Gun manufacturers that care about gun owners from liberal states

[liv4spd]

I'm talking about states like CA, MD, MA, NY, NJ, etc. Most of these states limit magazines to 10-round, and their residents are often forced to choose the castrated versions of the guns.

I wonder if there are any gun manufactures who actually care about these gun owners and offer them something better, e.g., single stack magazines, instead of just punching a dimple on the regular large magazines.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by liv4spd

I wonder if there are any gun manufactures who actually care about these gun owners and offer them single stack magazines, instead of punching a dimple on the regular large magazines.

Why would a single stack magazine be better than dimpling the existing magazine?

[liv4spd]

I love the Mark IV type of single stack magazines. They seem to be so much easier to load, and more reliable.

[TunnelRat]

I'm not sure I agree about the increased reliability, especially in this case where the manufacturer would be taking a firearm designed to use a double stack, likely single feed magazine and converting it to use single stack magazines. That's not a trivial change in terms of getting the magazine to lock properly in the pistol. Additionally, 10 9mm cartridges arranged one on top of each other is taller than 10 9mm cartridges in a double stack magazine. Going to single stack magazines would change the dimensions of the grip of the firearm in a number of cases. What I'm saying is, if I was a person living in one of those states I would not want the manufacturer to do what you're suggesting. I think it could reduce reliability, and require a moderate redesign on behalf of the manufacturer, likely raising the cost of the firearm.

[44 AMP]

I think it could reduce reliability, and require a moderate redesign on behalf of the manufacturer, likely raising the cost of the firearm.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Sure, it would cost money and change things taking a double stack design and reworking the PISTOL, so why bother. IF you have to rework something, simply create a single stack magazine that fits inside the double stack magazine body (shell).

So what if you don't get 10 rnds of 9mm in a single stack that fits flush with the frame? You can have 9...

But, again, why bother?? there are a LOT of fine single stack magazine pistols still on the market, even in 9mm...

The people to blame here are not the gun makers, but the LAW MAKERS, and the people who elected them. Its not so much a matter of the gun makers "not caring" but more a matter of simple economics, and cost/benefit analysis.

Consider, for a moment, the cost to the makers to make special versions of their products to comply with the restrictive laws in SOME states.

IF the cost of making/modifying their products just to comply with the BS crap put into law in certain states exceeds or even approaches the potential profit from sales in those states, they aren't going to do it.

And when certain states come up with extreme requirements (such as microstamping) the cost of converting production to comply grossly exceeds the money they would make in sales, and refusing to do business in those states actually saves the company money.

Yes, it sucks that you can't get the pistol you want with the features you want, ONLY BECAUSE of where you live, but the people to get mad at are the ones in your state that caused that to happen.

Instead of whining about "the gun makers don't care" why not spend that energy getting those people out of office and those laws repealed??

[liv4spd]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Sure, it would cost money and change things taking a double stack design and reworking the PISTOL, so why bother. IF you have to rework something, simply create a single stack magazine that fits inside the double stack magazine body (shell).

So what if you don't get 10 rnds of 9mm in a single stack that fits flush with the frame? You can have 9...

But, again, why bother?? there are a LOT of fine single stack magazine pistols still on the market, even in 9mm...

The people to blame here are not the gun makers, but the LAW MAKERS, and the people who elected them. Its not so much a matter of the gun makers "not caring" but more a matter of simple economics, and cost/benefit analysis.

Consider, for a moment, the cost to the makers to make special versions of their products to comply with the restrictive laws in SOME states.

IF the cost of making/modifying their products just to comply with the BS crap put into law in certain states exceeds or even approaches the potential profit from sales in those states, they aren't going to do it.

And when certain states come up with extreme requirements (such as microstamping) the cost of converting production to comply grossly exceeds the money they would make in sales, and refusing to do business in those states actually saves the company money.

Yes, it sucks that you can't get the pistol you want with the features you want, ONLY BECAUSE of where you live, but the people to get mad at are the ones in your state that caused that to happen.

Instead of whining about "the gun makers don't care" why not spend that energy getting those people out of office and those laws repealed??

All excellent points. Thanks!

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The people to blame here are not the gun makers, but the LAW MAKERS, and the people who elected them. Its not so much a matter of the gun makers "not caring" but more a matter of simple economics, and cost/benefit analysis.

To be clear, since you quoted my response, I’m not blaming the gun makers. I’m answering the specific question of why don’t gun manufacturers do as was suggested.

[44 AMP]

To be clear, the quoted text was to give readers a reference point for some of the things I put in my post. TunnelRat's points about the potential downside of manufacturers reworking an existing double stack pistol to take a single stack magazine are valid enough, were the manufacturers to do that, but, they won't do that, for reasons I pointed out, and some I didn't.

One example of why the gunmakers won't rework existing models just to comply with a handful of states requirements is when they already have a pistol (or three) in their line up that already does comply. Just buy that model.

Sig P226 is double stack, if your state forbids the magazine due to its capacity, get a P220. Essentially the same gun, but single stack from the ground up, and already on the market for a long time.

My comment about gunmakers "not caring" is in response to the question being asked in the OP, on that matter.

[SqueezeCocker]

Kimber

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

One example of why the gunmakers won't rework existing models just to comply with a handful of states requirements is when they already have a pistol (or three) in their line up that already does comply. Just buy that model.

Sig P226 is double stack, if your state forbids the magazine due to its capacity, get a P220. Essentially the same gun, but single stack from the ground up, and already on the market for a long time.

As the OP seems to know, manufacturers do currently make what are state compliant versions of existing models of pistols that they sell elsewhere. They are not, however, versions of those pistols converted to single stack as the OP wished for. In 44 AMP’s example, SIG doesn’t, to my knowledge, currently produce a variant of the SIG P220 that is in 9mm (though I understand that pistol has historical ties to 9mm and such P220s can be found on the used market). So if someone wanted a single stack P226 series pistol in 9mm, they’re out of luck for new production (the P210 is an option, though the action is different). SIG does make a P226 in 9mm that is “state compliant”. This includes magazines of reduced capacity and perhaps some other changes (I’m admittedly not an expert on the individual state requirements). SIG has also done this with the P320 and recently with the P365.

I think it’s worth pointing out that this is not just a matter of pinning magazines and making a new SKU. For instance, CA has a roster of handguns that are approved for sale in that state (not talking about NFA items, just “standard” handguns). If a pistol is not on that roster my understanding is it cannot be purchased new by a private citizen, though certain members of law enforcement can. You can read on that here:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/exemptpo

The end result of this is added cost and time for the manufacturer to go through that approval process. As to why a manufacturer would go through this, CA is a populous state. Writing off that market entirely may be more of a loss than going through the process to sell in that state. However, some manufacturers choose to not add their newer products to the roster. For instance, from what I can tell none of the Gen 4 or Gen 5 Glocks are approved for sale in CA. My understanding is that is in part why Glock continues to make the Gen 3 variants.

From my perspective none of this is a matter of manufacturers nor “caring”. They do what they can to continue to sell in restricted markets. I’m under no delusions that it’s altruistic. There is money to be made and like during the last Assault Weapons Ban manufacturers make changes to stay in business. Like 44 AMP said, at the end of the day the politics are what control this. It is unfortunate for those that find themselves surrounded by others that are either anti-gun or ambivalent about current restrictions.

[wild cat mccane]

You wouldn't want a re engineered magazine I would think. Your R&D and consumer use is stronger with one design. A dimple just limits travel in an other wise functioning mag follower.

Unless you're wanting something like the Walther P99 10rnd mag design? It's physically impossible to convert a 10rd to a 15rnd because the mag body is physically cut to 10rnds only with spring and the base pad is just space. That's uniquely not a dimple, but that's about it. Not sure that adds anything to the owner experience though. https://waltherarms.com/shop/p99-9mm-10-round

You would definitely not want a double stack mag well with a single stack mag. You're adding something to adjust in the mag or the mag well...

I think TunnelRat is right. I have also heard the HK P2000 does okay too because of California. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the P2000 to still exist given the P30 and SK variant.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I have also heard the HK P2000 does okay too because of California. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the P2000 to still exist given the P30 and SK variant.

I see a fair amount of P2000s on CA specific gun posts, so I do think that’s a factor. I personally like the P2000 over either the P30 or P30sk for concealed carry as I like its size, but I’m sure its roster status is a part of why it’s still around.

[SqueezeCocker]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

I see a fair amount of P2000s on CA specific gun posts, so I do think that’s a factor. I personally like the P2000 over either the P30 or P30sk for concealed carry as I like its size, but I’m sure its roster status is a part of why it’s still around.

The ONLY reason the P2000 is on HK's US commercial firearms list is that it's the only handgun they make that's on California's roster.
The P2000 is not on HK's commercial firearms list outside of the USA. This is directly from HK USA.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by SqueezeCocker

The ONLY reason the P2000 is on HK's US commercial firearms list is that it's the only handgun they make that's on California's roster.

Except that’s not true. I provided a link to the searchable roster above. There are versions of the VP9, VP9L, and VP9sk that are also on the list. I’ve actually encountered a fair number of people from MA that have a VP9, as they make MA complaint VP9s (might be the same as the CA variant). The P2000sk is also on the roster, though since that’s a smaller P2000 I can agree with grouping those together. There are also plenty of non CA compliant versions of the P2000 that come with magazines with greater than 10 rd capacity.

I don’t doubt the CA market is a big reason, maybe even the biggest reason the P2000 is still sold here commercially, but it’s not the only HK handgun on the roster.

[1972RedNeck]

I wonder if there are any gun manufactures who actually care about these gun owners and offer them something better, e.g., single stack magazines, instead of just punching a dimple on the regular large magazines.

I like the dimpled mags. They typically sell significantly cheaper used and all it takes is a quick trip to the drill press to make them full capacity.

[Pumpkin]

10 round capacity law is why I bought my first 40 S&W, Beretta 96.
At least it still used most of the mag capacity that was offered before the ban, 11 vs 10.

[PzGren]

From a business standpoint it will probably not make much sense to try to cater to a relatively small clientele in five states and leave out the rest of the world.

While I understand that firearms manufacturers will concentrate on the majority, I cannot understand why many FFL holders will not ship to California.

[44 AMP]

I cannot understand why many FFL holders will not ship to California.

I'd say its a combination of business sense and political statement.

From a business perspective, it costs money (time at the least) to keep current and keep track of everything CA prohibits or restricts, which seems to change weekly sometimes , and some folks have decided that not shipping anything to CA is better for them.

And, the other side of that coin is simple risk avoidance. Send even one small part into CA that violates their byzantine complex of laws and you might face legal and possibly even criminal charges. Even if you are not guilty (or even if at some point the charges are dropped) the cost of defending your business could be ruinous for a small shop.

It could also be a political statement. It is regrettable that FFLs refusing to risk breaking CA law by not shipping to CA upset the good people of CA, but THAT IS THE POINT.

CA gun owners have a right to be upset, and even angry but they are considered pawns by those in power, and nobody cares much what a pawn thinks.

BUT, pawns, working together skillfully can have a huge impact on the game, and if you can get one to the other side of the board, it can become a powerful piece, even a Queen, and that can change the game completely.

[wild cat mccane]

Lucky Gunner CEO is a state school board member. Right to be a candidate by education, the subject of the position? Zero. Luckygunner doesn't ship to CA.

So politics abound in this industry.

Purely economic, you'd be unwise to not ship to California given the number of people in a random group of 10 Americans who live in California.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Lucky Gunner CEO is a state school board member. Right to be a candidate by education, the subject of the position? Zero. Luckygunner doesn't ship to CA.

So politics abound in this industry.

Purely economic, you'd be unwise to not ship to California given the number of people in a random group of 10 Americans who live in California.

I’m struggling to understand what is meant by that first paragraph. The words are spelled properly, but the message borders on incoherent for me.

For the last part, I’m pretty sure the number of people in a random group of 10 Americans who live in CA is… 10.

[wild cat mccane]

I think it stands just fine. Thanks.

[TunnelRat]

Rereading it I think what you’re saying in the second paragraph is the percentage of Americans that live in CA is significant, so excluding that market is a bad business decision. I agree.

I’m not trying to be difficult on the first paragraph. I really can’t figure out what you’re saying, specifically this:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Lucky Gunner CEO is a state school board member. Right to be a candidate by education, the subject of the position? Zero.

Edit: Okay, I read it a half dozen more times. Originally it read as if you were saying it’s right for him to be a candidate based on his education, which is why I was confused by the “zero” comment. I think what you’re saying is his right to be a candidate on the state school board based on his education level is zero. That makes more sense. I’m not sure what that has to do with Lucky Gunner not shipping to CA. I guess you’re pointing out that even purportedly pro-gun people won’t help out the people of CA?

Side note: looks like he has a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration. Do most school board members have a teaching degree?

[veprdude]

Glock. They currently offer 10 round magazine variants of every pistol still in production and at a reasonable MSRP ($30). If the G43x wasn't a tip of the hat to restricted states, I don't know what is.

Not a Glock fanboy by any means but most manufacturers don't bother producing 10 round magazines for legacy guns in any real capacity.

I did a quick wikipedia calculation. All the states that currently have 10 round limits adds to about 95 million. Total US population is 334 million. That means about 28% live in restricted states that limit to 10 round. I'm not counting states that limit 15 rounds or taking into consideration grandfathering.

[44 AMP]

That means about 28% live in restricted states that limit to 10 round.

And that number is relevant, how??

Ok, fine 28% of the total population live in restricted states. How do you correlate that with the percentage of gun buying people, and the even smaller subset that is interested in pistols with more than 10rnd capacity??

My point is, that of that 28% of the general population, what percentages of that number are potential buyers of handguns holding more than 10 rounds??

First, remove all those under 21. Then remove all the prohibited persons. Then remove all the others that simply have no interest or intent to buy a firearm. Note that the number keeps shrinking and shrinking.

Further reducing the numbers (and the profit for gunmakers) is, once you finally have a number for those people who could buy a hi cap pistol, if allowed, you need to figure some way to quantify the number of people who would, if they were allowed, and then break that down even further for each maker of each model pistol into what percentage of the people will buy their product, and not their competitors pistols.

Even in a state with a massive base population, the number of people who would be buying your pistol (If it were legal) isn't all that large.

SO, I find that simply stating how many people live in the restricted states to be a meaningless number, regarding the loss of business for those companies that decide not to do business in those states.

[Bill DeShivs]

Why don't you tell us what is wrong with reducing magazine capacity by dimpling the mag bodies? Trying to convert the mags to single stack would be expensive and frankly, stupid.