What is a "Magazine Clip"?

Personally, I think you're making too much of these trivial distinctions. It is as if you're trying to define something out of existance. So, here's another thing to ponder at 2:00 AM tomorrow morning.

Is a revolver a pistol?
 
Is a revolver a pistol?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, by any traditional definition. Some get all worked up over the distinction between semiautos and revolvers; in my world they are both pistols. :p
 
I actually think "magazine clip" is an attempt by the media to use the correct term, "magazine", and not confuse all the people who know the item as a "clip".


I've read/heard several news pieces admit or clarify that they had been using incorrect firearms definitions and that they were trying to use factually correct ones.


Maybe they're listening?
 
Last edited:
Stripper Clips are devices used for quickly loading/reloading the internal magazines of some bolt action rifles, assuming that there were "charger slots" machined into the rear bridge/rear ring of the rifles receiver. Example of such rifles is several models of Mauser bolt action service rifles, the U.S. Springfield, the U.S. Rifle Model 1917, Model 70 Winchesters, Remington 40X Rangmaster among others. The U.S. Rifle M-14, a semi-automatic rifle that operated with a removable box magazine also had "charger slots" for reloading the box magazine while on the rifle. Stripper Clips held 5 rounds, in most cases.
 
Last edited:
Merriam Webster

2 clip noun
Definition of CLIP
1: any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook
2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
3: a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip


:eek:
 
Absolutely, by any traditional definition. Some get all worked up over the distinction between semiautos and revolvers; in my world they are both pistols.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The whole "pistol means semi-automatic" thing is a fairly recent development in firearm nomenclature. Most people will see the light if you point out that we call these "pistols", and always have:

Wogdon_Duelling_pistols_1.jpg


Plus, I think if you can find the patent application for the first revolver, it's described as a "pistol" as well.
 
Merriam Webster

2 clip noun
Definition of CLIP
1: any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook
2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
3: a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip
Click to expand...
Dictionaries merely reflect the usage of the language, whether or not it is technically correct.

The word "fortuitous" originally only meant "happening by chance". Winning the lottery could be fortuitous, and getting killed by a bus with bad brakes could be fortuitous also. But "fortuitous" sounds similar to "fortunate", and pretty soon people incorrectly used "fortuitous" to mean "lucky". And it was used incorrectly often enough that now "lucky" is one of the definitions of "fortuitous".

The word "clip" has been used by ignorant people to mean "magazine" often enough that it's an accepted dictionary definition. That doesn't make it technically correct.
 
I remain unconvinced there is a technical difference between a clip and a removeable magazine, especially since some manufacturers make no such distinction. You may think there is a technical difference but since everyone understands what you mean, there's no practical difference. True, there are some magazines that are not clips but the magazine from a .45 automatic can easily be called a clip with no harm to anyone and unless you are especially thick headed, you know what it is. And by the way, it is both proper and permissible to call it an automatic pistol, as in Automatic Colt Pistol.

Verstehen Sie?
 
I don't always know what someone means when they say "clip". At the shop where I work, if someone asks for a clip for an SKS, sometimes they actually mean a stripper clip and sometimes they mean a magazine for the Tapco converted versions. If someone asks for a clip for an AR-15, sometimes they actually mean "stripper clip", considering military 5.56 ammo comes that way. And we usually carry a few revolvers chambered in .45 ACP, so sometimes when people ask for a clip for a .45 they want a moon clip for a revolver.

There is a technical difference. That is not debatable. Whether the technically incorrect term "clip" should be accepted by the gun world to mean "magazine" is a different issue.

I say, "No". The biggest problem we have right now in the gun world is our country's complete and total ignorance on firearms. We have a majority of people who have been convinced that an "assault weapon" actually exists, that it's more deadly than other rifles, and that it's a danger to society and it needs to be banned. It's always amazing to me the look on people's faces when I tell them that assault rifles are already all but banned, "assault weapons" are just rifles with scary-looking features, and ALL rifles only account for 2.8% of ALL firearm deaths.

That's the problem in our county: our gun laws are made and supported by people who know absolutely nothing about firearms. Educating people on the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine" is the first step to combat that ignorance.
 
No, your problem is that you can't convince anyone that an AR-15 is an innocent and not particularly deadly sporting weapon.
 
No, your problem is that you can't convince anyone that an AR-15 is an innocent and not particularly deadly sporting weapon.
Click to expand...
Who said I was trying to? But it's no more deadly than any other type of semi-auto rifle, and less so than many.

If someone supports banning AR-15s then they effectively support banning ALL semi-auto rifles, whether they know it or not.
 
Sometimes giving someone information doesn't make it into knowledge. I have a friend that watched a pretty good explanation on one of the tv documentaries about the difference between an assault rifle such as the M4/M16 and a semi-auto AR-15, she came out of it with the understanding that the AR-15 was exactly like the M-16, believing both could fire full auto.
 
No, it has no guilt or innocence. However, that doesn't change its nature. You can't with a straight face say that the AR wasn't designed without fighting in mind. Conceding that point isn't the same as conceding defeat.

Also, when you say things like "well my semi auto ranch rifle isn't an assault weapon but put a pistol grip on it and it becomes one, therefore the law is pointless", you are pointing out how the current law has no teeth. Meaning what you're effectively doing is giving constructive criticism to the anti's on how to make the law more effective.

And harping on the "clips vs magazines" thing doesn't help anyone. The two words may have once been different, but nowadays it's a difference without a distinction. The anti's know what a magazine is, even if they call it a clip.

And stop using arguments like "Connecticut has strict gun laws, Sandy Hook still happened, therefore gun laws don't work". It's common knowledge how easy it is to get guns across a state border. Anyone could do it. When you say this, you're actually arguing FOR the need for federal laws to prevent such actions.

And for God's sake, stop saying that the gun bans of Chicago are the reason for the high crime rate. Correlation does not imply causation.


I am as pro gun as anyone here, but when I hear arguments like this I cringe. These arguments are easily picked apart by anyone with a basic understanding of logic.
 
Not to be semantic, and not to be a jerk, but I always thought the AR-10 was designed to provide a lightweight, automatic rifle using aircraft components.

Wasn't Mr. Stoner an aircraft engineer before turning to firearms design?
 
Last edited:
Not to be semantic, and not to be a jerk, but I always thought the AR-10 was designed to provide a lightweight, automatic rifle using aircraft components.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why design such a thing? To provide a better fighting rifle.

I'm pretty sure he didn't do it for kicks and giggles.


Guns are not divine objects passed down from the heavens. Some of them are made to kill very efficiently. The sooner we stop getting hung up on this point the sooner we can actually fight battles that we have a chance of winning.

The people who want to ban guns aren't all idiots. They'll tear these arguments apart.

I'm not trying to be a jerk either, but I'm trying to point out the glaring flaws in these arguments.
 
Some are made to kill people very effeciently, yes, but, properly employed they can all kill effeciently. As can a pickup truck or bulldozer.

I understand your viewpoint and sense the circular argument coming, but I always feel that we are ceding the field to the antis- when we claim some guns are more intrinsically violent or evil than others.
 
I understand your viewpoint and sense the circular argument coming, but I always feel that we are ceding the field to the antis- when we claim some guns are more intrinsically violent or evil than others.
Click to expand...

We don't have to adopt the loaded terms "violent" or "evil", but to refuse to acknowledge the fact that some weapons are better-suited than others to killing large numbers of people in a short period of time is going to be viewed as intentionally obtuse at best, or outright deceptive at worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top