ServiceSoon
Member
...high capacity magazines?
Is there such thing as...
- Thread starter ServiceSoon
- Start date
- Status
kingpin008
Member
Depends on who you ask.
Sure.....
Any firearm ammunition feeding device that holds more cartridges then a left-wing do-gooder thinks you should have. For some unknown reason they like to say 10 or less. They picked that number because it's usually equal to the number of fingers they have. Makes it easier to count...
Any firearm ammunition feeding device that holds more cartridges then a left-wing do-gooder thinks you should have. For some unknown reason they like to say 10 or less. They picked that number because it's usually equal to the number of fingers they have. Makes it easier to count...
highorder
Member
I consider the Beta C mags "high-capacity."
Flame away.
Flame away.
Before the "Assault Weapon" (itself a term that has a fluid changing meaning defined differently in different jurisdictions) reaction "high capacity" was usualy significantly more capacity than the standard magazine.
For rifles that frequently used 20-30 round magazines standard, a drum magazine holding 50-100 rounds or more would be a high capacity magazine. One that held near the standard, give or take a number was just another magazine.
A pistol designed to use a standard 17 round magazine would be normal capacity. A magazine designed for more would be extended capacity in the same pistol. Likewise one designed to use a standard 7 round magazine would have extended capacity if it used a magazine holding more rounds.
An exaggerated term like "High Capacity" would usualy be reserved for something that was significantly higher, like a drum or one of those box magazines that extended so much outside the firearm it was significantly out of proportion to the firearm. A 30+ round box magazine in a compact pistol that itself is longer than the firearm is clearly disproportionate. The same magazine would appear right at home underneath a carbine.
So someone would call it "high capacity" in the handgun, but not in the carbine.
Then the Federal AWB happened in the 90s. It took loose terms one would use based on common sense, and added an exaggerated (to favor the antis opinion) definition under law.
It limited new magazines to 10 rounds. That became a legal standard, requiring reduced capacity magazines to be created.
Anything above 10 rounds was refered to with a term once reserved for things like large drum magazines. Suddenly an 11 round magazine was given the same term people once used to refer to a 100 round drum. "High capacity"
As time went by, children became adults during such restrictions, and a handful of states adopted laws to mimic such restrictions, the new intentionaly exaggerated term actualy made sense to new young adults brainwashed by the new terminology.
The same could be said for things like "assault weapon" restrictions.
If someone has never known anything different, it is normal to them.
If tommorrow a law was passed requiring retinal scans and fingerprinting to do many things, children who grew up with it would view it as normal as adults. If it was defined as "routine entry procedure" it would be "routine" after a generation or two.
"High capacity" is highly subjective. Therin lies the danger too of the law. What is one day commonplace can be restricted, a new generation raised, and the new is just the normal. New restrictions are just "slight" new inconveniences to the next generation. Thier sense of "normal" reflecting what existed as they came of age. Further freedoms or further restrictions being seen as abnormal to various degrees.
In the 1930s most lower courts of the nation felt the NFA was unconstitutional.
Restrictions imposing no greater than .50 bore, and new restrictions imposed on various aspects of a constitutional right were seen as unconstitutional and radical steps by much of the population.
They were radical at the time. Stretching the limits of what people would tolerate, yet allowed for "thier safety". Everyone questioned the constitutionality of the laws, even the Miller case showed it.
Yet compare that to today. Those restrictions are not even discussed, standard to many. Instead we have people exaggerating even .50 weapons today, calibers like the BMG which existed when the NFA was first imposed which originaly restricted the bore limit to .50 caliber.
Abilities that existed in the 80's like the ability to make your own machinegun, or modify an existing gun with a tax stamp into a select fire weapon have not been normal for over 20 years.
So to some such an ability introduced in legislation tommorrow would seem abnormal, and in thier minds a serious danger. Even though it would simply be reverting back to restrictions in place from the 30's until the mid 80's, a time period of far less crime than the late 80s and early 90s.
Antis would paint visions of blood baths and carnage, just like they did when CCW was first introduced in Florida. Many people would buy into it. After all it wouldn't be the "normal" they are accustomed to.
Normal to you will not be what is normal to the 17 year old turning 18 soon, who will be a legal adult for the first time. Likewise what politicians could convince you was a necessary change from your "normal" will be greater for them, as thier "normal" started at a different place than yours did. So politicians can take them further than you before thier "too far" buzzer starts going off.
For rifles that frequently used 20-30 round magazines standard, a drum magazine holding 50-100 rounds or more would be a high capacity magazine. One that held near the standard, give or take a number was just another magazine.
A pistol designed to use a standard 17 round magazine would be normal capacity. A magazine designed for more would be extended capacity in the same pistol. Likewise one designed to use a standard 7 round magazine would have extended capacity if it used a magazine holding more rounds.
An exaggerated term like "High Capacity" would usualy be reserved for something that was significantly higher, like a drum or one of those box magazines that extended so much outside the firearm it was significantly out of proportion to the firearm. A 30+ round box magazine in a compact pistol that itself is longer than the firearm is clearly disproportionate. The same magazine would appear right at home underneath a carbine.
So someone would call it "high capacity" in the handgun, but not in the carbine.
Then the Federal AWB happened in the 90s. It took loose terms one would use based on common sense, and added an exaggerated (to favor the antis opinion) definition under law.
It limited new magazines to 10 rounds. That became a legal standard, requiring reduced capacity magazines to be created.
Anything above 10 rounds was refered to with a term once reserved for things like large drum magazines. Suddenly an 11 round magazine was given the same term people once used to refer to a 100 round drum. "High capacity"
As time went by, children became adults during such restrictions, and a handful of states adopted laws to mimic such restrictions, the new intentionaly exaggerated term actualy made sense to new young adults brainwashed by the new terminology.
The same could be said for things like "assault weapon" restrictions.
If someone has never known anything different, it is normal to them.
If tommorrow a law was passed requiring retinal scans and fingerprinting to do many things, children who grew up with it would view it as normal as adults. If it was defined as "routine entry procedure" it would be "routine" after a generation or two.
"High capacity" is highly subjective. Therin lies the danger too of the law. What is one day commonplace can be restricted, a new generation raised, and the new is just the normal. New restrictions are just "slight" new inconveniences to the next generation. Thier sense of "normal" reflecting what existed as they came of age. Further freedoms or further restrictions being seen as abnormal to various degrees.
In the 1930s most lower courts of the nation felt the NFA was unconstitutional.
Restrictions imposing no greater than .50 bore, and new restrictions imposed on various aspects of a constitutional right were seen as unconstitutional and radical steps by much of the population.
They were radical at the time. Stretching the limits of what people would tolerate, yet allowed for "thier safety". Everyone questioned the constitutionality of the laws, even the Miller case showed it.
Yet compare that to today. Those restrictions are not even discussed, standard to many. Instead we have people exaggerating even .50 weapons today, calibers like the BMG which existed when the NFA was first imposed which originaly restricted the bore limit to .50 caliber.
Abilities that existed in the 80's like the ability to make your own machinegun, or modify an existing gun with a tax stamp into a select fire weapon have not been normal for over 20 years.
So to some such an ability introduced in legislation tommorrow would seem abnormal, and in thier minds a serious danger. Even though it would simply be reverting back to restrictions in place from the 30's until the mid 80's, a time period of far less crime than the late 80s and early 90s.
Antis would paint visions of blood baths and carnage, just like they did when CCW was first introduced in Florida. Many people would buy into it. After all it wouldn't be the "normal" they are accustomed to.
Normal to you will not be what is normal to the 17 year old turning 18 soon, who will be a legal adult for the first time. Likewise what politicians could convince you was a necessary change from your "normal" will be greater for them, as thier "normal" started at a different place than yours did. So politicians can take them further than you before thier "too far" buzzer starts going off.
M203Sniper
member
YES.
A glock 17 holds 17 rounds = Full Capacity.
If you buy a 33 round Magazine it's a High Cap.
If you buy one that only holds 10 rounds it's a Clinton.
A glock 17 holds 17 rounds = Full Capacity.
If you buy a 33 round Magazine it's a High Cap.
If you buy one that only holds 10 rounds it's a Clinton.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
I agree that for regular single stack pistols, 13-17 is around Standard Capacity. 10 and below is low capacity, and above 17 is High Capacity. For rifles, I also agree that 30-50rds is Standard, 20 and below is Low, and 50+ is High.
JohnBT
Member
There's a reason they called the Browning Hi Power, well, hi power. It came with a high capacity magazine. Or maybe it was the 9mm chambering. 
I think any mag that holds more than the standard 1911 mag is high capacity.
See, everybody has an opinion.
John
I think any mag that holds more than the standard 1911 mag is high capacity.
See, everybody has an opinion.
John
General Geoff
Member
I consider any magazine that holds more rounds than a factory standard magazine for that firearm, to be high capacity.
Kentucky-roughrider
Member
The Evens lever action rifle of the 1800's had a 32 round magazine in it. i wonder how the do no gooder would see the rifle. It ain't as pretty as a Winchester or a Marlin, but it does have its advantage
jerkface11
Member
On a pistol I'd say any mag that sticks out the bottom of the grip is a Highcap and on a rifle I'd say it takes a drum.
JImbothefiveth
Member
I don't think 15 should be considered high capacity, maybe not even 20.
Of course, even if you do ban them, criminals will get them anyway.
Mods, I know this is off-topic here, but could you please move it instead of closing? I think it's a good thread, makes people think.
Of course, even if you do ban them, criminals will get them anyway.
Mods, I know this is off-topic here, but could you please move it instead of closing? I think it's a good thread, makes people think.
mljdeckard
Member
I would say, whatever the weapon was designed to use is standard capacity, but that doesn't always work either. The M-16 was designed with a 20 round mag, but now 30 is considered standard. I sometimes use 10 round magazines in my 1911, but they were designed to hold 7. I don't see anyone trying to call 10 rounds high capacity.
- Status