FREE TAPATALK APP

BStrong · 27th July 2012, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

For longer duration missions 14 may be necessary. Personally I never carried on me more then 6, but I always had more in the truck. If you want to count the pistol magazines as well I suppose I was carrying 10 then.

I'm a pessimist.

Jarlaxle · 27th July 2012, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Temecula

Had James Holmes been using 10 round magazines, the death toll would have been much higher. High capacity AR-15 drum magazines are notoriously unreliable, and it is likely that the jam/malfunction that ended his shooting spree was caused by the high capacity drum failing to feed properly.

The democrats are making a terrible, terrible mistake going down this road. The net impact it has in the upcoming election will not be positive.

No kidding. I haven't practiced much, and I can do a mag swap (drop the empty, lock in the new one, and chamber a round) in an M-14 in about two seconds. I could probably get it to one second with practice.

BStrong · 27th July 2012, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

The "assault weapons" ban should have been renewed. It would have kept the high capacity clips/mags/whatever in the hands of collectors who keep their excessive gun collection locked up in a vault somewhere deep underground.

I've met too many gun folks who are nerds for guns. At least the real nerds have an obsession over some techy gadgets, not something built to kill.

FTR - I hope you realize that the "Assault Weapons Ban" wasn't, much:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Ranb · 27th July 2012, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

The "assault weapons" ban should have been renewed. It would have kept the high capacity clips/mags/whatever in the hands of collectors who keep their excessive gun collection locked up in a vault somewhere deep underground.

Why do you think that is so? From 1994 to 2004 I saw pistol magazines >10 rounds readily available at gun shows.

Originally Posted by daenku32

I've met too many gun folks who are nerds for guns. At least the real nerds have an obsession over some techy gadgets, not something built to kill.

Guns are not techy? Was does built to kill mean?

Ranb

fuelair · 27th July 2012, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

The "assault weapons" ban should have been renewed. It would have kept the high capacity clips/mags/whatever in the hands of collectors who keep their excessive gun collection locked up in a vault somewhere deep underground.

I've met too many gun folks who are nerds for guns. At least the real nerds have an obsession over some techy gadgets, not something built to kill.

You are still missing the point about the high caps - most are much more likely to jam. They look cute, but.....

Jarlaxle · 28th July 2012, 04:42 AM

The only hi-capacity magazines I can think of that DON'T tend to tie up are the 20-round mags that fit some Glocks.

BStrong · 28th July 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

The only hi-capacity magazines I can think of that DON'T tend to tie up are the 20-round mags that fit some Glocks.

The Glock factory extended mags (33 rounds in 9mm) do indeed work, but non-factory mags of the same capacity are better clubs than ammunition feed devices.

daenku32 · 6th August 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

You are still missing the point about the high caps - most are much more likely to jam. They look cute, but.....

So we are better off flooding the market with low-quality high-capacity magazines, than reducing their prevalence in the market? What point is it that you are trying approach.

To the other posters: Yes, I am totally aware that pre-ban magazines were being traded. But they were much more likely to end up with collectors in their vaults, than on the streets.

mhaze · 6th August 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

So we are better off flooding the market with low-quality high-capacity magazines, than reducing their prevalence in the market? What point is it that you are trying approach.

To the other posters: Yes, I am totally aware that pre-ban magazines were being traded. But they were much more likely to end up with collectors in their vaults, than on the streets.

No, they were not much more likely to wind up in vaults. They were everywhere.

When something doesn't work, you want to do it again or do more of it? Now that's a recipe for sure fire failure.

mhaze · 6th August 2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

The only hi-capacity magazines I can think of that DON'T tend to tie up are the 20-round mags that fit some Glocks.

40 cal, and yes that's a good mag, but it increases the weight of the gun considerably.

Same can be said for the 9mm 33 round factory mag, but that was intended for use with the G18 fully automatic pistol, which was an interesting exercise in crazy.

DDWW · 6th August 2012, 04:16 PM

Last time they had an assult weapon/high capcity mag ban...I made lots of money.

Sold 3 of my AR's for more than double and about 20+ 20 round mags for $30 each. Ended up buying gold coins with the profits at about $300/ounce.

Have since restocked the AR's and mags...so sure let's do it again!

DDWW

daenku32 · 6th August 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

No, they were not much more likely to wind up in vaults. They were everywhere.

When something doesn't work, you want to do it again or do more of it? Now that's a recipe for sure fire failure.

The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. They get bought up by the collectors.

And yes, I also support gun registration and increased legal responsibilities for gun owners. Nothing that would prevent a citizen from legally acquiring a gun, but definitely reduce the gray and underground markets' access to new quality weapons.

Feel free to post all the pro-gun rhetoric as a response. But I've already heard them all and I don't care.

Emperor_Gestahl · 6th August 2012, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands.

Are the casual gun owners the ones you're worried about? The "casual" AK-47 owner already has a few 30-rd clips.. Luckily the vast majority of gun owners, especially legal ones, are responsible enough not to use them except for sport or in defense of their life. I know the formula of "Most Humans = Not Idiots" is controversial, but I ascribe to it.

The Dark Lord · 6th August 2012, 09:16 PM

The idea that if new "high capacity" magazines are banned, only gun nuts would have them is retarded. Given that "high capacity" means over ten rounds, these magazines aren't some kind of oddity. They are standard magazines that come with many, many firearms. The Glock 19, my favorite, comes with 15 round magazines, for example. There are probably millions of "high capacity" Glock magazines floating around out there alone.

A ban on new "high capacity" magazines wouldn't do anything but make them more expensive. There would still be millions and millions of them out there and anybody who wanted would be able to buy them.

mhaze · 7th August 2012, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by daenku32

The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. They get bought up by the collectors.

And yes, I also support gun registration and increased legal responsibilities for gun owners. Nothing that would prevent a citizen from legally acquiring a gun, but definitely reduce the gray and underground markets' access to new quality weapons.

Feel free to post all the pro-gun rhetoric as a response. But I've already heard them all and I don't care.

Pro-gun rhetoric? Not so sure that's what we've got here. My impression of the 1994 Clinton assault rifle ban was that it CREATED THE MARKET in large part for the "black rifle" as the "must have item" for many sport hunters and so forth. As for the magazines, I never saw any higher prices or reduced supply on the +10 mags. Maybe someone in CA could relate a different story. If I had to guess, I'd say that once that law made >10 illegal, everyone wanted to go buy them and did so.

R.Mackey · 7th August 2012, 09:15 PM

The story in California is even stupider than that.

The 1989 Roberti-Roos act banned sales (but not possession) of a select list of "scary" firearms, such as the Colt AR-15 -- but not its nearly identical copy from such companies as Bushmaster. Magazine sales were not restricted, however everyone could see the writing on the wall, and prices climbed quickly.

In this time period, after the 1989 California AWCA and before the national ban, the so-called "assault rifles" (notably the AR-15 series) were popular but mostly a niche product, not like today when everyone and their cousin wants a whole bunch of them. This desire was driven largely by the aftermarket. When I got my AR-15, in this period of relative quiet, the adaptable flat-top receiver was known but still a rarity. These days one that isn't is considered "retro." I remark this because the whole aftermarket industry was created by the attempted bans, as a way to adjust the features of any given rifle to no longer meet certain legal criteria. Hence why the Stoner design sat around for about 40 years, even after widespread military acceptance and glamorization, before really taking off in public sales. Today it outsells everything. Aftermarket. 'nuff said.

Anyway, back to magazines. In this time period I remember shelling out $20 to $25 for a good condition used USGI 20 or 30-round magazine, something that previously could be had for a few bucks. I don't recall even seeing a 10-round magazine. There were the odd 5-round mags for those who wanted to hunt with their AR-15... my rifle came with one, never saw another.

So later on, of course, California got round to banning sales of all "ugly rifles" having various undesirable features, and along with it sales of > 10-round magazines. But a very funny thing happened. People here now buy "California compliant" magazines that are just the regular 30-rounders, except they've got a pin epoxied in place to prevent loading more than 10.

Which means, naturally, all you'd have to do is remove the pin, and you've got the same hardware as everyone else.

Removing the pins is straightforward, I'm told. Doing so within the state lines makes you a criminal, but nonetheless, basically everyone already has 30-round magazines.

I wouldn't know about that since I have my own, grandfathered, perfectly legal stack of 'em. Amusingly, for the shooting I do I prefer 10-round magazines. My "high-capacity" mags all sit in a go-bag and I don't take 'em out very often, and given the choice I'd have bought more 20-round and fewer 30-rounders than I did. But on a given practice day, I use the 10-round mags. Got a case of them for $8 each not too long ago, all new, all aluminum bodied, anti-tilt followers, good performance.

Amusingly, a lot of people in my classes would be better served with 10-rounders, but I have yet to see anyone show up with them. Everybody wants the "made safe" 30-rounders, even though they stick out and make it impossible to get a good prone position. That's what they've got.

Makes no sense at all.

Moral of the story: Politicians pass stupid laws. The only effect is to complicate the manufacture and buying process, and to create an arbitrary goalpost so that they can claim to have "banned assault weapons." In reality, one can legally possess exactly the same hardware as before, it merely takes about two minutes work with a drill or a Sawzall to remove the "block."

Not that it would be difficult to illegally obtain such magazines, i.e. drive across the border to Stateline and buy a whole carload of them. Or even to manufacture your own. It isn't like it's secret technology.

mhaze · 8th August 2012, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

....
Anyway, back to magazines. In this time period I remember shelling out $20 to $25 for a good condition used USGI 20 or 30-round magazine, something that previously could be had for a few bucks. I don't recall even seeing a 10-round magazine. There were the odd 5-round mags for those who wanted to hunt with their AR-15... my rifle came with one, never saw another.

So later on, of course, California got round to banning sales of all "ugly rifles" having various undesirable features, and along with it sales of > 10-round magazines. But a very funny thing happened. People here now buy "California compliant" magazines that are just the regular 30-rounders, except they've got a pin epoxied in place to prevent loading more than 10.

Which means, naturally, all you'd have to do is remove the pin, and you've got the same hardware as everyone else.

Removing the pins is straightforward, I'm told. Doing so within the state lines makes you a criminal, but nonetheless, basically everyone already has 30-round magazines.

I wouldn't know about that since I have my own, grandfathered, perfectly legal stack of 'em. Amusingly, for the shooting I do I prefer 10-round magazines. My "high-capacity" mags all sit in a go-bag and I don't take 'em out very often, and given the choice I'd have bought more 20-round and fewer 30-rounders than I did. But on a given practice day, I use the 10-round mags. Got a case of them for $8 each not too long ago, all new, all aluminum bodied, anti-tilt followers, good performance.

Amusingly, a lot of people in my classes would be better served with 10-rounders, but I have yet to see anyone show up with them. Everybody wants the "made safe" 30-rounders, even though they stick out and make it impossible to get a good prone position. That's what they've got.

Makes no sense at all.

Moral of the story: Politicians pass stupid laws. The only effect is to complicate the manufacture and buying process, and to create an arbitrary goalpost so that they can claim to have "banned assault weapons." In reality, one can legally possess exactly the same hardware as before, it merely takes about two minutes work with a drill or a Sawzall to remove the "block."

Not that it would be difficult to illegally obtain such magazines, i.e. drive across the border to Stateline and buy a whole carload of them. Or even to manufacture your own. It isn't like it's secret technology.

Yeah, for practice shooting I long ago adopted a practice of loading glock mags with 10 shots, doesn't matter if they are 13, 17, or 20 round capable mags. But for the really bad day when a defense has to be made, that ought to be loaded all the way, unless clumsy, and if clumsy, it should be thrown away.

For something like the AR15/M16 I can't imagine why > 20 would seem cool or important, and nothing that makes prone shooting hard could be good. (Refer back to clumsy or awkward is bad RULE).

I think all these considerations are things of the past though, since here is where we are NOW...

http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...de-3-d-printer

Now regulate that!

Jarlaxle · 11th August 2012, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

40 cal, and yes that's a good mag, but it increases the weight of the gun considerably.

Same can be said for the 9mm 33 round factory mag, but that was intended for use with the G18 fully automatic pistol, which was an interesting exercise in crazy.

I thought the 20-shot mags fit one of the 9mm Glocks...well, don't really care since I have little interest in owning any Glock. Smith & Wesson Model 29 for me, thank you.

mhaze · 11th August 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

I thought the 20-shot mags fit one of the 9mm Glocks...well, don't really care since I have little interest in owning any Glock. Smith & Wesson Model 29 for me, thank you.

Like I said, I view the g18 as an "exercise in crazy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCh8LuGkttI

It's dangerous to the one handling it, insufficient grip vs force. Arguably the 33 round mag provides extra places to hang on to that thing.

Glock didn't make a 20 9mm, maybe that could be a offbrand or a 17 round mag with an extender on the base cap.

Ranb · 11th August 2012, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by daenku32

The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. They get bought up by the collectors.

The price of those magazines goes up because demand increases. But it was my experience that they were still readily available to anyone who wanted them. They were not engraved with serial numbers and possession was allowed by anyone (children and felons included) in states that did not ban them.

As far as I know states that banned the higher capacity magazines did not take any active measures to ensure they stayed out of the state. Does anyone recall any high capacity magazine seized that was not involved in a violent crime? Banning them did little or nothing to "keep them off the street". It would be like posting a new speed limit and not using taking any active measures to enforce it other than showing up after an accident caused by speed.

Ranb

Loosekannon · 21st December 2012, 06:48 PM

10 rounds...
ok, uh... I really don't see the problem unless your a poor shot or too daft to slap in another magazine.

I play paintball using 10 rounds on a semi-auto completely mechanical pistol vs. electronic guns with 200 round hoppers and guys carrying enough paint to fully reload 3 or 4 times.
Half the time I'm the last man standing.

learn how and when to shoot and you don't need tons of ammunition.

27th July 2012, 11:15 PM	#45
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	Originally Posted by daenku32 The "assault weapons" ban should have been renewed. It would have kept the high capacity clips/mags/whatever in the hands of collectors who keep their excessive gun collection locked up in a vault somewhere deep underground. I've met too many gun folks who are nerds for guns. At least the real nerds have an obsession over some techy gadgets, not something built to kill. You are still missing the point about the high caps - most are much more likely to jam. They look cute, but.....
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

6th August 2012, 04:01 PM	#49
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by daenku32 So we are better off flooding the market with low-quality high-capacity magazines, than reducing their prevalence in the market? What point is it that you are trying approach. To the other posters: Yes, I am totally aware that pre-ban magazines were being traded. But they were much more likely to end up with collectors in their vaults, than on the streets. No, they were not much more likely to wind up in vaults. They were everywhere. When something doesn't work, you want to do it again or do more of it? Now that's a recipe for sure fire failure.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

6th August 2012, 04:04 PM	#50
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by Jarlaxle The only hi-capacity magazines I can think of that DON'T tend to tie up are the 20-round mags that fit some Glocks. 40 cal, and yes that's a good mag, but it increases the weight of the gun considerably. Same can be said for the 9mm 33 round factory mag, but that was intended for use with the G18 fully automatic pistol, which was an interesting exercise in crazy.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

6th August 2012, 04:16 PM	#51
DDWW Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 508	Last time they had an assult weapon/high capcity mag ban...I made lots of money. Sold 3 of my AR's for more than double and about 20+ 20 round mags for $30 each. Ended up buying gold coins with the profits at about $300/ounce. Have since restocked the AR's and mags...so sure let's do it again! DDWW
DDWW Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 508

6th August 2012, 08:42 PM	#53
Emperor_Gestahl Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by daenku32 The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. Are the casual gun owners the ones you're worried about? The "casual" AK-47 owner already has a few 30-rd clips.. Luckily the vast majority of gun owners, especially legal ones, are responsible enough not to use them except for sport or in defense of their life. I know the formula of "Most Humans = Not Idiots" is controversial, but I ascribe to it.
Emperor_Gestahl Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 780

27th July 2012, 07:44 PM	#41
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 For longer duration missions 14 may be necessary. Personally I never carried on me more then 6, but I always had more in the truck. If you want to count the pistol magazines as well I suppose I was carrying 10 then. I'm a pessimist.

27th July 2012, 08:07 PM	#42
Jarlaxle Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: New England Posts: 452	Originally Posted by Temecula Had James Holmes been using 10 round magazines, the death toll would have been much higher. High capacity AR-15 drum magazines are notoriously unreliable, and it is likely that the jam/malfunction that ended his shooting spree was caused by the high capacity drum failing to feed properly. The democrats are making a terrible, terrible mistake going down this road. The net impact it has in the upcoming election will not be positive. No kidding. I haven't practiced much, and I can do a mag swap (drop the empty, lock in the new one, and chamber a round) in an M-14 in about two seconds. I could probably get it to one second with practice.

27th July 2012, 08:18 PM	#43
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	Originally Posted by daenku32 The "assault weapons" ban should have been renewed. It would have kept the high capacity clips/mags/whatever in the hands of collectors who keep their excessive gun collection locked up in a vault somewhere deep underground. I've met too many gun folks who are nerds for guns. At least the real nerds have an obsession over some techy gadgets, not something built to kill. FTR - I hope you realize that the "Assault Weapons Ban" wasn't, much: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

27th July 2012, 10:05 PM	#44
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by daenku32 The "assault weapons" ban should have been renewed. It would have kept the high capacity clips/mags/whatever in the hands of collectors who keep their excessive gun collection locked up in a vault somewhere deep underground. Why do you think that is so? From 1994 to 2004 I saw pistol magazines >10 rounds readily available at gun shows. Originally Posted by daenku32 I've met too many gun folks who are nerds for guns. At least the real nerds have an obsession over some techy gadgets, not something built to kill. Guns are not techy? Was does built to kill mean? Ranb

28th July 2012, 04:42 AM	#46
Jarlaxle Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: New England Posts: 452	The only hi-capacity magazines I can think of that DON'T tend to tie up are the 20-round mags that fit some Glocks.

28th July 2012, 12:17 PM	#47
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	Originally Posted by Jarlaxle The only hi-capacity magazines I can think of that DON'T tend to tie up are the 20-round mags that fit some Glocks. The Glock factory extended mags (33 rounds in 9mm) do indeed work, but non-factory mags of the same capacity are better clubs than ammunition feed devices.

6th August 2012, 03:47 PM	#48
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,987	Originally Posted by fuelair You are still missing the point about the high caps - most are much more likely to jam. They look cute, but..... So we are better off flooding the market with low-quality high-capacity magazines, than reducing their prevalence in the market? What point is it that you are trying approach. To the other posters: Yes, I am totally aware that pre-ban magazines were being traded. But they were much more likely to end up with collectors in their vaults, than on the streets.

6th August 2012, 04:36 PM	#52
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,987	Originally Posted by mhaze No, they were not much more likely to wind up in vaults. They were everywhere. When something doesn't work, you want to do it again or do more of it? Now that's a recipe for sure fire failure. The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. They get bought up by the collectors. And yes, I also support gun registration and increased legal responsibilities for gun owners. Nothing that would prevent a citizen from legally acquiring a gun, but definitely reduce the gray and underground markets' access to new quality weapons. Feel free to post all the pro-gun rhetoric as a response. But I've already heard them all and I don't care.

6th August 2012, 09:16 PM	#54
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	The idea that if new "high capacity" magazines are banned, only gun nuts would have them is retarded. Given that "high capacity" means over ten rounds, these magazines aren't some kind of oddity. They are standard magazines that come with many, many firearms. The Glock 19, my favorite, comes with 15 round magazines, for example. There are probably millions of "high capacity" Glock magazines floating around out there alone. A ban on new "high capacity" magazines wouldn't do anything but make them more expensive. There would still be millions and millions of them out there and anybody who wanted would be able to buy them.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

7th August 2012, 02:02 PM	#55
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by daenku32 The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. They get bought up by the collectors. And yes, I also support gun registration and increased legal responsibilities for gun owners. Nothing that would prevent a citizen from legally acquiring a gun, but definitely reduce the gray and underground markets' access to new quality weapons. Feel free to post all the pro-gun rhetoric as a response. But I've already heard them all and I don't care. Pro-gun rhetoric? Not so sure that's what we've got here. My impression of the 1994 Clinton assault rifle ban was that it CREATED THE MARKET in large part for the "black rifle" as the "must have item" for many sport hunters and so forth. As for the magazines, I never saw any higher prices or reduced supply on the +10 mags. Maybe someone in CA could relate a different story. If I had to guess, I'd say that once that law made >10 illegal, everyone wanted to go buy them and did so.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

7th August 2012, 09:15 PM	#56
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	The story in California is even stupider than that. The 1989 Roberti-Roos act banned sales (but not possession) of a select list of "scary" firearms, such as the Colt AR-15 -- but not its nearly identical copy from such companies as Bushmaster. Magazine sales were not restricted, however everyone could see the writing on the wall, and prices climbed quickly. In this time period, after the 1989 California AWCA and before the national ban, the so-called "assault rifles" (notably the AR-15 series) were popular but mostly a niche product, not like today when everyone and their cousin wants a whole bunch of them. This desire was driven largely by the aftermarket. When I got my AR-15, in this period of relative quiet, the adaptable flat-top receiver was known but still a rarity. These days one that isn't is considered "retro." I remark this because the whole aftermarket industry was created by the attempted bans, as a way to adjust the features of any given rifle to no longer meet certain legal criteria. Hence why the Stoner design sat around for about 40 years, even after widespread military acceptance and glamorization, before really taking off in public sales. Today it outsells everything. Aftermarket. 'nuff said. Anyway, back to magazines. In this time period I remember shelling out $20 to $25 for a good condition used USGI 20 or 30-round magazine, something that previously could be had for a few bucks. I don't recall even seeing a 10-round magazine. There were the odd 5-round mags for those who wanted to hunt with their AR-15... my rifle came with one, never saw another. So later on, of course, California got round to banning sales of all "ugly rifles" having various undesirable features, and along with it sales of > 10-round magazines. But a very funny thing happened. People here now buy "California compliant" magazines that are just the regular 30-rounders, except they've got a pin epoxied in place to prevent loading more than 10. Which means, naturally, all you'd have to do is remove the pin, and you've got the same hardware as everyone else. Removing the pins is straightforward, I'm told. Doing so within the state lines makes you a criminal, but nonetheless, basically everyone already has 30-round magazines. I wouldn't know about that since I have my own, grandfathered, perfectly legal stack of 'em. Amusingly, for the shooting I do I prefer 10-round magazines. My "high-capacity" mags all sit in a go-bag and I don't take 'em out very often, and given the choice I'd have bought more 20-round and fewer 30-rounders than I did. But on a given practice day, I use the 10-round mags. Got a case of them for $8 each not too long ago, all new, all aluminum bodied, anti-tilt followers, good performance. Amusingly, a lot of people in my classes would be better served with 10-rounders, but I have yet to see anyone show up with them. Everybody wants the "made safe" 30-rounders, even though they stick out and make it impossible to get a good prone position. That's what they've got. Makes no sense at all. Moral of the story: Politicians pass stupid laws. The only effect is to complicate the manufacture and buying process, and to create an arbitrary goalpost so that they can claim to have "banned assault weapons." In reality, one can legally possess exactly the same hardware as before, it merely takes about two minutes work with a drill or a Sawzall to remove the "block." Not that it would be difficult to illegally obtain such magazines, i.e. drive across the border to Stateline and buy a whole carload of them. Or even to manufacture your own. It isn't like it's secret technology.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES Last edited by R.Mackey; 7th August 2012 at 09:17 PM.

8th August 2012, 09:02 AM	#57
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by R.Mackey .... Anyway, back to magazines. In this time period I remember shelling out $20 to $25 for a good condition used USGI 20 or 30-round magazine, something that previously could be had for a few bucks. I don't recall even seeing a 10-round magazine. There were the odd 5-round mags for those who wanted to hunt with their AR-15... my rifle came with one, never saw another. So later on, of course, California got round to banning sales of all "ugly rifles" having various undesirable features, and along with it sales of > 10-round magazines. But a very funny thing happened. People here now buy "California compliant" magazines that are just the regular 30-rounders, except they've got a pin epoxied in place to prevent loading more than 10. Which means, naturally, all you'd have to do is remove the pin, and you've got the same hardware as everyone else. Removing the pins is straightforward, I'm told. Doing so within the state lines makes you a criminal, but nonetheless, basically everyone already has 30-round magazines. I wouldn't know about that since I have my own, grandfathered, perfectly legal stack of 'em. Amusingly, for the shooting I do I prefer 10-round magazines. My "high-capacity" mags all sit in a go-bag and I don't take 'em out very often, and given the choice I'd have bought more 20-round and fewer 30-rounders than I did. But on a given practice day, I use the 10-round mags. Got a case of them for $8 each not too long ago, all new, all aluminum bodied, anti-tilt followers, good performance. Amusingly, a lot of people in my classes would be better served with 10-rounders, but I have yet to see anyone show up with them. Everybody wants the "made safe" 30-rounders, even though they stick out and make it impossible to get a good prone position. That's what they've got. Makes no sense at all. Moral of the story: Politicians pass stupid laws. The only effect is to complicate the manufacture and buying process, and to create an arbitrary goalpost so that they can claim to have "banned assault weapons." In reality, one can legally possess exactly the same hardware as before, it merely takes about two minutes work with a drill or a Sawzall to remove the "block." Not that it would be difficult to illegally obtain such magazines, i.e. drive across the border to Stateline and buy a whole carload of them. Or even to manufacture your own. It isn't like it's secret technology. Yeah, for practice shooting I long ago adopted a practice of loading glock mags with 10 shots, doesn't matter if they are 13, 17, or 20 round capable mags. But for the really bad day when a defense has to be made, that ought to be loaded all the way, unless clumsy, and if clumsy, it should be thrown away. For something like the AR15/M16 I can't imagine why > 20 would seem cool or important, and nothing that makes prone shooting hard could be good. (Refer back to clumsy or awkward is bad RULE). I think all these considerations are things of the past though, since here is where we are NOW... http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...de-3-d-printer Now regulate that!
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 8th August 2012 at 09:55 AM.

11th August 2012, 05:14 AM	#58
Jarlaxle Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: New England Posts: 452	Originally Posted by mhaze 40 cal, and yes that's a good mag, but it increases the weight of the gun considerably. Same can be said for the 9mm 33 round factory mag, but that was intended for use with the G18 fully automatic pistol, which was an interesting exercise in crazy. I thought the 20-shot mags fit one of the 9mm Glocks...well, don't really care since I have little interest in owning any Glock. Smith & Wesson Model 29 for me, thank you.

11th August 2012, 06:21 AM	#59
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by Jarlaxle I thought the 20-shot mags fit one of the 9mm Glocks...well, don't really care since I have little interest in owning any Glock. Smith & Wesson Model 29 for me, thank you. Like I said, I view the g18 as an "exercise in crazy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCh8LuGkttI It's dangerous to the one handling it, insufficient grip vs force. Arguably the 33 round mag provides extra places to hang on to that thing. Glock didn't make a 20 9mm, maybe that could be a offbrand or a 17 round mag with an extender on the base cap.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 11th August 2012 at 06:24 AM.

11th August 2012, 10:23 AM	#60
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by daenku32 The bill increased the costs of the products by reducing the supply. That is a straight up method for reducing the number circulating in the casual gun owners' hands. They get bought up by the collectors. The price of those magazines goes up because demand increases. But it was my experience that they were still readily available to anyone who wanted them. They were not engraved with serial numbers and possession was allowed by anyone (children and felons included) in states that did not ban them. As far as I know states that banned the higher capacity magazines did not take any active measures to ensure they stayed out of the state. Does anyone recall any high capacity magazine seized that was not involved in a violent crime? Banning them did little or nothing to "keep them off the street". It would be like posting a new speed limit and not using taking any active measures to enforce it other than showing up after an accident caused by speed. Ranb

21st December 2012, 06:48 PM	#61
Loosekannon New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 7	10 rounds... ok, uh... I really don't see the problem unless your a poor shot or too daft to slap in another magazine. I play paintball using 10 rounds on a semi-auto completely mechanical pistol vs. electronic guns with 200 round hoppers and guys carrying enough paint to fully reload 3 or 4 times. Half the time I'm the last man standing. learn how and when to shoot and you don't need tons of ammunition.
Loosekannon New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 7