Yep, and it influences my firearm buying. I'd like to try some of the new ones but WILL NOT pay collector level prices for current production mags. YMMV. Remember I'm the nut that carries a 6rd cc.Carring it as I type this btw, lol.
True. Most expensive mags I have are for my Sig229. I agree with you - and refuse to get into a platform with expensive ($30 or more) mags. It’s money wasted that I could spend on ammo.
Every plan should contemplate getting punched in the face.
It wasn't that they only needed 6. The revolver was limited to a certain number of rounds per cylinder. Larger calibers were only 5 not 6. Smaller could be 8 or 9. Let's go back 200 years when you only needed 1 round and a flint. Or before that when you only needed 1 spear or a rock. Evolution of protection.
If you could afford you carried two guns and/or sword to back up the single shot. But 200 hundred years ago semiautos were not around and the first working colts were not around for sale until 1836. For a bow you carried a quiver of arrows and not just one. A slinger carried a bag of rocks. People were quite aware of the need for more than one projectile.
44's in the 1840's carried 6 rounds and that is what they carry today.
You get my general point with your response. Of course they had more arrows or knives on them. However, they needed to draw them from a quiver which takes time. It would be no different than a single shot and you have a holster full of ammo.
We mostly all agree is that one is not enough. Now days in package that held originally one or two, now we can have 15-17 shots. So do we need just 6 or do we need more?
As many as it takes to stop a threat is the correct response every time.
Go back and read what has been posted over the multiple pages and I will not rewrite it all again.
