Why does HK produce a full size striker fire gun that uses a magazine that only holds 15 rounds? Germans. They know how to make a gun. You just shoot it! :lol:

 

Why does HK produce a full size striker fire gun that uses a magazine that only holds 15 rounds? Germans. They know how to make a gun. You just shoot it! :lol:

T-shirt material, right there.



To take a swing at the OP's question, I say it's because they don't want to make the gun any wider than the 9/40/357 platform.
The magazines already have to be longer than the other platform because there's no way around the length difference.
To up the capacity, you either go longer, or go wider (or both.)

Compare the G21 grip width to the 17/22, etc. I think the same is true of the Xd, not too sure.

That's what I think, anyway.

 

Guess sigs does not care to build a fatter heavier pistol than the have with any of there 45 acp pistols . Becides , it does seem like most folks are happy with 8 or 9 rounds over the decades with 1911's . Practice mag changes or buy another brand and you missed glucks and STI or para !!

 

To take a swing at the OP's question, I say it's because they don't want to make the gun any wider than the 9/40/357 platform.

If that's the case then they missed the boat. After all, the .45 is not interchangeable with the 9/40/357. If that had been their goal and they hit it, fine. But they made the .45 non-interchangeable so they were NOT bound by the limits of the 9/40/357 envelope.

@hardluk1 - Para P14/45 holds 14+1 rounds, even worse for comparison. I addressed Glocks in the original post.

To be fair, I believe that the S&W M&P .45 holds 10+1 in the full-size (same as 320) and 8+1 in their compact (slight edge to the 320).

Still, nobody has talked about a .45 version of the "extended magazine" size that holds 21 in 9x19mm.

 

Still, nobody has talked about a .45 version of the "extended magazine" size that holds 21 in 9x19mm.

I'd buy that.

 

Because..... in .45 law you are limited to 10+1, otherwise if you offer more capacity the price point must be $1k+ for a polymer pistola'.
Just the law man.

 

With the 45acp, you only need one round....

 

Boom......

 

I wondered that myself.

 

I had a S&W M&P45 and even though I really liked the gun I couldn't get over the 10 round magazine. At the time I also owned a G21sf and a XDm 45 competition. The M&P had the best ergonomics but I sold it because I just did not like being limited to ten rounds. Kinda silly since the Glock only held two more rounds and the XDm held three more rounds but its more than ten so I kept them. Going with the aftermarket 14 round mag for the M&P was not an option, it made the grip to long.

The Glock G21 has a good all around grip for a .45acp, not to wide and not to long. My XDm 45 has a thinner grip than the Glock but its longer. If it were any longer than it is I would have sold it as well.

My compact XDm 45 3.8 with the short grip holds 9 rounds.

 

I just think it could be better is all.

This reminds me of Louis C.K.'s comments when someone complained about Verizon. The point was, if you think you could do better, go build your own. Sig probably wasn't trying to compete with Glock or Springfield in the .45 category with the 320. I'd like to think they also had the .45 in mind when they developed the 320, yet they persisted with the design knowing the capacity would be lower. If you want a blocky, uninspiring, unergonomic run of the mill .45 with 15+1 capacity, go buy a Glock.

 

This reminds me of Louis C.K.'s comments when someone complained about Verizon. The point was, if you think you could do better, go build your own. Sig probably wasn't trying to compete with Glock or Springfield in the .45 category with the 320. I'd like to think they also had the .45 in mind when they developed the 320, yet they persisted with the design knowing the capacity would be lower. If you want a blocky, uninspiring, unergonomic run of the mill .45 with 15+1 capacity, go buy a Glock.

On another forum that Morne and I both frequent he asked for thoughts on a 45 handgun for home defense. One manufacturer he ruled out from the start was GLOCK.

I'm glad he choose another P320.

 

Thicker grip, heavier gun, typical number of shots fired in an altercation 2-3.

Take your pick.

Also, have to disagree. while like and own .45's, I EDC Sig 357 and think that it is every bit as good a round as the 45.
..but that is another debate.

 

Morne . Sig did make the p250 so it was interchangeable between 380 to 45 but the what , whys and , if's might be better directed to corporate sig folks than on this forum . Seems like no one cares by you any how .

If a higher cap compact is what you wanted para does have the wart hog too . I never found info that stated a 45 was any better at being a gar-O-teed 1 shot man stopped than any other typical defensive cartridge so whats the point in a higher cap p320 in 45acp . But anyhow theres no answer to be found here .

 

So why oh why does the 320 .45 hold only 10+1 in the full-size (9+1 in compact)?

...

And yes, even knowing all of that I still chose to buy the Sig. It is my favorite polymer-framed, striker-fired gun on the market. I just think it could be better is all.

Same boat, same question, same reasoning when I bought mine.

 

See, if the "extended" magazine in .45 ACP carried 13-14 rounds I would buy a handful of them.

 

We can talk all we want. Unless a Gov't or police contract requires an ext. 45 magazine, Sig has too many higher priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Prob to fit the small grip modules. Got a 45 with small grip. It's quite thin, but don't have a XDs to compare with.

 

It appears that SIG designed the P250/P320 mags and grips to maximize the 9mm. (12, 15, and 17 are decent capacities.) After that, it's a matter of how many of the other calibers can you get to fit into that existing space.

 

See, I would buy that explanation for the P320 IF the .45 grip module interchanged with the 9/40/357. But it doesn't. Since it is not able to be interchanged I'm not convinced by that argument.

You are right, the 12/15/17 or the SC/C/F in 9mm is perfectly fine. My P320C on my hip today totes a respectable amount of ammo for its size.

I have an XDS 45 at home so I will photograph that next to a P320 45 compact (small) grip and see how it looks.

 

I've been using a 14 round P227 magazine in my P250 45AUTO, its worked 100% flawless. The only mod I had to do is remove the grip sleeve.

 

So it should also work in the 320, right?

 

In this case, it might be wiser to go to the P320 in 40 rather than the 45. At least your holsters would interchange.

 

The p320 is one of the worst .40 calibers. It does everything wrong in terms of managing the “snap” in the .40 S&W.

The p229 is one of the best. It uses a grip angle more like the 1911, which gives a bit of a cock to the wrist (helps control), while still being a natural pointer. It also has a heavy slide which helps to tame the recoil.

The Glock 23 is also good at taming the recoil (not as good as the p229, but the 23 is a lot smaller than the p229). The Glock uses even more grip angle to help the wrist control the muzzle flip, but it doesn’t point as naturally as the 1911. It’s low bore axis helps to combat the lighter slide weight.

The p320 uses an almost straight up and down grip angle (which is the worst for muzzle control), a light weight slide, and a high bore axis. All these attributes make it very snappy in .40.

 

Don't forget the FNX .45 that holds 15 + 1!

 

2 dogs That's to easy an answer for him .
Also moving to a different platform would be easy but guess there issues too .

 

Le's see:

Most 9mm loads today have projectiles weighing 115-grains. Check.
Most .45acp loads have projectiles weighing in at 230-grains. Check.

230 divided by 115 = 2. Check
2x115=230. Check
Therefore: One .45 round equals Two 9mm rounds.
That means 8 .45acp rounds in your 1911 or P220 magazine Plus 1 round up the pipe, or: 2(8+1)=18.

A 9mm P229 or P228 with a 15-rd. magazine plus 1 up the pipe is: 15+1=16, BUT
A 9mm P226 with an extended 17-rd. magazine plus 1 up the pipe is merely the equivalent of a .45.
However, should we go to a 10-round Wilson or CMC .45acp magazine, we now have:
2(10+1)= 22.
Numbers do not lie. Therefore, it is mathematically proven that a .45 is likely to be more deadly than a 9mm.

Genius, Pure Genius.

 

There are tons of opinions out there in the caliber versus capacity debate. Here is my take on the argument.

Accurate hits are still going to count more, no matter the caliber or mass of the projectile. That's the bottom line for civilian defensive shooting - because so few rounds are actually fired, on average 2 or 3 rounds maximum. If you get in a civilian firefight that takes more than that, you are in really deep stuff (keeping it clean for this site).

So, in my own opinion, any capacity of 6 rounds or more (twice the statistical maximum in civilian shootings) should be enough to survive the extreme majority of potential situations where use of an EDC gun would be necessary. From what I've read and seen (and it isn't much since I'm just an ordinary civilian and by no means an expert here), all handgun calibers have roughly the same real-life statistical ballistic results nowadays. That's not tactical gel lab tests, but real results from real situations. There are precious few "one shot instant kills", or "larger caliber stops them quicker" stories than you think. All that said, if you choose to carry a larger than average caliber, or more than the average rounds in the magazine, but you can hit the target where you've aimed consistently, especially under stress or duress, who am I to critique your decision. It's all a matter of what you personally like, for whatever reason you like it.

 

Actually, the credit all goes to Messers. Thompson and LaGarde. Their research in 1904 is relevant today. The genius of John M Browning provided the vessel. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson–LaGarde_Tests

 

Ha. Comparing light for caliber 9mm vs heavy for caliber .45..

147 gr 9mm x (17+1) = 2646 MSP (mathematical stopping powers)

2646 MSP / 230 gr .45 = 11.5 boolits

11.5 boolits > a 10 round Wilson or CMC +1

9 mm clearly has more mathematical stopping powers than .45

 

Easy fix.... carry another mag or 2.....

 

While I am a fan of the .45, there isn't a handgun made that has any real stopping power. Shot placement has more to do with stopping a man than any caliber choice, or magazine capacity. How much you train and shoot increases your odds of better shot placement. If you like shooting your gun, it generally means you'll shoot more. I like shooting a .45 a lot more than shooting a 9mm. I have both. 9 times out of 10 it's the .45 that goes to the range with me because I like shooting it more. I can put two shots into the black faster and more reliably with my .45 than I can with a 9mm. Because I shoot the .45 all the time. So, My .45--in my hands--has more "stopping power" than a 9mm--in my hands. My wife has a very difficult time shooting my .45, but is reasonably good with her 9mm. For her, a 9mm has more stopping power.

All of that said, all else being equal, I have to give the nod to the.45. Both the 9mm and the .45 have roughly equal energy. Energy is the ability to do work. Causing tissue damage is work. However, the 45 is more likely to impart all of it's energy to the target. The 9mm is more likely to exit; any energy it exits with is energy it did not impart to the target. Assuming equally good terminal performance, At best a .45 will create a 1" permanent wound cavity. The 9mm will leave a .7" permanent wound cavity. (Source: Lucky Gunner's ballistic tests with the best performing bullets in each caliber.) Therefore it's more likely the .45 will hit something vital.

Lot's of data indicates very little difference in actual shootings between the two calibers. It is my personal opinion that those results are skewed by the fact that I think 9mm shooters are more likely to choose a modern, high quality round. I think more .45 shooter perhaps are content with a lower quality round, believing that the caliber is sufficient without going to the effort of finding a modern round. I mean, how many .45 shooters go through the effort of tracking down and acquiring Winchester Ranger T-series ammunition? A 45 slug that fails to expand, or expands only to .6" creates a smaller hole than a 9mm that expands to .7"

I've seen the argument that the higher velocity of the 9mm means it will expand more reliably. With most ammunition, I think that's true. But with modern, high quality bullets designed to expand at the rounds actual velocity, I don't think that argument holds up.

Most one shot stops are "mental" stops. The attacker is physically capable of continuing, but stops because he's just been whacked hard. A bigger bullet imparts it's energy to the target faster, and therefore the attacker is going to feel a bigger "whack". Once again, this assumes high quality bullets. A 45 that fails to expand is going to have less of a "whack" than a 9mm that does expand properly.

I think--and again this is just my opinion--that if you looked at just shootings with modern high quality ammunition you would see data favor the 45. A bigger hole means it's more likely that something vital is a part of that hole.

 

My thoughts are if you can't get it done in 10+1 or even 9+1 rounds of 45 ACP then you aren't going to get it done.

 

Because you ran out of bullets.. At least if you had 7 or 8 more tries with a 9mm you still have a chance of getting it done. Maybe scaring them away because of all the shooting..