A problem with mag capacity legislation.

[Callisto32]

Okay, so STANAG compliant (AR-style) magazines are typically labeled in capacity for how much 5.56x45 ammo they hold.

However, the AR being a modular platform, many, many calibers are used, and there are several calibers that are designed to fit a STANAG mag, but result in much reduced capacity.

Since the magazine is essentially just a box, spring, and a couple of flat-ish pieces of metal/plastic, how you meaningfully distinguish?

When the exact same magazine feeds 30 rounds of 5.56 and 9 of .458 SOCOM....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. To again reiterate what my boss from long ago mentioned...

...to his boss, "If you want something in the worst way, that's usually how you'll get it."


If I might suggest... the honor system.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Don't confuse them with relevant technical details. It only makes some of them madder

Had some real DUzies along those lines recently.

Fortunately you posted it here, if you had posted it in GD, its not clear the servers could have handled the ensuing load.

[Callisto32]

3. Maybe I'll go cross-post, eh?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Someone just posted a link to assaultweapons.info and then took it down

A merciful thing to do

[Scuba]

4. You're right. This magazine problem is insurmountable. We might as well give up.

Let the antis ban everything since these details are beyond the realm of human understanding.

[Callisto32]

5. I'll admit, don't know what this post actually means.

Lack of inflection in text, truly the great stumbling block of the internet.

I am suggesting that banning shit is stupid, and does not work. The fatal conceit and all.

[Scuba]

8. Please check out this thread and see if you have anything to add ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022213258

[Callisto32]

9. Damn, that's a long one, haha.

Expect replies within 7-10 business days, lol.

No, I'll check it out, though I will tell you know that I think that your cyclic rate limit is mechanically unworkable for small arms.

[Scuba]

11. Suggest some other way then.

[Callisto32]

12. Some other way to do what?

Limit freedoms in pointless ways?

Why would I want to do that?

[Scuba]

13. No, some way to limit firepower in civilian firearms. Our current restrictions aren't satisfactory.

[Callisto32]

14. Okay....how about we start with eliminating SWAT teams?

That's WAY too much firepower in civilian hands.

I could get behind that

[Scuba]

15. Thanks for your positive contributions to solving American's gun violence problems.

[Callisto32]

16. I'm totally serious.

We read way more stories of SWAT teams killing people when they fuck up than we do about the mass shootings that seem to justify disarming everybody who DIDN'T do something illegal.

Just because I see different problem as primary sources of violence in society, doesn't mean I am not serious about reducing violence.

I merely see the violence perpetrated under color of legitimacy as a far greater problem than violence that is immediately recognized as criminal and reviled by the vast majority of society.

Yes, I think we would have far less gun violence if we weren't using APC's and SMG's to serve warrants for possession and sale of things that a person who owns his body should be allowed to put into it.

Finally, reducing the militarization of police is a government action that actually has the chance of working to forward it's policy goal, as we know who the SWAT teams are, and their weapons are specific and can be found and taken, and it's okay since its the state taking its OWN stuff, rather than a private person's stuff.

ETA: After all, if the state doesn't empower itself to do the things that end up producing dead people for absolutely no reason, we would have less violence in America.

[Scuba]

17. There's safety problems in the coal mines too. And that Dreamliner is a nightmare.

We must solve all those problems before tackling gun violence, is that it?

Why does it feel like you're working for the other side? Either help solve the problem or butt out.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. The hardware side of the existing restrictions seem fine to many people

The people side not so much

[Scuba]

20. Hmmm. The "people side" can't refer to background checks, everybody favors them. Mental health...

.. must be what you mean. Is that right?

As for lack of support for the mental health aspect, you must mean the Republican's pathetic voting record on providing our citizens with mental health services.


Or did I misread you ProgressiveProfessor?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Most of what Obama said he was going to do with his executive actions was people focused

vice hardware focused. I agree with them as described. They are mostly within his authority to do. Clearly not everyone favors them, but I do.

[Straw Man]

22. To my mind, it's your GOAL that is unsatisfactory.

No, some way to limit firepower in civilian firearms. Our current restrictions aren't satisfactory.

Your goal is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment. It also castigates everyone for the actions of a very disturbed few.

The bulk of our gun violence problem isn't "active shooter" scenarios; they just garner the most press coverage. It is gang and drug war violence, which generally doesn't require much firepower: just a few shots fired per incident in thousands of rip-offs and assassinations and revenge killings all across the country, and virtually all by "prohibited persons" with illegal guns.

But that's not going to be easy to solve. So you'll just stick to your magazine limits and bayonet lug bans and wonder why nothing is changing.

[NewMoonTherian]

7. Oh come now. You know the answer.

The legislation will cap the highest number of rounds - in this case, 5.56. If that means you can only load 2 or 3 rounds of .458, that's just icing on the cake.

[Callisto32]

10. So as a manufacturer I'll just stamp my STANAGS..

"FOR .458 SOCOM USE ONLY"

LOL.

[Glaug-Eldare]

23. Reminds me of "FOR MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY"

stamped all over the standard-capacity magazines confiscated from criminals during the Absolutely Worthless Ban

[slackmaster]

18. When the exact same magazine feeds 30 rounds of 5.56 and 9 of .458 SOCOM....

Here in California that magazine is legal to sell if it is marked ".458 SOCOM," but illegal if it's marked "5.56x45 NATO."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Wow... that's absolutely stupid.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm guessing .458 SOCOM magazines are pretty popular in california seeing as you can just stuff 30 rounds of .223 int them if you so desired.

[slackmaster]

26. I understand the sentiment but would appreciate it if you would spell my state's name correctly

TIA

[Pullo]

25. LOL you can tell the people who write these laws have no real understanding of firearms

So if the mag ban goes through at the federal level, I guess Magpul will be forced to retool their lines to produce .458 SOCOM PMAGs. I'm sure that will be prohibitively expensive for them LOL.

[dkf]

27. You are just lucky no one serious who has a clue is writing the legislation.

It's a bunch of window dressing and you guys have recognized the ridiculousness for ages.

[bowens43]

28. a problem easily solved by atotal ban on ammunition......

[Travis_0004]

29. Which would never pass, and be thrown out by the supreme court.

[spin]

30. Yup. Look how our ban on illegal drugs easily solved that problem. ...

Ammo could easily be smuggled into our nation and millions of citizens have all the equipment necessary to reload ammo. All they need is primers, powder and bullets which they can cast from lead. Most of the regular shooters at the ranges I shot at in the Tampa Bay Area reloaded their ammo to save money. Many felt their own ammo was more accurate in their firearms than factory bought ammo as they tailored the load to each of their firearms. Reloading is an interesting part of shooting and is not all that complicated.

I can load well over 6000 rounds of .357 magnum with an 8 pound container of a popular powder and 7 boxes of primers. With a common progressive reloading press it should take me less than 20 hours of work with plenty of coffee breaks. Of course I would need to add the time to cast the bullets. I have never tried casting bullets but I have read estimates that with the right equipment and some practice you can cast 400 to 500 bullets an hour. It is also possible to reload 100 rounds of ammo per hour with a $35 kit that contains everything you need except the powder, primers and bullets and is available on Amazon.com. The process may be a lot slower but the ammo you can make is every bit as good as that made on a high cost device.

In case you recommend making powder and primers illegal I should point out that many major suppliers do not have any at this time. Fearing a ban shooters have rushed out to buy all sorts of firearms and reloading supplies.

But you might argue that banning new ammo might solve the problem as the cases would not be available to be reloaded. Most shooters all ready have a large quantity of ammo and could reload the cases or have them reloaded by a friend. I used to reload a .357 magnum case 5 to 10 times and a 38 special case between 20 and 30 times. Much depended on how hot the load was.

I used revolver ammo for my example but it is also easy to reload shotgun, pistol and rifle ammo.

But you might argue that eventually the ammo will be so old that it will no longer be useful. I've shot military surplus ammo that was 50 years old and it worked fine. I have also shot some of my own reloads which were 10 to 15 years old and they also worked fine and were very accurate. Ammo stored properly in a fairly dry location and is not subjected to extreme heat or cold can last for decades. Some reloaders take the effort to seal the primers with clear nail polish and this might help increase the life time of the ammo. I never bothered.

Reloading ammo and casting bullets is not rocket science and all the information is readily available online.