guessed at ranges, lighting conditions, suspect movement, officer firing positions, did the officer use his sights etc.
As a result, the various summaries in each category would only coincidentally add up and would often enough contradict each other.

Eventually, NYPD did a 100 year analysis that included a lot more forensic data and raw reports that smoothed out a lot of discrepancies.
In 2000, Tom Aveni and John Farnam went deep into it and found that the revolver average was right at four shots for an individual officer. With much better data for autoloaders, the mean was found to be 5.9 shot per officer.

Reliability issues with ban era mags modified to only hold 10-rounds impacted my decision. I carried a Glock 26.

This probably isn't the example you meant to use.

100% right

I have plenty of 17 round mags from before CO went full tarded, but 15+1 is actually a pretty convenient size.

The larger frame is pretty much range use only.

I didn’t build mine till 2017 or so. I have carried it for concealed carry. Getting magazines that worked with the longer brass was a challange. Hopefully Georgia arms starts making their 460 loads again. Their spicy 185@1550 was my favorite. 10+1 of a 1000ftlb loading was a handful. As someone also mentioned there seemed to be a proliferation of the G26/27 as well. Their use seemed to drop off quite a bit after the ban ended too. The only Glock I ever carry anymore is a 27 with a 357 barrel in it.

I turned 21 in 1999 so I was in the middle of the awb. I carried a beretta 96 in 40 then a p220 in 45 and a p229 in 357 sig and 40 as well as a p226 in 357 sig and 40. Even being in the military, we were restricted to 10 round mags for our pow carry guns. Woth that I figured I'd carry a higher caliber if I was limited to 10 rounds.

I really like my 9s & shoot them a lot, but this is why I also have my 45s.

10 vs 10 really as there were several .45 pistols out at that point that were designed with 10+ round mags like the USP, G21, and the Para-Ordnance double stack 1911. You are correct though that it did level the playing field. Realistically though if you're aiming for hearts and minds any minor difference in diameter or bullet design won't significantly change the catastrophic nature of a hole being in either location.

Is there really a 9-shot 357 as mentioned earlier?

I know of 8-shot 357 and 9-shot 22

Does that thing actually stabilize the bullet? The Derringer in .223 and 7.62x39 keyholes terribly

The tech has improved, however it has helped the smaller calibers more than the larger calibers. The spectrum of optimal ballistics for self-defense ammo has been identified. You can get ammo that exceeds that spectrum, but the trade off is usually higher recoil and no appreciable difference in stopping power. If you look at 10mm and .40 defensive loads they are nearly identical in weight and velocity, 10mm can certainly be loaded much hotter but it won't have a tangible advantage down range.

God's caliber with 14+1? Probably the best thing that came out of the AWB was the ernest development of high cap large caliber pistols.

Because I own a timer and have a brain.