So, "which" mag is it, .223, or .50?

tobnpr

New member
I don't own a .50 Beowulf upper.
But it's my understanding that they use standard .223 mags, with the 30 round .223 mag holding ten rounds of .50.

SO....
How do states with "high cap" mags now illegal, differentiate between the two?

I have seen nothing in legislation stating even that you must own a .50, to own a "ten round" .50 mag.

Loophole waiting for a lawsuit?
 
Best excuse ever, no officer thats not for 30 rounds of 223 thats so I can hold ten rounds for my 50. See, not near as dangerous. :D
 
The markings (if any) on the magazine may come into play as well.

If you have a thirty-round magazine that's marked "5.56 x 45", you own an AR chambered in that caliber, and you *don't* own one chambered in .50 Beowulf, then you're going to have a hard time supporting the claim that it's not a prohibited item.
 
The markings (if any) on the magazine may come into play as well.

If you have a thirty-round magazine that's marked "5.56 x 45", you own an AR chambered in that caliber, and you *don't* own one chambered in .50 Beowulf, then you're going to have a hard time supporting the claim that it's not a prohibited item.

Yeah, I thought that as well.
But, it all depends on how the law is actually written.

If there is no such requirement to own a weapon of that caliber, I can't see how "not" owning one at the time could be enforceable.

"I'm getting one next week (.50 upper)".

Just raising the issue for discussion, wondering if anyone has actually read the text of the law in jusrisdictions where "high capacity" mags are prohibited.

But more importantly, it goes to the issue of sales for the manufacturers.

What prevents a manufacturer, like Magpul, from continuing to sell ten round magazines " for the .50 Beowulf". None of the magazines I own are marked for caliber.
 
The question lies with the wording of the law. If it says "can hold more than x rounds" or "can be modified to hold more than x rounds," you could run into trouble.

It may not matter whether it's meant to hold 10 rounds of .50; if it can hold more than 10 rounds of .223, an enterprising prosecutor could make life difficult.

It's a big problem with laws seeking to place arbitrary limits on magazine size.
 
The NY SAFE Act is a perfect example of this question. The lawmakers, through an act of near willful ignorance, included phrases like "which hold more than 7 rounds", with the intent to EXCLUDE pump and semi-auto shotguns, except that they didn't know that there are 1 3/4" 12ga shells, so those guns don't hold 7 rounds, they hold 11 and are therefore illegal.

Every law I've seen has been worded roughly the same way. There are no specifics about this or that caliber/cartridge. If it can hold more than "X", it is illegal. It wouldn't matter if the magazine was labeled ".50 Beuwolf ONLY! Do not use with .223/5.56 ammunition!". If it fits in a .223/5.56 gun and holds the ammo, it's illegal.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there a "show cause" order in NY, an injunction to take effect next month unless the State can convince the Court that the SAFE act is constitutional?

Sounds to me like it's going to be an embarrassment for Cuomo.
Heller limited regulation to unusually dangerous firearms not in common use, correct? I just can't see how that crapola can pass the smell test.
 
Depending on how it's written a .22 that holds ten .22lr but could hold a lot more .22 shorts might be a problem also. Or a a 10 shot .357 lever that holds 11 or 12 .38s, etc...
 
I'm guessing that the fools who wrote these laws never even took it into consideration. I you mentioned .50 Beowulf to them, their response would be "Fifty-wha?" So this is something the law was never designed to even address and as such becomes a gray-area. Perhaps not necessarily illegal but something that can bite you in the ass if some prosecutor decides he doesn't like you.

This is what happens when you put gun regulation in the hands of people who know nothing about guns.
 
Tom Servo said:
The question lies with the wording of the law. If it says "can hold more than x rounds" or "can be modified to hold more than x rounds," you could run into trouble.

It may not matter whether it's meant to hold 10 rounds of .50; if it can hold more than 10 rounds of .223, an enterprising prosecutor could make life difficult.

It's a big problem with laws seeking to place arbitrary limits on magazine size.


What I get concerned with are firearms that may have a mag that takes say 10 full size rounds, but that there has been/is/was a conversion to a smaller round, say 22LR. So, in that case, would a 10 round 40S&W mag that may hold over 7 or 10 rounds of a smaller caliber ammo, depending on the law reads (even if it doesn't feed, the rounds just fit in there somehow) be illegal?

Edit to add...

Also, are they speaking of an ammunition feeding device, or an actual "magazine"? If they are speaking of a "magazine" in the explosive term, we may all be in trouble...Every explosive magazine I have hever seen could hold thousands of rounds with no trouble at all, and room for an outhouse with at least a radio, if not color tv as well, to spare. Again, the terms and wording are important.
 
Last edited:
I'd say if you have a .223 lower and a magazine feeding .223/.50 Beowfulf, that could be considered constructive ownership or whatever it's called.

If you only had the .50 Beowulf I imagine you could prove it, but it the wording of the law still says "or can be converted to". In this case a conversion isn't even necessary
 
Back
Top