Magazine Ban - Firearms 101

[gman1868]

Good YouTube video done by Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, IN (north of Indianapolis, IN)
Ken is a Constitutional Sheriff and also a range instructor for Gunsite in AZ.

The video is showing the time difference that it takes to fire 30 rounds of ammunition from a pistol using different magazine capacities, including the reloading time.
2 magazines of 15 rounds
3 magazines of 10 rounds
5 magazines of 6 rounds

[Snowgun]

As an example, for someone who can shoot action pistol with an intermediate skill level, just add about 1.3 s per magazine change.

[whiteox]

Love it. I was thinking about shooting one of these myself but this is much better done. The one concern I have is that if it doesn't distinguish between the offensive and defensive applications of a high cap mag.

For example, If you're carrying a pistol and an extra mag each additional limited capacity mag takes up as much space as a standard cap mag. As a defensive shooter (the good guy) I'm likely limited in the amount of magazines I can reasonably carry and continue on with a relatively normal life. Requiring me to split the same number of rounds into four magazines means I'll only be able to have half as much ammo on my person and less than that before the first reload.

The offensive shooter on the other hand has had time to prepare and isn't all that concerned about temporary discomfort of being weighed down with the bulk of a couple dozen extra mags. In fact, assuming he can't find standard capacity mags which shouldn't really be that tough, he could easily fire off hundreds of rounds of ammo from limited capacity mags that fit in a dump pouch or backpack. The offensive guy also has the advantage of choosing exactly where and when to begin. He can start shooting from cover in a tactically advantageous position.

I'm just a guy watching TV, or going to WalMart who doesn't want an entire USPSA competition rig at his waist. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[harryset]

Now take that and try to educate the non-thinking anti-gun lobby. Not gonna happen. They don't think, they feel and react. Most of them will tell you that they don't feel safe if there is a gun anywhere, no matter how well it's locked up.

Guns = Danger, don't try to convince them otherwise.

[Tronster]

Well thought out example. But the antigunners typically have no real experience with shooting or defensive drills. They would view that and think "he killed all three targets in the first three shots, why would he need any more?"

Their security is the government and police; our security is our own self reliance and a firearm.

[St. Olaf]

Oh, I think it COULD possibly make a difference, but not a big difference.

I doubt that many of the massacre artists were experts at changing magazines, thus, in reality.....each and every magazine change is probably an opportunity for someone to tackle them and put an end to the killing.

I think everybody knows, (or should know) that as magazines get to be larger than normal they usually get to be less reliable anyway. At least a couple of the mass killings ended due to a jam.

I wouldn't own one of those 33 round pistol mags. I just don't see any sense in it. The normal capacity mags of 15 to 17 rounds that fit flush are big enough for me.

But if anybody wants to screw around with giant magazines, I think it's their right. They'll probably also be clearing jams where I won't.

Even the goofiest of the politicians seem to realize that banning things is unpopular.

[grousemaster]

Oh, I think it COULD possibly make a difference, but not a big difference.

I doubt that many of the massacre artists were experts at changing magazines, thus, in reality.....each and every magazine change is probably an opportunity for someone to tackle them and put an end to the killing.

I think everybody knows, (or should know) that as magazines get to be larger than normal they usually get to be less reliable anyway. At least a couple of the mass killings ended due to a jam.

I wouldn't own one of those 33 round pistol mags. I just don't see any sense in it. The normal capacity mags of 15 to 17 rounds that fit flush are big enough for me.

But if anybody wants to screw around with giant magazines, I think it's their right. They'll probably also be clearing jams where I won't.

Even the goofiest of the politicians seem to realize that banning things is unpopular.

The GLock 33 round mags are very reliable, mine has been flawless.

[St. Olaf]

Glocks are an aberration in the reliability field.

But, I just think such long magazines are unwieldy and awkward to use anyhow.

I'll stick with the normal capacity magazines.

[Holland&Holland]

Glocks are an aberration in the reliability field.

But, I just think such long magazines are unwieldy and awkward to use anyhow.

I'll stick with the normal capacity magazines.

Belt fed is the only way to go.

[damian_mb]

Glocks are an aberration in the reliability field.

But, I just think such long magazines are unwieldy and awkward to use anyhow.

I'll stick with the normal capacity magazines.

Belt fed is the only way to go.

I agree, they would not fall under any ban since it's not a clip or magazine

[splithand]

by St. Olaf on Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:22 pm

Glocks are an aberration in the reliability field.

But, I just think such long magazines are unwieldy and awkward to use anyhow.

I'll stick with the normal capacity magazines.

I agree as long as 7 rounds is not the "new normal"

[St. Olaf]

True!