Are Hi-Cap Mags really necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Do-Man

New member
What do you all think about the necessity of Hi-Cap Mags?

I'm interested in an M1A. Unfortunately, I live in CA, so I'd be stuck with 10rd mags. Other than for shooting hi-power (which I don't plan on), I really don't see an urgent need for hi-caps. Why?

- Even if TSHTF, I'm not gonna get in a gun fight. I prefer to evade the bad guys.

- I was here during the Rodney King riots and I didn't need to shoot at anybody then.

- Isn't 10rds enough?

And on a separate note, if hi-caps aren't really necessary, it seems like a Garand would be a better choice than the M1A. Cheaper plus it loads quicker with the endblocs, no?

Do-Man
 
I think Hi-caps are a must if they're available.

The M1A can be charged via stripper clips through the open action, so the speed is close to the M1 being charged by the enbloc clip. Then you also have the option of carrying several 10 rounders.
 
deleted

[This message has been edited by Jeff, CA (edited May 01, 2000).]
 
"Necessary" is irrelevant. We should still be able to buy and use them if we choose. I have yet to hear a legitimate reason to restrict them. (preaching to the choir)
 
But what if the SHTF? And your adversary has military issued hardware? And every 10 rounds, you have to stop firing and load another 10 rd mag into the well?

Our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.

Your adversaries have belt fed M60's and you have a 10 rd. M1A or something similar. You can run, but you cannot hide. I'd rather go down fighting than running. We should have nothing less than what our potential adversaries have, in ANY conflict. If that means belt fed M60's, than so be it!
 
Try to do a magzine change in the dark, with heavy gloves on, under stress NOW FASTER you are under fire FASTER and you might get a diffeent perspective on it. On some guns, M1A, AK included mag changes aren't fool-proof...and you might not have time to get your webbing if need be. I like all of my rifles but would grab an Ar15 or Mak90 based in part on magazine capacity (over Garand).
 
Nice, but not necessary. Take a bunch of well trained soldiers and limit them with old fashioned eight round Garands. Now take the same number of poorly trained buffoons and give them AKs and M16s with high capacity magazines. I suspect the well trained will fair better- it is the individual, not the rifle.
 
Erik, the problem is, what if it is a well trained group of men with assault rifles and YOU have a Garand? You shoot your eight rounds, but they are behind cover and you don't hit but one or two of them, then they advance their positions while you are reloading and, eventually, they take you.
Hi cap mags are a very good thing to have in a SHTF scenario.
 
they are unnecessary if you only intend to fire ten shots and you never miss. ;)

All my guns have a spare mag.. even my 4 shot savage bolt rifle. mags can fail, get worn out,feed wrong, etc etc.

Shoot a match with the clock running and you'll wish you had a 50 round magazine. ;)

Dr.Rob
 
Necessary? Necessary for what?

I was at a tactical carbine class recently at S&W Academy. Several of us were using AR15s with 20 or 30 round magazines. One of the students was using a Mini-30 with 5 round magazines. The combination of the low capacity magazine and the greater difficulty in changing the Mini-30 mags made it significantly more challenging for him than for us. Now consider that if you ever have to use your rifle for real, the adrelanin will put your fine motor skills in toilet. The great thing about high capacity magazines is that you are less likely to need to change magazines, which is an error prone operation.

Capacity is like horsepower. A lot is good, more is better, and too much is just about right :D

Are they necessary? Dunno. But they sure are nice.

Jared
 
Pete, no offense, but that cliche was a bit asinine the first time it was said, and it's even moreso by now. What does missing have to do with high capacity magazines? If I give a hicap AR15 or FN FAL to a guy who can shoot bullseyes at 300 yards with a Garand, is he going to suddenly forget how to shoot and start spraying the landscape? If I give a guy who can't hit crap with an any rifle a Garand, is he suddenly going to be Carlos Hathcock?
No. One has nothing to do with the other. I hit what I aim at out to the range I am good at, no matter if my rifle is a single shot or a CAR15 with a 100 round drum.
I think the real saying should be a question: Can you reload fast enough win a gunfight when you are faced with multiple enemies (who may have cover) and you have a limited ammunition capacity?
But perhaps that isn't "cute" enough.
 
It is this simple boys and girls. Shot placement and hits are the most important. However, if I shoot ten times and hit 8 threats, the 10-30 seconds I am reloading could be 5 more threats or more that I could have stopped.

Now Do-Man, do you know anyone who lives out of this state that you trust? Ask him or her if they would be interested in having your new Newsweek Magazine Subscription sent to their house, since we can no longer get Newsweek with more than ten pages. So you pay for Newsweek, however many subscriptions you want, and have them sent to their house. Then just have your friend forward your 20 page Newsweeks out to your house via UPS in a box that isn't going to spill out your new Newsweeks. Once you have those Newsweeks, if anyone asks you where you got them, just say you have had them for years.

Basically this entire Newsweek ban over here in the PRK is unenforcable. All the old Newsweeks don't have any markings to prove when you subscribed.

I hope this helps you out. I say get a few of them large paged Newsweeks, it will never hurt to have them around. I am thinking of getting a few more myself.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Can you reload fast enough win a gunfight when you are faced with multiple enemies (who may have cover) and you have a limited ammunition capacity? [/quote]

I'm not sure that it matters.

Suppressive fire works. (Never really understood this until my buddies and I got into a hardcore paintball fight the week before graduation from jump school.) When enough rounds are incoming you will keep your head down.

I think it would be stupid to try and take on a larger (trained) force if you're by yourself. It just strikes me as an extremely fast way to lose a fight. The enemy will gain fire superiority early on, at which point you're f*cked with very few options.

It would make more sense to fire a round or two and seek new cover, making sure to hit your target with the rounds you fire. If they don't know where you are, they'll have a rough time gaining fire superiority. If they receive accurate, aimed fire each time they move away from cover, they'll be timid enough to allow you a chance to displace after a handful of rounds (or less, depending on the situation).

Ideally, engage them from beyond the effective range of their weapons/ability, then move before they can bring their weapons to bear. A series of far ambushes seems a lot brighter than trying to gain fire superiority over a squad-sized element in a conventional force-on-force encounter, regardless of your weapon.

Now, how fast can you really shoot? Would a bolt-action Remington 700 really be that much of a hinderance, if you were shooting and scooting from longish (>400m) distance?

If you were part of a squad-sized element yourself, then things would be different. Hell, I'd like as much firepower as possible regardlesss, but I'm not sure it really matters until you're part of a team. IMHO of course.


------------------
Yes, we did produce a near perfect republic, but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction. -- Thomas Jefferson
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff, CA. Who cares if they're relevant? The issue is that restricting them is only another step against our right of self defense. Further, bans do nothing to thwart crime.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>dzeanah, on the other hand, if you can have hicap mags, why not?[/quote]

Hey -- don't get me wrong. I'm the guy who started the Battle Rifle on a Budget thread. :D

I'd prefer as much ammo as possible, I'm just not sure it matters in any realistic one-man scenario. OK, it could matter in a few cases (like walking into a near ambush), but you're dead in that case anyway.
 
Why should a library have more than ten books?
Why should a book have more than ten pages?
Why should anyone speak more than ten words?
Please point me to the Bill of Needs.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement
of human liberty;
it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt
 
People use firepower as an excuse for poor marksmenship. That's great that you can hit your target at 300 yards Rik. But the sad part is, not too many other shooters out there can. Most like to turn money into noise really quickly.

Another argument is that "we will need our high capacity magazines for suppressive fire". I read that in Vietnam our troops fired over 300,000 (correct me if I am wrong) for every enemy killed. That sucks. I realize that anyone who is thrown into a combat situation without extensive training will tend to "spray and pray".

Go purchase your M1A Do-man (while you still can!) and practise with it. If you still feel under-gunned, go to Nevada or Arizona and pick up some 20 rounders!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top