Oh, dear. IIRC, folks have found old Army manuals for 1911s talking about clips.
Askins often referred to magazines as "clips" in his writings. I believe Bill Jordan did the same.
I might explain to a person why some people get bent out of shape if someone refers to a magazine as a clip in their presence, but no, I don't generally make it a point to correct people who talk about clips.
I often let it pass when people speak or write about bullets when they mean cartridges, "aperature" sights when they mean "aperture" sights, "breach" when they mean "breech", muzzle "breaks" when they mean "brakes", when they say "mute" but mean "moot", when they mix up cavalry and Calvary, when someone leaves out the "n" in "varmint", when someone confuses a partridge with a type of open sight (Patridge) or talks about gun sites when they mean gun sights. I also don't generally correct people's grammar even though it's a rare person who speaks correctly. I also don't generally complain about poor enunciation even though "gonna" and "wanna" and similar words aren't correct. I also don't correct people who say the sun rises and sets by explaining that it's actually an illusion caused by the rotation of the earth.
If communication is taking place, and if the person isn't likely to come into contact with someone who's "gonna" have a kitten fit over a very common slang usage then there's no point.
IMO, this particular issue has gotten stupid. To the point where the "clip knee-jerkers" often react to correct usage of the word "clip" with incorrect corrections. I think it's because while there are many complex issues that are difficult to understand or for which there is no consensus in the world of firearms, any idiot can understand the difference between "clip" and "magazine". So it becomes sort of a hazing thing. All the "initiates" pounce on any unfortunate newbie who misuses the term.