9mm in .40 S&W Magazines for hi-caps

qkrthnu · September 4, 2002, 02:37 AM

After reading about the Springfield XD and the ability to use the factory .40 S&W mags to hold 15 9mm rounds I'm curious to know if any other pistols out there have the same ability.

Are there other 9mm pistols that can use an unmodified .40 S&W magazine as a hi-cap mag?

Walt Sherrill · September 4, 2002, 05:57 AM

Yup. Its not unusual. (There are .40 mags, however, that won't hold a 9mm round -- feed lips too far apart.)

In my experience, however, most of them will only hold 13-14 rounds, seldom 15.

You've just got to experiment.

archer215 · September 4, 2002, 07:31 AM

i saw an ad about this awhile back where cdnninvestments were advertising 40 ruger magz as 15 9mm magz .
will this work with g23 magz in a 19 just wondering?

New_comer · September 4, 2002, 07:33 AM

Yups...

The HK USP mag could hold either 9's or 40's.

MrAcheson · September 4, 2002, 08:02 AM

Archer I don't think this work for glocks but I could be wrong since I have never tried it myself. Some mags also require a good bit of finagling to get this to work as well. I've heard of one person on TFL going through 200+ rounds at the range to go get something like 4 reliable mags and 1 range only mag out of the conversion.

yzguy · September 4, 2002, 09:38 AM

just don't try to use a post ban (10 round) .40 mag and put 11 9mm rounds in it.... That is defiantly illegal.

even using a preban mag and modifying it (altering the feed lips) can be questionable. If it can still be used for it's intended purpose (.40 cal) than it is good, if it is permanently altered to be 9mm only (or vise versa 9mm to .40) then they consider it to be remanufactured and thus technically a post ban mag limited to 10 rounds.

MrAcheson · September 4, 2002, 09:49 AM

I do not think it is illegal to use a postban .40 as a hi-cap 9mm. Someone has already checked with BATF about this very thing with the HS2000/XD9s. At the very least it is wholly legal to import them. Also IIRC the law is not about possessing hicap mags, its about making, buying, and selling them. However if you have to do a lot of work to get your mags to feed 9mm properly they may be able to get you on "assembling" a post-ban hicap. There is definitely a grey area there which could be to your benefit or detriment depending on how it gets interpreted.

krept · September 4, 2002, 10:18 AM

I don't see how the law would apply to a 10 round .40 magazine? The magazine isn't changed... do they consider placing 9mm cartridges in a .40 magazine to be "modification?" I don't think so, but don't have the specific law to refer to. That term should be clearly spelled out.

FWIW, I have heard that the USP 9mm will feed the cartridges fine from a .40 SW magazine.

It's almost like a taboo subject. I'm very interested that if it is legal now, if "they" can create another law restricting this practice and what language would be used.

It just shows the absolute absurdity of prohibiting standard capacity magazines.

MrAcheson · September 4, 2002, 10:20 AM

Alright I checked some of the previous discussion on TFL about this. A link to a good one is here..

Evidentally the key to whether the mag is legal or not is whether it can still shoot .40S&W in the firearm it was manufactured for. A magazine which has been modified sufficiently that it can no longer function in the original firearm has been considered to be modified or converted into an illegal hi-cap. A mag which will still shoot .40 S&W is still considered original even if you massaged it a bit so it feeds 9mm too.

Walt Sherrill · September 4, 2002, 10:31 AM

I'll agree with the last couple of posters. What is ILLEGAL is MODIFICATIONS to a post-ban mag to increase its capacity.

In the cases we're talking about, there have been no modifications to the mags. This has been debated before, and nobody -- including those who think this its illegal -- can cite specific language in the gun regs that makes this use of a mag illegal.

Fire away. Just don't modify the mag in any way that causes it not to be functional in the gun for which it was originally designed.

yzguy · September 4, 2002, 12:28 PM

quote from the ATF site :

18 U.S.C. Chapter 44
921(a)(31) The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactures after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition: but

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

the way I read that is if it was made after 1994 and you put 11 rounds in it, it is illegal... I am no lawyer or judge, but I won't do it. If I were to be involved in a shooting the bastard prosecuting me (and it will happen no matter how justified or clean cut) will be looking for anything to use against me. This (while being a very nit picky thing) would definitely be one that will come up in court. True this is a bit of a gray area and you may be able to get away with it, but do you want to be the test case that sets the precedent? When I can just go buy a preban mag the risk is just not worth it to me.

who is to say what is functional? some new after market cheap mags are not "functional".... just because it does not work in your .40? what if it did not work in your .40 before you touched it?? is it any less "functional" after you modified it to use 9mm?

qkrthnu · September 4, 2002, 01:21 PM

What's the potential sentence you could be given for having a post-ban hi-cap?

If you happen to need an 11th, 12th, etc round to stop a BG I'd say it's more than likely worth it. It's not like the hi-cap will affect the legality of your use of deadly force. Might affect a civil case, but not the criminal one. So criminally the hi-cap possession should be a completely separate charge.

bountyh · September 4, 2002, 01:21 PM

"just don't try to use a post ban (10 round) .40 mag and put 11 9mm rounds in it.... That is defiantly illegal."

ACTUALLY, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL (SOURCE: an agent working at the BATF). As long as you don't "modify" the magazine, you're clear. They define modify as changing it in such a way that it no longer works for it's original function. If you change it in a way that maintains original function but allows a new function, that is also legal. It does not matter whether the mag is pre-ban or post-ban because you are not altering it as defined by the law. There is no law which forbids you from using it in a way the original maker did not forsee, although some police officers will tell you there is (they are wrong).

"even using a preban mag and modifying it (altering the feed lips) can be questionable. If it can still be used for it's intended purpose (.40 cal) than it is good, if it is permanently altered to be 9mm only (or vise versa 9mm to .40) then they consider it to be remanufactured and thus technically a post ban mag limited to 10 rounds."

THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT.

Gumbo · September 4, 2002, 01:49 PM

This is from an ATF letter addressing this very issue;

"It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large casacity ammunition-feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C., section 922(w). The prohibition does not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition-feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of this subsection. A magazine manufactured prior to to September 13, 1994, would not be a large capacity ammunition-feeding device as defined.

If an altered ammunition magazine could no longer function in the firearm for which it was originally designed, it is our opinion that a new magaine has been manufactured. The latered magazine would be a large capacity ammunition-feeding device, and it would be subject to the prohibition in Section 922(w). If the magazine has minor nodifications performed, such as cutting an addition slot for a different magazine release, and ti still functions in the original firearm for which it was designed, we do not believe it would be considered a new magazine. However, if major changes are made, it is possible that anew magazine has been manufactured. It may be necessary to examine a sample of the magazine for a determination."

As stated above, this if from an ATF letter dated 31Jul2002. You may view the letter in PDF format at the following link;

http://members.aol.com/hs2000fanatic/letter.pdf

vertigo7 · September 4, 2002, 03:07 PM

The letter in PDF format linked above is a copy of the reply to the letter I sent to BATF on this topic after much discussion on HS2000Talk.com. Didn't realilze it had made the rounds to TFL so fast, since I hadn't posted it here yet myself.

vertigo7

Jason Demond · September 4, 2002, 04:16 PM

I have tried this with a G22 Klintoon mag. The mag only held 12 rounds of 9mm, but they looked about ready to fly out. I also did this with a Klintoon 10 round S&W Sigma mag (40VE). While they fit, I could only get 11 rounds in the mag.

yzguy · September 5, 2002, 09:17 AM

ok, I may have been incorrect in my first statement of not being able to put 11 9mm rounds into a post ban .40 mag (as I have nothing to back that up) but I have also not seen anything to disprove it either.

bountyh,
are you sure it was 100% clear that you meant a 10 round post ban .40 mag with 11 (or more) 9mm rounds in it (and say it still functions in both)? I have not seen that question answered by the BATF.

I did however see the other one which states that you could do that to a preban mag (say putting 17 9mm in a preban 15round .40 mag or 11 9mm into a preban 10 round .40 mag)

I know I'm being very nit picky, but this is something that should be understood by gun owners...

also you have to remember that just because it's legal does not mean I would do it. It is also legal (in my state) to open carry, but I don't think I'll be doing that either... some cop will get a big head and start harassing me... Just trying to avoid problems.

farranger · September 5, 2002, 11:21 PM

This works fairly well with Ruger mags, you can put 15 in some mags, 14 in others. It's not reliable enough to bet your life on if you have any other choice, but it's a great training option. It works most of the time, but when training for stoppage drills it's excellent.

bountyh · September 6, 2002, 06:03 PM

yzguy: the relevant paragraph is:

"If the magazine has minor modifications performed, such as cutting an addition slot for a different magazine release, and it still functions in the original firearm for which it was designed, we do not believe it would be considered a new magazine."

The point is, it matters not if it is a pre-ban or post ban 10-round .40 magazine because either is completely legal as the law is written. And, as stated above, if you do not manufacture a new magazine from it by making it sifficiently different that it no longer works as originally designed, there is no law against it after any such modifications. And if you make NO MODIFICATIONS and simply load in 9mm ammo, there is ABSOLUTELY no law against it at all.

There is a question on:

"It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large casacity ammunition-feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C., section 922(w). "

It could be argued that a legal 10-round magazine can be used as a 14-round 9mm magazine and would, therefore, constitute a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in POTENTIAL USAGE. However, the law can not be enforced in this way since it only states "transfer or possess", nothing about use. Bottom line, the government can not bust you for having a .40 mag because it is legal for it's intended use as a 10-round .40 mag. And, they can't bust you for stuffing 14 rounds of 9mm in it because the law makes no provision for the using of a "legal" magazine in a capacity where it exceeds design capacity limits.

The cops may not like it, but the BATF people are giving out the correct information.

The Plainsman · September 6, 2002, 07:03 PM

but the fact that this thread is even necessary, makes me so damned angry I could spit. It's just STUPID that any of us have to worry about this kind of crap!!! Rant off.

Thanks. I feel a little better now.

Kurt

customfret · September 7, 2002, 07:24 AM

Interesting thread! I've been carrying with only the stock mags that came with with each pistol, but from the above, it looks like I could legally be carrying 14 rounds in my P11. Now I wonder about the civil libility of doing so....

When at the range, I usually will load all my mags for my Keltec P11 & P40 with whatever I'm getting ready to shoot next. The standard 9 round P-40 mags hold 11 9mm's, & the P40 mags with 10 round extensions actually will hold 14, but the gun is only reliable with 13 loaded. The standard 10 round P11 mags hold 7 40S&W's. All these mags feed both 9's & 40's equally well in both pistols.

yankytrash · September 7, 2002, 01:39 PM

My Browning Hi-Power's mags were labelled "9mm Parabellum" on one side and "40 S&W" on the other. It was a 9mm pistol.

I'm sure that's not the only one out there...

yzguy · September 7, 2002, 04:09 PM

ok, I see now... I always thought the law was referring to the possession or use of a hi-cap mag, not the manufacture or sale of one. After all the use of one would make more sense.... but I think we can all agree that sense has nothing to do with this area of the law!!! we all know it is the 12th round that kills the innocent bystander in a crime not the first 10+1...

September 4, 2002, 02:37 AM	#1
qkrthnu Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2002 Posts: 340	9mm in .40 S&W Magazines for hi-caps After reading about the Springfield XD and the ability to use the factory .40 S&W mags to hold 15 9mm rounds I'm curious to know if any other pistols out there have the same ability. Are there other 9mm pistols that can use an unmodified .40 S&W magazine as a hi-cap mag?

September 4, 2002, 07:31 AM	#3
archer215 Senior Member Join Date: July 25, 2002 Location: cleveland tennessee Posts: 284	i saw an ad about this awhile back where cdnninvestments were advertising 40 ruger magz as 15 9mm magz . will this work with g23 magz in a 19 just wondering? __________________ better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it tony

September 4, 2002, 07:33 AM	#4
New_comer Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2001 Location: Manila, Phil. Posts: 1,004	Yups... The HK USP mag could hold either 9's or 40's. __________________ Regards, New_comer USP9F, Remington 870 "It not in the size of the thing, it's how you use it..."

September 4, 2002, 08:02 AM	#5
MrAcheson Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2002 Posts: 442	Archer I don't think this work for glocks but I could be wrong since I have never tried it myself. Some mags also require a good bit of finagling to get this to work as well. I've heard of one person on TFL going through 200+ rounds at the range to go get something like 4 reliable mags and 1 range only mag out of the conversion. __________________ These views are not representative of those held by the US Army, DoD, or US Government. Jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

September 4, 2002, 09:49 AM	#7
MrAcheson Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2002 Posts: 442	I do not think it is illegal to use a postban .40 as a hi-cap 9mm. Someone has already checked with BATF about this very thing with the HS2000/XD9s. At the very least it is wholly legal to import them. Also IIRC the law is not about possessing hicap mags, its about making, buying, and selling them. However if you have to do a lot of work to get your mags to feed 9mm properly they may be able to get you on "assembling" a post-ban hicap. There is definitely a grey area there which could be to your benefit or detriment depending on how it gets interpreted. __________________ These views are not representative of those held by the US Army, DoD, or US Government. Jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

September 4, 2002, 05:57 AM	#2
Walt Sherrill Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 1999 Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA Posts: 6,348	Yup. Its not unusual. (There are .40 mags, however, that won't hold a 9mm round -- feed lips too far apart.) In my experience, however, most of them will only hold 13-14 rounds, seldom 15. You've just got to experiment.

September 4, 2002, 09:38 AM	#6
yzguy Senior Member Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: FL Posts: 297	just don't try to use a post ban (10 round) .40 mag and put 11 9mm rounds in it.... That is defiantly illegal. even using a preban mag and modifying it (altering the feed lips) can be questionable. If it can still be used for it's intended purpose (.40 cal) than it is good, if it is permanently altered to be 9mm only (or vise versa 9mm to .40) then they consider it to be remanufactured and thus technically a post ban mag limited to 10 rounds.

September 4, 2002, 10:18 AM	#8
krept Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Location: AZ Posts: 1,363	I don't see how the law would apply to a 10 round .40 magazine? The magazine isn't changed... do they consider placing 9mm cartridges in a .40 magazine to be "modification?" I don't think so, but don't have the specific law to refer to. That term should be clearly spelled out. FWIW, I have heard that the USP 9mm will feed the cartridges fine from a .40 SW magazine. It's almost like a taboo subject. I'm very interested that if it is legal now, if "they" can create another law restricting this practice and what language would be used. It just shows the absolute absurdity of prohibiting standard capacity magazines. __________________ the tallest blade of grass is the first to greet the lawnmower blade

September 4, 2002, 10:20 AM	#9
MrAcheson Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2002 Posts: 442	Alright I checked some of the previous discussion on TFL about this. A link to a good one is here.. Evidentally the key to whether the mag is legal or not is whether it can still shoot .40S&W in the firearm it was manufactured for. A magazine which has been modified sufficiently that it can no longer function in the original firearm has been considered to be modified or converted into an illegal hi-cap. A mag which will still shoot .40 S&W is still considered original even if you massaged it a bit so it feeds 9mm too. __________________ These views are not representative of those held by the US Army, DoD, or US Government. Jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

September 4, 2002, 10:31 AM	#10
Walt Sherrill Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 1999 Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA Posts: 6,348	I'll agree with the last couple of posters. What is ILLEGAL is MODIFICATIONS to a post-ban mag to increase its capacity. In the cases we're talking about, there have been no modifications to the mags. This has been debated before, and nobody -- including those who think this its illegal -- can cite specific language in the gun regs that makes this use of a mag illegal. Fire away. Just don't modify the mag in any way that causes it not to be functional in the gun for which it was originally designed.

September 4, 2002, 12:28 PM	#11
yzguy Senior Member Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: FL Posts: 297	quote from the ATF site : 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 921(a)(31) The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' - (A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactures after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition: but (B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. the way I read that is if it was made after 1994 and you put 11 rounds in it, it is illegal... I am no lawyer or judge, but I won't do it. If I were to be involved in a shooting the bastard prosecuting me (and it will happen no matter how justified or clean cut) will be looking for anything to use against me. This (while being a very nit picky thing) would definitely be one that will come up in court. True this is a bit of a gray area and you may be able to get away with it, but do you want to be the test case that sets the precedent? When I can just go buy a preban mag the risk is just not worth it to me. who is to say what is functional? some new after market cheap mags are not "functional".... just because it does not work in your .40? what if it did not work in your .40 before you touched it?? is it any less "functional" after you modified it to use 9mm?

September 4, 2002, 01:21 PM	#12
qkrthnu Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2002 Posts: 340	What's the potential sentence you could be given for having a post-ban hi-cap? If you happen to need an 11th, 12th, etc round to stop a BG I'd say it's more than likely worth it. It's not like the hi-cap will affect the legality of your use of deadly force. Might affect a civil case, but not the criminal one. So criminally the hi-cap possession should be a completely separate charge.

September 4, 2002, 01:21 PM	#13
bountyh Junior member Join Date: November 1, 2001 Location: NaziFornia Posts: 908	"just don't try to use a post ban (10 round) .40 mag and put 11 9mm rounds in it.... That is defiantly illegal." ACTUALLY, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL (SOURCE: an agent working at the BATF). As long as you don't "modify" the magazine, you're clear. They define modify as changing it in such a way that it no longer works for it's original function. If you change it in a way that maintains original function but allows a new function, that is also legal. It does not matter whether the mag is pre-ban or post-ban because you are not altering it as defined by the law. There is no law which forbids you from using it in a way the original maker did not forsee, although some police officers will tell you there is (they are wrong). "even using a preban mag and modifying it (altering the feed lips) can be questionable. If it can still be used for it's intended purpose (.40 cal) than it is good, if it is permanently altered to be 9mm only (or vise versa 9mm to .40) then they consider it to be remanufactured and thus technically a post ban mag limited to 10 rounds." THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT.

September 4, 2002, 01:49 PM	#14
Gumbo Senior Member Join Date: May 26, 1999 Posts: 150	This is from an ATF letter addressing this very issue; "It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large casacity ammunition-feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C., section 922(w). The prohibition does not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition-feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of this subsection. A magazine manufactured prior to to September 13, 1994, would not be a large capacity ammunition-feeding device as defined. If an altered ammunition magazine could no longer function in the firearm for which it was originally designed, it is our opinion that a new magaine has been manufactured. The latered magazine would be a large capacity ammunition-feeding device, and it would be subject to the prohibition in Section 922(w). If the magazine has minor nodifications performed, such as cutting an addition slot for a different magazine release, and ti still functions in the original firearm for which it was designed, we do not believe it would be considered a new magazine. However, if major changes are made, it is possible that anew magazine has been manufactured. It may be necessary to examine a sample of the magazine for a determination." As stated above, this if from an ATF letter dated 31Jul2002. You may view the letter in PDF format at the following link; http://members.aol.com/hs2000fanatic/letter.pdf

September 4, 2002, 04:16 PM	#16
Jason Demond Senior Member Join Date: May 9, 1999 Location: Mivonks, Michigan Posts: 1,846	I have tried this with a G22 Klintoon mag. The mag only held 12 rounds of 9mm, but they looked about ready to fly out. I also did this with a Klintoon 10 round S&W Sigma mag (40VE). While they fit, I could only get 11 rounds in the mag. __________________ "ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN FULL VICTORY!" General Dwight D. Eisenhower June 6, 1944 ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

September 5, 2002, 09:17 AM	#17
yzguy Senior Member Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: FL Posts: 297	ok, I may have been incorrect in my first statement of not being able to put 11 9mm rounds into a post ban .40 mag (as I have nothing to back that up) but I have also not seen anything to disprove it either. bountyh, are you sure it was 100% clear that you meant a 10 round post ban .40 mag with 11 (or more) 9mm rounds in it (and say it still functions in both)? I have not seen that question answered by the BATF. I did however see the other one which states that you could do that to a preban mag (say putting 17 9mm in a preban 15round .40 mag or 11 9mm into a preban 10 round .40 mag) I know I'm being very nit picky, but this is something that should be understood by gun owners... also you have to remember that just because it's legal does not mean I would do it. It is also legal (in my state) to open carry, but I don't think I'll be doing that either... some cop will get a big head and start harassing me... Just trying to avoid problems.

September 5, 2002, 11:21 PM	#18
farranger Member Join Date: August 13, 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 17	This works fairly well with Ruger mags, you can put 15 in some mags, 14 in others. It's not reliable enough to bet your life on if you have any other choice, but it's a great training option. It works most of the time, but when training for stoppage drills it's excellent. __________________ "Freedom isn't Free"

September 6, 2002, 06:03 PM	#19
bountyh Junior member Join Date: November 1, 2001 Location: NaziFornia Posts: 908	yzguy: the relevant paragraph is: "If the magazine has minor modifications performed, such as cutting an addition slot for a different magazine release, and it still functions in the original firearm for which it was designed, we do not believe it would be considered a new magazine." The point is, it matters not if it is a pre-ban or post ban 10-round .40 magazine because either is completely legal as the law is written. And, as stated above, if you do not manufacture a new magazine from it by making it sifficiently different that it no longer works as originally designed, there is no law against it after any such modifications. And if you make NO MODIFICATIONS and simply load in 9mm ammo, there is ABSOLUTELY no law against it at all. There is a question on: "It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large casacity ammunition-feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C., section 922(w). " It could be argued that a legal 10-round magazine can be used as a 14-round 9mm magazine and would, therefore, constitute a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in POTENTIAL USAGE. However, the law can not be enforced in this way since it only states "transfer or possess", nothing about use. Bottom line, the government can not bust you for having a .40 mag because it is legal for it's intended use as a 10-round .40 mag. And, they can't bust you for stuffing 14 rounds of 9mm in it because the law makes no provision for the using of a "legal" magazine in a capacity where it exceeds design capacity limits. The cops may not like it, but the BATF people are giving out the correct information.

September 6, 2002, 07:03 PM	#20
The Plainsman Senior Member Join Date: June 8, 2000 Location: Kansas Hill Country Posts: 449	Please excuse my little rant.... but the fact that this thread is even necessary, makes me so damned angry I could spit. It's just STUPID that any of us have to worry about this kind of crap!!! Rant off. Thanks. I feel a little better now. Kurt

September 7, 2002, 07:24 AM	#21
customfret Member Join Date: November 26, 2000 Location: Sparta, TN Posts: 44	Interesting thread! I've been carrying with only the stock mags that came with with each pistol, but from the above, it looks like I could legally be carrying 14 rounds in my P11. Now I wonder about the civil libility of doing so.... When at the range, I usually will load all my mags for my Keltec P11 & P40 with whatever I'm getting ready to shoot next. The standard 9 round P-40 mags hold 11 9mm's, & the P40 mags with 10 round extensions actually will hold 14, but the gun is only reliable with 13 loaded. The standard 10 round P11 mags hold 7 40S&W's. All these mags feed both 9's & 40's equally well in both pistols.

September 7, 2002, 01:39 PM	#22
yankytrash Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2001 Location: Farnham, Va Posts: 2,183	My Browning Hi-Power's mags were labelled "9mm Parabellum" on one side and "40 S&W" on the other. It was a 9mm pistol. I'm sure that's not the only one out there... __________________ Right turn, Clyde.

September 7, 2002, 04:09 PM	#23
yzguy Senior Member Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: FL Posts: 297	ok, I see now... I always thought the law was referring to the possession or use of a hi-cap mag, not the manufacture or sale of one. After all the use of one would make more sense.... but I think we can all agree that sense has nothing to do with this area of the law!!! we all know it is the 12th round that kills the innocent bystander in a crime not the first 10+1...