The other day I was joking around with some friends about how standard 30 round magazines somehow became evil “High Capacity Magazines” so I came up with this new naming convention to put the discussion back on track. But, I bet you guys can come up with even better names. So have at it and enjoy.
+1
“You’re Kidding Me Right?” AKA, the Canadian “Standard Capacity”. 🙁
>implying canadians aim
Implying the forces defending all of Europe do not? The Standard NATO magazine almost universally holds 30 rounds or more, with the rare issued 20 round magazine also floating around. Would you prefer your defense forces pack out with 5 or 10 rounders for each man/woman?
Of course, now you will argue THEY should have plenty of ammo at hand. Using your earlier point, this indicates you either don’t expect them to aim or you don’t think they have the capacity to aim. You have very poor faith in your troops and their training. You should, therefore, arm yourself.
You often have insightful posts, but this one missed the mark. See what I did there? You got one shot and missed! Reload that single-shot rifle and try again. Cheers
Of course it misses the mark when I delve into humor.
And during the last war one exchange between our diplomats and the russian leadership is said to have gone basically: “We will have ten men to every finn!” “So we’ll give every finn ten bullets.”
We didn’t strictly speaking win the war, but the russians can’t say they had a resounding victory. A pyrrhic one, at best.
The reason why 30rd mags is the standard is that it allows significant flexibility with selective-fire weapons: semi-auto for aimed fire; full auto for close-quarters and suppressing fire. This took pressure off LMG/automatic rifle users.
I see no similar justification for civilian-used weapons. And what is the justification they even have? They don’t want to reload so often? Or some “matching the army” wishful thinking?
Reservist use is another matter entirely, though.
“I see no similar justification for civilian-used weapons. And what is the justification they even have? They don’t want to reload so often? Or some “matching the army” wishful thinking?”
WTF? That one statement alone clearly identifies you as European who has zero idea of the founding fathers’ intent behind the 2nd Amendment.
Thank God I’m not European!
Gar, I had a long BRILLIANT response but my connection keeps getting cut. Hmm, coincidence?
Time to be brief…er.
I appreciate your humor and have no hate for you brother. You simply have a radically different view of how best to defend yourself and you country. The justification exists in the 2A and nothing further is needed.
Kudos to the Finns and their phenomenal accuracy during that war. Capacity never trumps accuracy, but yes having more ammo means reloading less and staying in the fight longer.
I have never used auto in an engagement, except when using an MG. My M-16/M4 was always best used on semi. I prefer accuracy to volume any day, even in close quarters. But it IS comforting to have auto a little thumb flip away 🙂
More to say, but I expect to get cut off again soon! Dang crappy connec…
Go away. Do not come to America. We have enough of your kind here and we wish like hell they would go join you- somewhere else.
And the Finns don’t NEED a regular sauna or to drink nearly as much vodka as you folks seem to enjoy doing on a regular basis. Somehow I don’t forsee you folks giving up something you don’t really NEED anytime soon, so please stop with the hypocritical preaching to us, thanks.
Writing here, since the site doesn’t seem to allow any longer reply chains.
@Redleg: Since you seem to have up-to-date first-hand access to that knowledge, why don’t you enlighten me?
@Eric B: The only occasions I got to blast full-auto with the Rk were squad AA-fire training, burning off excess blanks and holding a position in MILES maneuvers. T’was fun letting Nora rip, though 🙂 With MGs the PKM was cool. The KvKK I wouldn’t even use to hit a baseball. The trigger bites your finger with every shot.
@Mark: a bit xenophobic, aren’t we?
@Steve: We call alcohol the drink of the wise as only the wise know such a thing as moderation. Alas, we aren’t all wise.
And with the sauna we don’t strictly NEED it, but it’s a facet of our culture. And we build saunas up to code, so we don’t burn our houses down or suffocate ourselves with smoke when we go and relax in the heat.
If it isn’t clear yet, I’m for common-sense restrictions. Total bans don’t work and neither does the total absence of any restrictions.
My country has strict gun laws, but that in no way prevents us having a healthy gun-collectors’, sports shooters’, hunters’ or reservist shooters’ culture. If you can get a license for it, you’re welcome to any arm you can get.
And through conscription most of the male population has formal firearm training.
Standard capacity 30 , sbr capacity 20, marksman capacity 10.
+20
This is actually a good idea. The Anti-gun movement is playing with words the invoke emotional responses from people that truly don’t know what they are talking about. Such as calling AR15s “assault weapons”… when they are merely semi-automatic rifles. The media talking heads and politicians know those aren’t actually assault weapons so they either expand the definition or continue to call them that.
I was having a conversation with an individual who told me how limiting magazine size would INCREASE the amount of AMMO needed to carry out one of these shooting sprees.
This is a war of words that we as advocates of the 2nd amendment are fighting.
Tbh, I do believe “assault rifle” does have an actual definition.
There’s a reason we switched from 7.62 NATO to 5.56 NATO.
Tbh, I just think its old government/media just not keeping up with the times that led to the label of “high capacity magazine.”
I’m curious why its “standard” for a mag to hold 30rds. The M16 started out with 20rd disposable mags, but b/c of the AK47 we upped it to 30. Can’t we look at the P90 and say 50 rounds is standard capacity? why blanket every small arm with the ubiquitous “30 round capacity?” its just arbitrary in my opinion.
The first SMG mags had 32 rounds, which was basically an Artillery Luger magazine. And even then it was a partial drum.
It might be down to ergonomics, as stick magazines get longer the more rounds they hold, and your every-day mag held 32 9mmPara rounds. Of course these were loaded with 30 for the sake of reliability. Long mags require higher prone aiming positions, and long-enough mags preclude normal prone aim entirely. Most mags in general didn’t protrude much beyond a visualized box that the weapon would form (box top and bottom parallel with the bore), though this was dependent on doctrine of use and which way the mag was loaded into the weapon.
Workarounds were made to increase mag capacity without affecting mag length: drum mags, pan mags and coffin mags. SMGs used coffin and drum mags (most notably the Suomi used both), some automatic rifles used pan mags (including the Degtyarev and Lewis gun). 5.56 rifle cartridge base isn’t that much wider than with 9mmPara, so… With AK the base is 2mm wider, but the mag curves quite a bit due to tapering cases, so it protrudes less than a straight magazine with straight-cased cartridges of the same size would.
Wasn’t it the 6.5mm Grendel that limits a STANAG mag’s capacity to 26?
Just in the past few years true assault-rifle high-capacity magazines are coming to the fore in the form of 60rd coffin magazines. By what I hear both the AK-12 and IAR have such lined up.
But why did they decide with 30rd mags in the first place, while 20rd mags would have protruded less? In the early days of SMGs both were used, but 30rd provided better capacity for automatic fire support, and more could be carried than 60+ round drums and they are easier to manufacture than 50rd coffin mags.
So it might be a convergence of ergonomics, economics, tactical usability and ease of maintenance.
I see the Trommelmagazin 08 as the starting point for it all, with the post-WWI designers wanting to give the same capability to newer weapons as the MP18.1 had with the Trommelmagazin.
Even with all this dissecting of the matter, it does still seems relatively arbitrary.
“Why are SMG and assault rifle mags 30rd?” “tl;dr Because the first SMG had a 32rd magazine from an artillery PDW.”
“Why did that Artillery Luger have a *32rd* magazine?”
If someone could give me a concise answer on that, I’ll be impressed.
Not sure, but from reading this site (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Before+the+submachine+gun%3A+firepower+with+the+Lange+Pistole+08%3A+the…-a0194332417) the 32rd capacity may have come from the combination of a 20rd drum connected to a 12rd “feed chute”. The need for the 20rd drum section may have stemmed from the need to engage inflatables (zepplins, balloons, dirgibles) from aircraft with a high number of rounds in order to cause enough damage to down them, from the cramped space of a WWI aircraft cockpit or passenger seat, without having to constantly reload or make multiple passes.
Fascinating.
This explains a few things.
I agree to a point – standard capacity refers to the magazines that come standard with that type of rifle. Yes, it was 20, but now it’s 30. 30 doesn’t mean standard for everything, otherwise a 1911 extended magazine would be a “You’re kidding me, right?” mag. There shouldn’t be a specific number (and notice that the image doesn’t have number attached to the different magazines) that defines, standard and high capacity, but what is typical for that firearm. So it would still be fairly arbitrary, but it’ll be based on the opinion of the people who make and sell the guns rather than politicians.
Granted, this is my interpretation of the post; YMMV
Tactical – 30rd
Operational – 15rd
Strategic – 10rd
Standard Capacity, Sub-standard Capacity, and The Pelosi Special (substitute with Bloomberg, Biden, et al.)
HaHa… Standard, Sub-standard, and Liberal Capacity!
+10
Isn’t it more like -20? 😛
Among all the dim-witted legislation pending introduction, the California Legislature is making a move to outlaw magazines that “appear” to hold more rounds than they can actually accept.
This is an effort to kill the “PMAG 10/30” (Google it, should appear next to the bullet button, another Cali adaptation).
Noted child psychologist–and patron of street prostitutes (look it up: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Best-to-Stay-on-the-Straight-Narrow-Streets-All-3316588.php) Leland Yee is hard at work on both these bills.
Cali shooters, if we’re not using ALL the means allowed by due process to stop these hypocrites, we (and the industry as a whole, given our buying power) stand to lose A LOT.
I totally agree that we need to fight fire with fire.
We also should have kept our collective mouths shut in the first place. Let the liberals ban all of the 30 round clips, then we go on with our lives and keep using magazines.
Tactical – 30rd mag
Operational – 15rd mag
Strategic – 10rd mag
10 rounder would be a california standard.
here is the real answer standard, mid, and low capacity. now for the FUN answeres or normal mag, short mag, vertically challenged mag. or F’in A, Meh, and Huh??? capacity mags.
On a not-so-serious note:
If I’d name them from a military standpoint
30rd: Could use moar dakka
20rd: Could REALLY use moar dakka
10rd: Damn, now I need to aim…
…and from a civilian standpoint
30rd: SO MUCH DAKKA!!
20rd: Now I don’t need to reload as often at the range!
10rd: Rolling old-school…
On a serious note:
“High-capacity magazines” should be context-sensitive. With assault-rifle-based derivatives anything above 30 rounds (including the ridiculous 100rd AK banana mag), but with bolt-actions anything above 10rds (like with the Trench Mauser).
30rd mags (or for some weapons, 25rd) should be “military-standard magazines.” Of course people will see this as a negative, neutral or even positive term. Those absolutely against guns would be against the term (as if they aren’t against the subject to begin with), those who want military weapons will get more incentive to get such mags, while others (yours truly included) will just see it as “exactly what it says on the tin.”
“10rd: Damn, now I need to aim…”
Now that’s funny!
I’m guessing the “moar dakka” reference wasn’t familiar?
+100
Black-White-Asian
btw I have never been known to be politically correct 🙂
Borrowed from a genius on the SSD Facebook page.
But maybe, Grande (10), Venti (20) and Trenta (30).
Fu-fu coffee terms might make things more acceptable.
to translate to Cdn that would be; Regular, Double Double and Triple Triple
I’ve already got a t-shirt on order:
“Please ban high capacity clips – so I can keep my standard capacity magazines”
30 free state 20 moderate state 10 peoples republic
Citizen, Subject, Slave
I really like Joe’s idea of “30 – Free State; 20 – Moderate State; and, 10 – Peoples Republic.” Those names coincide with my preference for Large Size (30 rounds); Regular Size (20 rounds for us older ‘Nam nostalgic types); and, Kids Meal (10 rounds without the chicken nuggets). Just give me my Large Size meal deal now so I can fill up the large cup while waiting on my order. Thank You Very Much, Have A Nice Day, and God Bless America! By the way, whatever happened to that old 1960’s bumper sticker – “America. Love It Or Leave It” – seems as if its time for a comeback tour.
Change the colour (spelled correctly, lol) to something other then black. Would be less scary to the fearful. Green is nice (and tactical here) FDE is nice too. Black is ok only for those formal occasions. Or for guarding NY mayors, Presidents and other million/billionaires. Or 007. Seariously there probably is a psycological element to peoples fears and the colour. I never said it was rational, so stop right there! Most people do believe black is a concealment colour, not us, the other people. Grey or gray is nice for the city folk, but none of them are concealable colours, lol. I always laugh how they complain guns are too powerful (well they are guns) or not powerful enough and only have criminal use, wtf.
reasonable, unreasonable, wtf
Excellent point. 2A supporters neeed to be very cognizant of the language used in the debate. The libs have very consciously tried to control the language to control the debate and indoctrinate the low informarmation voter
Use the right terms. Educate those that use the incorrect and subliminal messaging liberal terms. If you don’t you just lost half the battle.
It’s a standard magazine not a liberal invented “high capacity” magazine.
It’s anti 2nd Amendment or anti self defense not liberal invented “gun control”.
It’s semi auto rifle not liberal invented “assault weapons”.
It’s semi auto not auto etc.
Every time you correct you educate or offer the lib you’re debating an opportunity to show how underhanded and manipulative they are being by creating loaded words.
Liberal vs Conservative = irony. Back in the 1700’s the Conservatives would have been Monarchists and the Liberals would have been the revolutionaries and very much the supports of the 2A. The whole US Constitution is a Liberal document.
Right you are. When I say this to some folks they look at me like I’ve got a dick growing out of my forehead.
With what magazine capacity did US won WW2? Eight rounds?
8 rounds for the Garand but don’t forget the BAR (20 rd mag), Thompson, M1 Carbine (15 rd & later 30 rd mag), M2 Carbine (30 rd mag), & the M3 & M3A1 Grease Gun (30 rd mag), ALL of which had GREATER than 10 round magazines.
Since the “Grease Gun” came later (1944 & 1945 for A1 version) and the M2 Carbine (which was released in 1945) it would be safe to say that the US recognized the error of its ways with the smaller magazines and that increased capacity gave its soldiers an advantage so they release higher capacity magazines later in the war as a result. If 8 rounds had been wholly adequate they would not have increased magazine capacity during the war.
The reason they did not increase the Garand’s capacity at the time is because that would have required more work than was practical to refit all of them during war time. Since they did that very thing after the war and came out with the M14 which is basically a re-chambered Garand with a 20 round magazine tells you right there that the Garand’s 8 rounds were inadequate.
I just don’t understand you people who want to limit others to only 10 rounds! What’s with that? Are you afraid of the citizens of this country having arms comparable to the military as was the founder’s intent?
How many riflemen took the carbines instead of the real deal Garand?
I think restricted capacity mags (5 or 10 rounds) should be called “4WUSS” mags.
For Weapons Used in Socialist States….4WUSS.
Standard capacity mags have always been the term for magazines designed to be used in a particular firearm. For instance a Glock 19 comes with a 15 round magazine.
“High Capacity magazine” is a term the shooting industry adopted from the media and anti-freedom politicians, far to often we let this habit become the norm. I’m glad people have recognized this and are trying to make smart decisions on the language we use.