I have often seen comments from people talking about magazine compatibility for firearms. Then in another conversation today I heard it again. I dislike arguing by text message and wanted to put my thoughts down on paper. My position is that unless you are carrying a backup weapon like a policeman, I'm not so sure that magazine interchangeability is such a big deal.
If you were a policeman the ability to use a Glock 17 mag from your duty belt in your Glock 26 ankle gun is probably a good thing. Going a little off path, if you are in a rifle squad, then the ability to take ammo from those out of service or load level is likely a good thing.
For the record, and in my opinion, any weapon and most things are a series of compromises. Easier to control vs easier to conceal; Caliber vs capacity; size vs capacity.
For John Q though, I think that it becomes less of an issue. I do like buying Glock 17 mags for my 34, and then using them in my 19. It's nice to buy way too many mags and take them all to the range loaded and ready to roll (I hate paying for range time and using it to thumb 9mm into magazines).
When I walk out the door I want a pistol optimized for conceal-ability and a moderate mag capacity. I do take a spare mag with me most days, and that is about it.
The comment from today was basically, If SHTF, it would be nice to be able to pull one set of mags and roll. I guess I get that from my 34/19 comment above, but to me the 43 is a deep carry pistol. I don't commonly carry two handguns on me at a time. I do think if the SHTF I would rather still have the ability to carry something very compact and small, plus a larger pistol. The smaller pistol provides a New York reload.
In those cases commonality of platform and ease of concealment trumps (heh) the commonality of magazines.
