Power vs capacity?

[Eric2340]

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and while I do NOT want to turn this into a "caliber war" debate, I also want to ask a question of the group, so bear with me - 

Given all things equal (meaning your ability to shoot either of the two between two different calibers just as accurately as the other under stress) which do you feel is better/prefer - Power or capacity? (stating that also understanding that ALL handgun caliber are poor stoppers compared to larger caliber weapons like rifles and what not, and that there are truly NO "one shot stoppers").

 

Now I also fully understand that the given and popular theory is "whichever one you shoot best" but let's take that out of the equation for the sake of this discussion - let's say you pick two different size caliber weapons with the weapons being the same relative size themselves (full size vs full size, medium size vs medium size, etc.) and can shoot one with the ability to place rounds on target in the same place with either one repeatedly, then what? Do you/would you rather have the more powerful or the two (again given the weapons themselves are the same relative size to each other), or rather have more rounds available (I'm speaking speaking from the size of the rounds themselves, NOT the size of the gun with compact vs full size in the same size caliber gun).

I also realize there are those too that will say "go with a happy medium - something that is a go between round between the two different size rounds that also holds a middle of the road capacity for an all around happy medium between the two?" I am NOT talking about that either, and would prefer to leave that out of the discussion (if possible?).

 

I know this is going to be hard to NOT turn it into a "caliber war" discussion, but I am approaching this from two fronts - 1. The popular opinion that with "current bullet technology" that there are those that claim that "all things can now be almost equal between different given calibers", and 2. Given the two options with all things being equal and your ability with either round, what would you prefer or do you feel is better? More power or more rounds? I can't say as I personally buy into the "all bullets are equal now with the way they are made" theory, part of why I am asking all of this?

Again, I realize I may be trying to have an impossible discussion also, and there very well may be no real answer there, but I've also been thinking about it long enough, again with trying to remove caliber from the discussion to see which is better/most people prefer? I also thought and hoped it might be a good constructive discussion for the group too.

 

Thanks -

Eric

 

[Eric2340]

I'm going to go first in my own discussion -

 

I've always found myself in the position of feeling I want the biggest round I can still shoot accurately enough to get on target, in the same place repeatedly. They also don't get any smaller, hopefully can only expand to something larger, and weigh more to carry more mass for hopefully deeper penetration or passing through things better (like bone and body mass if it's not a straight on shot (cross torso). 

I then start to concern myself with worrying that I'd also rather have MORE rounds on me to, so ammo supply is not an issue too? Now I am NOT planning on starting a war or taking on all of ISIS by myself either, but I also sure as hell don't want to run out of ammo either. I also don't like the idea of having to just carry MORE mags to have more ammo either, when if I went with a smaller caliber, I could just easily carry fewer mags that hold more rounds in the first place? I guess the best example I could give is a caliber/weapon that held 8-10 larger rounds vs another weapon of a smaller caliber that held 12-15 rounds instead if BOTH weapons are of the same basic size in the first place if that makes any sense?

Again, I am deliberately trying to leave calibers OUT of this for the sake of discussion.

 

ALL this said I'd much rather have something shoulder fired that held between 20-30 rounds one way or another than ANY handgun/handgun round period.

 

Thanks -

[Citra47]

2 hours ago, Eric2340 said:

1. The popular opinion that with "current bullet technology" that there are those that claim that "all things can now be almost equal between different given calibers", and 2. Given the two options with all things being equal and your ability with either round, what would you prefer or do you feel is better? More power or more rounds? I can't say as I personally buy into the "all bullets are equal now with the way they are made" theory, part of why I am asking all of this?

I assume by current bullet technology you refer to the most modern bonded type (HP) hollow point bullets. So with that in mind, they may be almost equal if nothing interferes with the bullet opening as it is designed to do. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. The HP may get plugged with clothing or something else, thus not opening to do it's intended job. I always figured if something can go wrong it will -per Murphy -sooner or later go wrong. A larger bullet of the same configuration as the smaller should thus have an advantage if nether opens up.  

There are more modern options that do not depend on bullet expansion like Lehigh Defense Extreme Penetrator that may be much more consistent in use.  All these are quite expensive if you intend to invest in several hundred or thousands of rounds. 

On the other hand, we all have to realize in the overall scheme of things, HP or more modern high performance ammo is only a small drop in the bucket in cartridge manufacturing, by far being surpassed by hard ball or solid lead ammo. What happens, God forbid, if some great catastrophe should wipe out modern manufacturing and take out food & water supplies?  

The question is - what ammo caliber would you want if all that came to be???  I have handguns in all calibers, but in that scenario I would want large caliber cast bullets and guns to fire them. I will always have a few large caliber handguns. 

[fastbolt]

You're going to make yourself dizzy chasing your own tail.

Which is better, overall, as your only vehicle ... a pickup truck, a 4dr sedan or a little convertible without a back seat? You can do any number of driving/carrying tasks with all of them, but not all tasks equally well (or at all) with all of them. If you're only going to own ONE, then it's time to probably prioritize your anticipated tasks and goals. Able to own more than ONE? Then you can give yourself the ability to suit yourself on any given day.

There was once a time when older gun and ammunition state-of-the-art technology made me continually consider and weigh the relative merits of a 6-shot .357MAG revolver against my 7+1 shot Colt Commander (for off-duty usage). Lighter/faster more "powerful" Magnum revolver caliber, versus heavier/slower "America's pisto"l caliber? Or, 6 shots versus 8 shots? Or, a thicker frame versus slim frame? I handled and could shoot both virtually equally well. (That wasn't the problem.)

It usually came down to whichever I "liked more" on any given day, or the waistband size and cut of my jeans and how much bulk I wanted to carry in a IWB holster all day/night. Caliber? They both could serve me well enough. Capacity? Meaning 6 shots or 8 before having to load again? Toss a coin. Carry spare magazines or speedloaders? Again, toss a coin.

Nowadays we can factor in even more considerations ... to better confuse our decisions.

It's a handgun. It's not a shotgun or a rifle.

Presuming you don't require the "power" of a .44MAG, or the easy felt recoil of a .22LR ...

... Pick something in an easily available centerfire caliber ... using some good quality modern American-made ammunition ... of a size, weight and overall configuration which fits within your daily activities, lifestyle and anticipated needs ... and which you can use well (especially if under stress and duress) ... which you're willing to use for both training and practice ... which can be maintained by you, at least at the user level ... and then worry about something else which is going to be of more immediate concern each and every hour of each and every day.

Many years ago I decided that of all my assorted revolvers and pistols, in all the major common service calibers of the last 50 years (9, .45, .38, .357MAG, .40) I could pick any ONE of them and easily "made do" no matter whatever inherent "limitations" might be involved, meaning the individual size, design (or finish), caliber, capacity, sights, or whether it's continued operation was dependent on using a magazine or it had a cylinder. It was still just a handgun, chambered in one of the "common use" service calibers of the last 50 years.

Hey, if you like a lesser-used caliber, like 10mm, .357SIG, .45GAP, .41 MAG, .45Colt, .44SPL or .44MAG? Still your choice. You're the one going to be staking your life on it and shouldering the consequences of its use.

Life is too short to obsess over the relative minute differences among handguns and calibers.

How's your first-aid knowledge, skills and supplies? How's your overall health?

 

[Gun Shark]

10 minutes ago, fastbolt said:

You're going to make yourself dizzy chasing your own tail.

Which is better, overall, as your only vehicle ... a pickup truck, a 4dr sedan or a little convertible without a back seat? You can do any number of driving/carrying tasks with all of them, but not all tasks equally well (or at all) with all of them. If you're only going to own ONE, then it's time to probably prioritize your anticipated tasks and goals. Able to own more than ONE? Then you can give yourself the ability to suit yourself on any given day.

There was once a time when older gun and ammunition state-of-the-art technology made me continually consider and weigh the relative merits of a 6-shot .357MAG revolver against my 7+1 shot Colt Commander (for off-duty usage). Lighter/faster more "powerful" Magnum revolver caliber, versus heavier/slower "America's pisto"l caliber? Or, 6 shots versus 8 shots? Or, a thicker frame versus slim frame? I handled and could shoot both virtually equally well. (That wasn't the problem.)

It usually came down to whichever I "liked more" on any given day, or the waistband size and cut of my jeans and how much bulk I wanted to carry in a IWB holster all day/night. Caliber? They both could serve me well enough. Capacity? Meaning 6 shots or 8 before having to load again? Toss a coin. Carry spare magazines or speedloaders? Again, toss a coin.

Nowadays we can factor in even more considerations ... to better confuse our decisions.

It's a handgun. It's not a shotgun or a rifle.

Presuming you don't require the "power" of a .44MAG, or the easy felt recoil of a .22LR ...

... Pick something in an easily available centerfire caliber ... using some good quality modern American-made ammunition ... of a size, weight and overall configuration which fits within your daily activities, lifestyle and anticipated needs ... and which you can use well (especially if under stress and duress) ... which you're willing to use for both training and practice ... which can be maintained by you, at least at the user level ... and then worry about something else which is going to be of more immediate concern each and every hour of each and every day.

Many years ago I decided that of all my assorted revolvers and pistols, in all the major common service calibers of the last 50 years (9, .45, .38, .357MAG, .40) I could pick any ONE of them and easily "made do" no matter whatever inherent "limitations" might be involved, meaning the individual size, design (or finish), caliber, capacity, sights, or whether it's continued operation was dependent on using a magazine or it had a cylinder. It was still just a handgun, chambered in one of the "common use" service calibers of the last 50 years.

Hey, if you like a lesser-used caliber, like 10mm, .357SIG, .45GAP, .41 MAG, .45Colt, .44SPL or .44MAG? Still your choice. You're the one going to be staking your life on it and shouldering the consequences of its use.

Life is too short to obsess over the relative minute differences among handguns and calibers.

How's your first-aid knowledge, skills and supplies? How's your overall health?

 

I think .357sig should be in the service caliber list you posted because several LE agencies use it.  But I think generally, I agree with you.

[fastbolt]

4 minutes ago, Gun Shark said:

I think .357sig should be in the service caliber list you posted because several LE agencies use it.  But I think generally, I agree with you.

Sure. You can if you wish, but the caliber has been consistently declining in LE use in recent years.

The last several armorer recerts I've attended for a couple of the big gun companies haven't mentioned any new agencies adopting it, and it's only been mentioned in passing (like if some armorer asks about it).

The last large agency which has been issuing it in my general area of the state, a few counties away, began ordering new guns last year chambered in 9mm (same model from same major maker).

When someone mentioned the caliber in one of the last couple of Glock classes I attended, none of the agencies represented by the attending armorers used it, and even the instructor in my last recert class said he couldn't remember having taught a class at any agency who used it in the last several years. If an industry rumor is correct, even a couple of fed agencies who have been using it may be planning to transition to 9mm once their existing large stockpiles of .357 have been depleted. (I suspect it will remain in-service for a while around the country, much like the 10mm remained in-service even after the FBI transitioned from their attenuated 10mm service load.)

Interestingly enough, in the new CA state LE ammunition contract the .357 was offered for the first time ever, along with 9, .40 & .45ACP (and .45ACP hasn't been on the last few contracts). However, even though the other 3 duty calibers are represented by both Federal and Speer on the contract, only Speer lists the .357. This might match up with what a GT member was told by Federal when he called, about the company discontinuing at least one of their LE .357 lines without any plans to put it back in production.

I suspect it will probably remain in production for many years for the commercial market, much like 10mm has remained a caliber produced for private consumers, albeit maybe not in as many lines and offerings.

[Eric2340]

1 hour ago, Citra47 said:

On the other hand, we all have to realize in the overall scheme of things, HP or more modern high performance ammo is only a small drop in the bucket in cartridge manufacturing, by far being surpassed by hard ball or solid lead ammo. What happens, God forbid, if some great catastrophe should wipe out modern manufacturing and take out food & water supplies?  

The question is - what ammo caliber would you want if all that came to be???  I have handguns in all calibers, but in that scenario I would want large caliber cast bullets and guns to fire them. I will always have a few large caliber handguns. 

You made very good points about ammo technology and the fact that if a smaller HP fails to open then a larger HP is already larger from the start and things can only get better. Along with your comments on these newer rounds that are depending less and less on expansion of the projectile it's self. Both good points -

 

As far as the availability issue though in what was my initial questioning though ( Given all things equal which do you feel is better/prefer - Power or capacity? ) was more directed towards a choosing a defensive setup/load out/what would you prefer to have knowing there may be firefight period vs. an extended survival/end of the world as we know it scenario? In other words if you knew you'd be in a gun fight handgun wise or anticipated one (again, handguns only) WHICH of the two I mentioned (power or capacity) would you rather have?

Thanks -

[Eric2340]

1 hour ago, fastbolt said:

Pick something in an easily available centerfire caliber ... using some good quality modern American-made ammunition ... of a size, weight and overall configuration which fits within your daily activities, lifestyle and anticipated needs ... and which you can use well (especially if under stress and duress) ... which you're willing to use for both training and practice ... which can be maintained by you, at least at the user level

As usual fastbolt is right and offers good advice from experience - I guess mainly what I was hoping for without having to go to the classic "which is better - 9mm vs .45 debate" which I was trying to avoid and NOT have it turn into.

I mean if it were the end all to ball and I had to pick just ONE sized round it would be the one that would give me to highest capacity while still doing the most damage possible for it's given capacity to be carried, and then second would be the one I could put my hands on the most easily. That's probably a pretty easy answer handgun wise for most of us (9mm). What got me thinking about that though is you have heard all of these re-acceptances and going back to the 9mm due to bullet technology advances and the fact that it's easier to get hits with it for most people over the past few years. There's also become this popular opinion that this is just a passing fad, and once more data is studied in a few years after this return to it and these newer bullet "designs" that are so much better across the board, that we are also going to see a possible resurgence again back to the medium to larger calibers if the "new 9mm" does not prove to be the new answer that it may not turn out to be?

Again, REALLY trying to avoid the "9mm vs .45" or any caliber over that one thing period, and trying to decide on the best answer or balance between power and capacity, fully knowing for the most part it really already is the classic debate it's always been.

Or, are the medium calibers like the .40 really what they are - the happy medium between to two the always have been?

 

Everyone seems to default to a "what works best for you" or what do you shoot and are most comfortable with statement, which in the end may be the best advice there is period?

 

Thanks -

 

 

[janice6]

 I prefer high performance rounds    I carried a revolver for a long while, then transitioned to larger round counts in a semi-auto, because of the herd mentality in present day.  From 6 rounds to 14 per loading.

[Bucky]

3 hours ago, Eric2340 said:

Given all things equal (meaning your ability to shoot either of the two between two different calibers just as accurately as the other under stress) which do you feel is better/prefer - Power or capacity? (stating that also understanding that ALL handgun caliber are poor stoppers compared to larger caliber weapons like rifles and what not, and that there are truly NO "one shot stoppers").

I also realize there are those too that will say "go with a happy medium - something that is a go between round between the two different size rounds that also holds a middle of the road capacity for an all around happy medium between the two?" I am NOT talking about that either, and would prefer to leave that out of the discussion (if possible?).

This is the exact reason the "happy medium" cartridge was so popular for a good period of time, for those that wanted a balance of both.

For me, a lot comes down to the platform itself. When I chose Beretta, it was 17 vs 12 (+1 of course), so the additional power of the .40 wasn't worth a deficit of 5 rounds. On the other hand, when I carried a USP Compact, the decision was 13 v 12 v 8 (9mm v .40 v .45).  Giving up 1 round to go from 9mm to .40 was worth it (not to mention this platform handles .40 pretty darn good), but going down an additional 4 rounds wasn't that appealing.

Everything is a balance, so more needs to be taken into consideration. What is the capacity versus power balance? How does a particular platform handle the more powerful cartridge (both in recoil and wear and tear)?

[F350]

4 hours ago, Eric2340 said:

 if I went with a smaller caliber, I could just easily carry fewer mags that hold more rounds in the first place? I guess the best example I could give is a caliber/weapon that held 8-10 larger rounds vs another weapon of a smaller caliber that held 12-15 rounds instead if BOTH weapons are of the same basic size in the first place if that makes any sense?

Again, I am deliberately trying to leave calibers OUT of this for the sake of discussion.

 

ALL this said I'd much rather have something shoulder fired that held between 20-30 rounds one way or another than ANY handgun/handgun round period.

 

Thanks -

OK, I'm going to answer YES.

I carry a Para-Ordnance P-14, a double stack 1911 .45 ACP that carries 14 in the mag and one in the pipe. So I have your 12-15 rounds AND a larger caliber bullet. I also load it with Double Tap .450 SMC (.45 Short Magnum Cartridge) loaded with a 160gr Barnes TAC-XP bullet @1350 fps.

 

Who says "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

[Will Beararms]

This debate was settled by the FBI in 1990. The answer is power AND capacity via the .40 S&W 180 grain JHP. 

[Collim1]

I’ve always been fond of .45acp and .357 magnum, and have always been comfortable with the capacity of a six shot revolver or 7/8+1 single stack. 

That being said I’ve carried both 9mm and  .40 guns as well with varying capacities over the years. 

I tend to find guns I like with less regard to the caliber and capacity. 

[Fnfalman]

All things will never be equal.  I'll go with the gun that I can shoot best with - the gun that I can put the first round and subsequent rounds on target the easiest and quickest.

Right now that gun is a Kimber K6S revolver. 

[blueiron]

All handguns are a trade off of power for portability. If one needs power, one selects a rifle. If one needs portability; wearability, and concealment; one selects a handgun.

Whether one selects a 9mm Luger, .357 Magnum, a .40, a .45, etc. with modern ammunition; one has to remember that the caliber does not imply success - one's accuracy and shot placement do. I've seen people die after being shot with a .22 WMR handgun and I went through the academy with a Viet Nam vet who took three Soviet 12.7x107mm caliber DShK rounds through the thigh in country. Scarring, but no permanent disability other than running slower than prior to the injury. 

Don't overthink the equation.

Edited July 31, 2018 by blueiron

[Borg warner]

I want the most power and capacity that I can comfortably carry in the smallest lightest package possible and the minimum caliber I would trust with my life would be 9mm. The Sig P365 would be perfect if it proved to be as reliable as a Glock 26, 27, or 33 after firing many thousands of rounds and maybe after a couple of years that may prove to the case.

Everything involved with concealed carry is a series of compromises and trade-offs. even duty guns carried openly are subject to compromises. When the FBI went to the 10mm that was a good choice except not for smaller statured individuals without the proper training to handle that much power so they downsized to the 10mm and then downsized again back to the 9.

As far as capacity I sometimes carry an airweight J frame because it's easier to pocket carry than just about any small 9mm but the trade-off is ammo capacity for ease of carry. Ammo capacity is a GOOD thing but sometimes you have to give something up to gain something back and it's all a matter of what your priorities are.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Borg warner

[Boogieman]

In all honesty neither is particularly important to me.  Here's a reality check.  No handgun caliber is particularly effective against a determined aggressor.  Unless the central nervous system is incapacitated an attacker has several seconds to several minutes to continue their assault.  Even a heart/lung shot.  Injecting more bullets won't change that.  For me, carrying a sufficient amount of an effective round in a weapon that is shootable is paramount.  The caliber wars are over and 9mm won.  Want to carry a different caliber?  Great.  When the need arises I'll carry something in 10mm.  But against two legged predators I'm neither better served nor safer.  For decades I carried a 1911.  First in 45 then in 10mm.  But these days usually some Glock model in 9mm.   Other than speed I can't think of a single reason why I'm at a disadvantage with my 10+1 Glock 26 (or even my 6+1 Glock 43) than with a 1911 with 8 or 9 +1.  Or even my 15+1 Glock 20 in an urban environment.

[Citra47]

3 hours ago, Eric2340 said:

You made very good points about ammo technology and the fact that if a smaller HP fails to open then a larger HP is already larger from the start and things can only get better. Along with your comments on these newer rounds that are depending less and less on expansion of the projectile it's self. Both good points -

 

As far as the availability issue though in what was my initial questioning though ( Given all things equal which do you feel is better/prefer - Power or capacity? ) was more directed towards a choosing a defensive setup/load out/what would you prefer to have knowing there may be firefight period vs. an extended survival/end of the world as we know it scenario? In other words if you knew you'd be in a gun fight handgun wise or anticipated one (again, handguns only) WHICH of the two I mentioned (power or capacity) would you rather have?

Thanks - 

Larger caliber - smaller mag capacity.

[Boogieman]

42 minutes ago, blueiron said:

All handguns are a trade off of power for portability. If one needs power, one selects a rifle. If one needs portability; wearability, and concealment; one selects a handgun.

Whether one selects a 9mm Luger, .357 Magnum, a .40, a .45, etc. with modern ammunition; one has to remember that the caliber does not imply success - one's accuracy and shot placement do. I've seen people die after being shot with a .22 WMR handgun and I went through the academy with a Viet Nam vet who took three Soviet 12.7x107mm caliber DShK rounds through the thigh in country. Scarring, but no permanent disability other than running slower than prior to the injury. 

Don't overthink the equation.

Charles Beckwith, founder of Delta Force, took an unsurvivable 50 cal round to the stomach.  Not only did he survive but he kept on fighting.  There were at least two other instances where he was incorrectly given zero chance of survival.  Aside from a brain shot there isn't a handgun round in existence that would immediately incapacitate a type A aggressive like him.  

[Boogieman]

3 hours ago, Will Beararms said:

This debate was settled by the FBI in 1990. The answer is power AND capacity via the .40 S&W 180 grain JHP. 

You do know that it's 2018?  Things have changed a lot since then.

[Borg warner]

42 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

In all honesty neither is particularly important to me.  Here's a reality check.  No handgun caliber is particularly effective against a determined aggressor.  Unless the central nervous system is incapacitated an attacker has several seconds to several minutes to continue their assault.  Even a heart/lung shot.  Injecting more bullets won't change that.  For me, carrying a sufficient amount of an effective round in a weapon that is shootable is paramount.  The caliber wars are over and 9mm won.  Want to carry a different caliber?  Great.  When the need arises I'll carry something in 10mm.  But against two legged predators I'm neither better served nor safer.  For decades I carried a 1911.  First in 45 then in 10mm.  But these days usually some Glock model in 9mm.   Other than speed I can't think of a single reason why I'm at a disadvantage with my 10+1 Glock 26 (or even my 6+1 Glock 43) than with a 1911 with 8 or 9 +1.  Or even my 15+1 Glock 20 in an urban environment.

I agree with most of what you've said, but I disagree on one minor point. "The caliber wars are over and 9mm won." I don't think that it can be argued that 9mm is the BEST defensive caliber or that it's actually superior to any other, but only that it's adequate for most purposes. But where it actually wins is that it can be chambered in a smaller gun than any the larger calibers and can be comfortably concealed more easily.

It's all a matter of playing the odds.  The odds are better that 15+1 rounds of underwood 180 grain Gold dots will neutralize a threat better than 6+! rounds of the best 9mm ammo regardless of whether or not the outcome is 100% guaranteed in either event. And the advantage to ammo capacity is not that you can inject more bullets into the threat but that it gives you more chances to hit a vital area.

And for every unusual or exceptional case where an attacker absorbed a dozen or more rounds and wasn't stopped, there are far more instances of successful self defense using handguns where only a few rounds were fired. For years. Law enforcement were armed with only six shot 38 specials and they were successful more often than not.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Borg warner

[Boogieman]

3 minutes ago, Borg warner said:

The odds are better that 15+1 rounds of underwood 180 grain Gold dots will neutralize a threat better than 6+! rounds of the best 9mm ammo regardless of whether or not the outcome is 100% guaranteed in either event.

But can you show that of the best 9mm/40/357/45/10mm etc that one is more effective than the other in a social encounter?  Not opinions or "common sense" but verifiable studies or statistics?  I can only find one civilian instance where capacity mattered.

 

[Borg warner]

28 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

 

No, I have neither the access to verifiable studies or statistics or the inclination to spend a lot of time looking for it to prove any kind of point. Extra capacity is nice to have especially considering how hard it can be to hit a moving target under stress especially if that target is shooting back at you. And I may have already mentioned this but I often carry a 5 shot J-frame and I'm determined to survive in a life-and-death situation with just that. 

And where you and I might agree is that mindset and preparedness are more important than hardware issues pertaining to what gun or caliber is used. the most important thing thing is to have a gun and be prepared to use it.

[DUBSY]

2 minutes ago, Borg warner said:

And where you and I might agree is that mindset and preparedness are more important than hardware issues pertaining to what gun or caliber is used. the most important thing thing is to have a gun and be prepared to use it.

Well said

[Borg warner]

I want the most power and capacity that I can comfortably carry in the smallest package possible. The Sig P365 would be perfect if it proved to have the reliability of a Glock 26, 27,  or 33 which are known to go for many thousands of rounds without any problems.