In my opinion they're all "clips". Some "clips" are stripper clips to assist in loading a "blind" magazine, some "clips" are "detachable box magazines".
Why the current lingo demands a distinction is beyond me
This distinction in terminology has existed ever since these distinct items were first invented, and since the items are still distinct to this day, the terminology should remain distinct. Why so many people strayed away from and now refuse to use the correct terminology is beyond me.
By the way, "magazine" and "clip" are not specific and general terms, respectively, but are mutually exclusive. No magazine is a clip and no clip is a magazine--any such item is either one or the other.
other than to say some folks get hung up on minutia.
And others get hung up on getting simple things wrong because they won't learn, can't learn (oh really?), or are just plain stubborn. To take another example, some people would be embarrassed to use incorrect terminology such as "nucular" (at least in pronunciation), while others are mystifyingly proud to stick it to the "elite" (or some other equally bizarre notion) by deliberately refusing to learn.
Personally, I think that learning the definition of words and how to pronounce them (regional dialects aside) are abilities that virtually every human being possesses, not an elite class. The only thing remotely connected to being elite is that we're aficionados who have more than a casual interest in firearms and, one would hope, greater knowledge of firearms than the general population. Using the wrong terminology says a lot about a person, none of it being positive (unless having less knowledge or an unwillingness to use one's knowledge is a good thing).
I think that refusing to admit that one is wrong by deliberately using incorrect terms (sometimes just to tweak others, which is immature) is a manifestation of a twisted form of pride--there's the
real elitism for you.
Who was it that invented the "a pistol is a handgun with a chamber integral with the barrel" definition anyway?? It had to come from someone, it certainly did not come about from "general usage", someone had to come up with it (probably a gun magazine writer, or some brilliant military mind...). Exactly when was it invented? It is a totally arbitrary definition, whereas previously, for all time, a "pistol" was any handgun. There was no other classification of handgun beyond function or type. All were "pistols".
It could have come from a single source and spread, or as I guessed earlier, it could have come out of a general sense of need for a simple, familiar word to describe a non-revolver. Automatic, an early term, didn't stick perhaps because it came to mean machine guns, submachine guns, and machine pistols--anything capable of spitting out rounds rapidly as long as the trigger is held down continuously. And semiautomatic pistol is a cumbersome term. Combined with the convenient term revolver becoming so ubiquitous, people started thinking that the old word pistol must refer to that other kind of handgun. Whatever the reason, when there is doubt, I use the original definition, which is synonymous with the term handgun (which itself might have been created by those in the military who define "gun" as a projectile weapon larger than any human could carry around, which in most cases would be what most people would call a "cannon" or more generically "artillery").
By the way, my dictionary (and its etymology, implicitly) seems to disagree, but it was written for the general population and does not always get technical jargon correct. If there is a dispute (and there certainly is confusion), then we could discuss it (although those Colt ads are pretty convincing), but there is no disputing clip versus magazine, historically, as I'll expand upon below.
Is a gravity-fed "feeding device" with no spring for a Gatling gun a "clip" or a "magazine"?
If it's a box that encloses the rounds, then it's a magazine. The general definition of the word also covers sheds, bunkers, or interior rooms that enclose expendable supplies for anything, whether it's ammunition for weapons or film for cameras. An example that you can read in accounts of the event is that the USS Arizona exploded when fire or explosives breached its forward powder magazines, causing their contents to explode. Would it be correct to say "clip" instead just because some people think that it's a more general term? I think not. A clip is a piece of wire (could be spring-loaded) or molded plastic that minimally holds individual self-contained items together, while a magazine is an enclosure like a room or box. Were the bags of powder used in the Arizona's main guns "clipped" together or could the rooms they were kept in correctly be called "clips?" Absolutely not--the room was a magazine, period, as are boxes that hold rounds whether they're spring-loaded or not. A magazine can be a room or box, but rooms and boxes are not clips, period--even the English language is not that messed up yet.
Do people mag sheets of paper together with a papermag? Does one use a magboard to jot things down on? Do you load your 9mm revolver with a moon-mag? No, these are all obviously types of clips. Magazines are different altogether, not a specific form of clip--much like a clip is not a box in English--even if they can serve a similar function in some situations, such as loading ammunition into firearms (clips are also often used to load magazines). I shouldn't even have to tell English-speakers what a clip generally is.
Personally, I don't use the term "clip" to refer to a detachable, spring-driven magazine, but have no problem with those that do.
I don't tend to correct people directly on this, outside of this thread anyway, but it's still wrong. I used to think the very same thing, that "clip" was the proper term for what is really a magazine--did so for many years--when I was more ignorant of firearms than I am now. There are still a great many things of which I am ignorant, but I'm always willing to learn so that I can become less ignorant over time. If this makes me an elitist, well then, I guess that I'm an elitist and it has helped me a lot more than it has hurt. On the other hand, those who refuse to learn will always be ignorant (or appear ignorant, which is the same thing from everybody else's point of view).
