clips for mossberg 702 and 802 plinkster rifles
- Thread starter gpboy57
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
For what it might be worth: Back in the WW II era, before civilian rifles with box magazines, even old-timers referred to magazines as "clips". My grandfather, for instance; born in 1885. Other old-timers I knew as a kid. Heck, I and my peer group with our 22s called them clips, having learned from the grownups.
So one mild explanation to a newbie is okay, but I get a tad tired of folks nattering and babbling about the correct nomenclature--as if that makes them some sort of guru.
So one mild explanation to a newbie is okay, but I get a tad tired of folks nattering and babbling about the correct nomenclature--as if that makes them some sort of guru.
My grandpa was also born in the 19th century. He and his cronies used the word "ain't" when they meant "isn't". This little affront to "proper English" was committed under the mantle of colloquialism and in terms of what language is intended for-communication; it meant nothing. I and my peers, of course, grew up using the word "ain't" as well as many other deviations from accepted grammar and, though doing so didn't mean any of us were stupid, it did reflect negatively on our speaking smarts. Eventually, most of us went to school and learned how to talk and write intelligently. Using the language correctly didn't make us "grammar gurus" but it did make us better understood in terms of formal conversation.
I have no problem whatsoever with people (and not just "newbies") using the term clip when they mean magazine. Heck, as I acknowledged earlier, even some of the manufacturers do. And, yep, the guys I ran with back in the fifties and I loaded our .22s with clips too. But just because a term is used wrongly (if it in fact is) over the eons doesn't make it "right". And just because some people insist on using the correct nomenclature when discussing firearm parts in a forum that encourages open communication doesn't make them "natterers" and babblers". Callin' peoples names 'cause they don't agree with you jest ain't rite.
I have no problem whatsoever with people (and not just "newbies") using the term clip when they mean magazine. Heck, as I acknowledged earlier, even some of the manufacturers do. And, yep, the guys I ran with back in the fifties and I loaded our .22s with clips too. But just because a term is used wrongly (if it in fact is) over the eons doesn't make it "right". And just because some people insist on using the correct nomenclature when discussing firearm parts in a forum that encourages open communication doesn't make them "natterers" and babblers". Callin' peoples names 'cause they don't agree with you jest ain't rite.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
dgludwig, it's not the basic explanation for clip/mag that's a problem. It's that some folks go on at great length and in an insulting or sneering manner. Ergo, "nattering".
And after there is one such post in a thread, followups look like pointless pile-on and all that +1 stuff.
If the shoe don't fit, don't wear that sucker!
And after there is one such post in a thread, followups look like pointless pile-on and all that +1 stuff.
If the shoe don't fit, don't wear that sucker!