A letter published in this morning’s Contra-Costa Times:

Why 30 rounds?

I’m all for Second Amendment rights, but real sportsmen don’t need 30-round magazines.

Only crazy, mass-murdering spree killers do, because 30-round magazines have only one purpose: to kill a lot of people, quickly.

The Arizona shooter could’ve been stopped before he killed six people if he only had access to 10-round magazines. After firing his 30 rounds, he fumbled trying to reload, which allowed his victims to fight back. More would have survived if he had to stop after just 10 shots.

I propose restricting large capacity detachable magazines to military and police forces, and exchanging existing ones in private hands with equivalent amounts of 10-round magazines through the constitutionally-sanctioned process of eminent domain.

The Second Amendment remains inviolate. Owners will retain their guns. But whether their intentions are good or bad, shooters must pause after 10 rounds to reload.

Thus, the next crazy person who tries to commit mass murder will find that we have given his intended victims a fighting chance.

Ed Chainey

The bit that gets me: the idea that limiting spree killers to 10 rounds gives some of the mass murderer’s victims a fighting chance. Thanks a lottery.

Anyway, who the hell wants a “fighting chance” against a spree killer? I want the armed loony terminated with extreme prejudice. No fair fight. I want him (or less likely her) to face immediate and overwhelming firepower. Did you know that LEO trainers are now instructing police in the fine art of contact head shots for just such an occasion? Sounds about right to me.

At the risk of going all MATAFOME on ya, I believe Americans have the right to the best possible self-defense firearms systems available, including extended magazines. The only thing worse than not having a gun when someone’s trying to kill you with a gun is having a gun without enough bullets. How many is enough? As many as I want, really. More specifically, the most I feel I can carry comfortably and use effectively. I feel. Me. And I’ll be the judge of that, thank you very much.

The argument against this right to ballistic self-determination: why not a flamethrower? Biological weapons? Nukes? Because those are weapons of mass destruction, not self-defense. A gun with a 30-round magazine can be used for mass murder (obviously) but it is not necessarily a weapon of mass destruction.

Here’s the thing: you don’t have to use all 30 bullets in a 30-round magazine. Legally, you are only allowed to continue shooting until the threat against your life and limb, or the life and limbs of innocent bystanders, stops. At that point, the rounds in the gun, or in your pocket, or sitting on a nearby table, are out of play. I repeat: you’re only allowed to use as many bullets as you need to defend yourself. What’s wrong with that?

For the good guys? Law-abiding citizens with legally owned firearms? Nothing. If they want spare ammo in the gun rather than secreted on their person, that’s smart thinking! If they can be bothered to lug around 309 rounds, bully for them! Meanwhile, the bad guys should be restricted to 17th century muskets. Reloading will take them AGES. Now, how do we legislate that?

61 Responses to Why 30 Rounds?

  1. The argument for high cap mags can be summed up by the old aphorism “There’s always one more bastard than you counted on.”

  2. I hate this magazine-capacity discussion. I’m beginning to think that you gun guys realize that McCarthy and the rest of them are wasting their time on a silly restriction like this that even if it passed wouldn’t affect you much and so you’re encouraging her with a feigned resistance. Meanwhile, of course, there are bigger restrictions that would affect you that are not even discussed.

    Is that your plan? You are a slippery bunch, but now I’m onto ya.

    One serious question, while I’m here, isn’t the length of that 30+ magazine a bit cumbersome?

    • Here’s the Problem with a mag cap ban: After the next psycho goes off and kills people with 10 rnd mags anti-gunners will want them banned as well. Most American gun owners can see what the end game is when someone wants more gun control.

      • The 30 round magazine is cumbersome in a pistol because it adds length to the grip. It wasn’t designed with the intent of being used in your typical responsible ccw situation. In my humble opinion it’s only really useful if it’s in a dedicated home defense pistol or pistol caliber carbine where concealment isn’t an issue. It’s also fun to have at the range.

        Modern Sporting Rifles (see what I did there?) were designed for the use of high capacity magazines as they started out as military assault rifles. High cap mags in those are not cumbersome at all.

    • Is that your plan? You are a slippery bunch, but now I’m onto ya.

      No, we are just taking full advantage of the anti-liberty lobby’s insane stupid foolishness.

      One serious question, while I’m here, isn’t the length of that 30+ magazine a bit cumbersome?

      Yes a very little bit, but far less cumbersome than being restrained within a body bag.

    • 30 is somewhat unwieldy on a pistol (a negligible concern in home defense), but it is just fine on a carbine or rifle. The thing that gets to me is when they complain about 30 round mags and then set the cap at 10.

      And if these “high capacity” magazines are only good for spree killing crowds of unarmed people, then why is there an exception for law enforcement? The police don’t need to gun down crowds of people. Or do they get to have “high capacity” magazines because they actually have practical uses for defending themselves and those they are tasked with protecting?

    • No, the 30 round mag is not cumbersome. Now my 100 round drum is slighty cumbersome and quite heavy(she does get lighter as I squeeze the trigger) but I wouldn’t trade her for anything.

  3. So 30 is a big, bad scary number, but 10 is perfectly okay? Or okay this week? You know that 10 will be a big, bad scary number next week, or the week after. After all, “real sportsmen don’t need 30 10-round magazines”, do they? Think of all the lives that will be saved if we restrict magazine sizes to only 5!

    • You are exactly correct Nicholas.

      Anyone recall how we came up with 10 as the magic number? Because back when thus silly discussion came up in 1994, congress questioned the Mr. Ruger ( yes of Ruger firearms) on how many was enough and Mr. Ruger sensing that congress wanted to ban everything beyond a pop gun, responded “10”. He said this because he knew anything higher would be thrown out, because Glock full size came with 15 ( and Glocks look scary to libs) and, if course the gun he would be very familiar with MARK I,II at that time, holds 10 rnds of .22

  4. “Thus, the next crazy person who tries to commit mass murder will find that we have given his intended victims a fighting chance.”

    A fighting chance would be if you could read the cazy’s mind before he thinks of pulling the trigger. “Minority report” any one?
    And as for “McCarthy and the rest of them………”
    Poloticians have a way of placing into law attachment to the law PORK for the rest of us. Ambiguous language that would take years of rangling to clean up. It damn near takes an act of god (or an attack on their wallets) to get congress to change an existing law. No matter how flawed it may be.

  5. As a guy who carries either a 1911 or a revolver depending on my mood, I don’t ever really feel constrained by only being able to carry 6 or 8 rounds in my gun at one time. I don’t really think that there is a real difference between 30 rounds or 10 rounds so why should we ban “high cap” mags? They honestly aren’t the real issue.

  6. You know, those old muskets were often 70 caliber or larger. They say the Brown Bess musket the British used in the Revolutionary War would leave an exit wound the size of a baseball. I think I’d rather take my chances against a 9mm.

    • Really? Wow. I’m guessing expansion wasn’t a factor, as much as a 70 caliber very heavy ball, with lots of momentum. Makes you wonder what it’d test as, in ballisitic gel.

      • Yeah, the Brown Bess was a 75 caliber, the French Charleville muskets were 69 caliber. The musket balls were undersized to ensure continued functioning with the extensive black powder fouling you’d encounter in a battle that lasted for a few hours. Even so, a large diameter projectile like that traveling at relatively low velocities had a tendency to remove a lot of tissue when it exited the body.

        There was also the buck and ball load, which George Washington was rather fond of. It consisted of a 65 to 71 caliber ball on top of three buckshot pellets. It faded from use when rifled muskets became more popular, but was common until the early days of the Civil War.

        • Can you image how that must have kicked? Maybe Taurus can work with hornady and create the George Washington model.

        • Black Powder doesn’t “kick” it ‘pushes’. MUCH more pleasant to shoot, and the smell of a big cloud of white sulfur smoke in the morning, ahhhhh…. The laws of physics still apply but the perceived recoil is much milder than a modern shotgun. 75 cal., BTW is only 11 gage.

  7. If a “hi capacity” magazine is not appropriate for my personal self defense why is it somehow appropriate for a police officer to defend himself(or others). Limit me to 10 when the police are limited to 10.

  8. The Second Amendment is not about self defense from criminals. Nor is it about hunting, or target shooting, or sporting clays.

  9. Why sell cars to civilians that are capable of traveling over 75mph when that’s about the maximum legal limit (more or less) on the highways of this countey? Why sell beer in six packs, cases or 40oz. bottles, when consuming that much would make you legally drunk? Why sell hamburgers that contain more than the recomended number of calories, salt and fat in a single helping than we should get in an entire day?

    All three of these things (fast cars, alchohol and obsesity/cholesterol/poor diet) kill exponentially more people annually in this country (effecting exponentially even more than just the direct victims) than guns of any make, model, caliberr or magazine capacity.

  10. Not that I’m advocating such restrictions, I’m using them as an example to point out the flawed logic and knee-jerk reactionary thinking that is spurring on this debate.

  11. It’s worth asking how 30+ round magazines got into the civilian gun market to begin with. Is anyone in the gun industry familiar with the concepts of social responsibility or corporate citizenship, or will they sell pretty much anything that gun nuts are willing to purchase?


    • It’s worth asking how 30+ round magazines 120mph+ automobiles got into the civilian gun automobile market to begin with. Is anyone in the gun automobile industry familiar with the concepts of social responsibility or corporate citizenship, or will they sell pretty much anything that gun automobile nuts are willing to purchase?

      It’s worth asking how 30+ round magazines sub-50mpg automobiles got into the civilian gun automobile market to begin with. Is anyone in the gun automobile industry familiar with the concepts of social responsibility or corporate citizenship, or will they sell pretty much anything that gun automobile nuts are willing to purchase?

      • A 120 mph automobile has a useful purpose. You can drive it on the road at legal speeds, or you can take it to the track and drive it at any speed. But mainly, the 120-mph capability allows acceptable acceleration at legal speeds. However, a 30+ round magazine has no legitimate purpose. Cops don’t even carry them. It’s tits on a mule — except for anti-personnel use.

        It amazes me to see firearms people defending this anti-social trash. There was a time when responsible gun enthusiasts wanted nothing to do with it and did all they could to distance themselves from it. Times change, I guess.

        • I should also mention that some cops carry assault rifles with 30-round magazines in them. If not on their person, in their car. But it’s handily available when needed.

        • So driving 120 mph+ on a track is legitimate, but firing 30 rounds at the range without reloading isn’t? It smells like hypocritical bullshit in here. There are thousands of speed related fatalities on the highways each year, compared to how many incidents involving 30 round pistol or rifle magazines? Tucson and North Hollywood, and then maybe some gang-related crap, but you can’t stop those guys anyway, none of them are allowed to have guns in the first place.

        • A 120 mph automobile has a useful purpose. You can drive it on the road at legal speeds, or you can take it to the track and drive it at any speed.

          Malarky. Nobody needs to drive at 120mph, on or off track. It just wastes gas. And it’s dangerous to boot. [How many factory stock cars come with roll cages and 5 point harnesses?]

          But mainly, the 120-mph capability allows acceptable acceleration at legal speeds.

          I suspect that’s malarky too. But I’m not going to look up vehicles that could do say sub-12 second 0-60 times, yet not break 100mph. Besides: what is the acceptable acceleration to legal speeds? Shall 12 seconds and longer be legal — but 11 seconds and less be a felony?

          However, a 30+ round magazine has no legitimate purpose. Cops don’t even carry them. It’s tits on a mule — except for anti-personnel use.

          Malarky. Glock 17’s carry 17 rounds in the magazine. That’s more than half of the amount in question. And well above the current “anything above 10 is felonious”.

          And, may I remind you, cops carry guns precisely for anti-personal use. Guess that makes them anti-social, since their mags generally carry more than 10 rounds.


          It amazes me to see firearms people defending this anti-social trash. There was a time when responsible gun enthusiasts wanted nothing to do with it and did all they could to distance themselves from it. Times change, I guess.

          Oh noes! People shouldn’t be allowed to change. Something tells me you’re still bitter about your wife being allowed to vote and wear pants.

        • magoo, i know you’re not going to reply to this because i have yet to see you reply to any sensible rebuttal to your comments but there ARE legitimate uses for even 30rd mags in a pistol.
          i go hiking & climbing in remote areas sometimes and am more concerned about the 4 legged threats than humans. last time i was out there were 3 wolf/dog have breeds (beautiful creatures btw) that ran within 100yrds of us & i was definitely worried because i had a dog with me. if they DID threaten our safety, would i have felt safe with ONLY 10rds in my mag? that would leave me with just over 3 rounds per, and you WILL miss if they are charging. I know that i would not have time to reload. what if there are 4, 5 or 6? SCREWED is what i’d be…

          now the only reason i don’t carry a 30 rounder is because it is too unwieldy but you better believe i have more than 10, in fact i have double that.

          what about hunters gathering their kill? they need a sidearm for protection and wolf packs have been known to threaten and attack if hungry. you’ll need as MANY rounds as you can get against a pack of them or feral dogs. unfortunately many of those guys are not on this website to provide you with their reasons for needing adequate protection in the wild, but it IS a need.

          what about putting that 30 rd mag in a pistol caliber carbine? truth is very few people have been murdered with these hi-cap (30 plus) mags because they make it difficult to conceal the pistol in the first place, yet there are many who actually DO benefit from having that capacity.

        • @supton “Malarky. Nobody needs to drive at 120mph, on or off track. It just wastes gas. And it’s dangerous to boot. [How many factory stock cars come with roll cages and 5 point harnesses?]”

          You know, if it’s on the track, it’s really the driver’s decision if they want to accept that risk and if they think it’s a waste of gas. Hell, they can drive diesel if they want to. Their decision, not yours.

    • Must I go over this analogy with you again,

      wait the guy above me already did.

      If someone commits a crime with a knife, who do you blame?

      If someone builds a bomb…who do you blame?

    • It’s worth asking how 30+ round magazines got into the civilian gun market to begin with.

      Guns and magazines for guns were invented. Then they were patented. Then they were manufactured. Then they were distributed. Then they were sold to the public.

      Are you really unfamiliar with the process of innovation and capitalism?

      • By all means, let’s talk free market. If gun nuts refused to buy this worthless, antisocial hardware, there would be no civilian market for it, the gun makers wouldn’t offer it and criminals and lunatics couldn’t buy it so easily. At what point do you decide that enough is enough, just say no, and stop subsidizing this process?

        Both the choice of firearms and the attitude toward society on display here are juvenile. Nobody here really needs a 30+ round magazine, you just want them, and screw the consequences for everyone else. It’s not your problem. It’s not you gun nuts who are to blame; it’s those other gun nuts. But every day it gets harder to tell the difference.

        • By all means, let’s talk free market. If gun nuts refused to buy this worthless, antisocial hardware, there would be no civilian market for it, the gun makers wouldn’t offer it and criminals and lunatics couldn’t buy it so easily. At what point do you decide that enough is enough, just say no, and stop subsidizing this process?

          These magazines aren’t worthless. Heck, the 12 rounders for my Walther go for 60 bucks a piece! We aren’t subsidizing the crooks – they steal their funds! and usually their guns and magazines too!

          Both the choice of firearms and the attitude toward society on display here are juvenile.

          So it would be a sign of maturity if I give up my high capacity pistol and get a .454 Casull revolver? I think I’ll keep the pistol and get the wheel gun anyway,.

          Nobody here really needs a 30+ round magazine, you just want them,

          Nobody really needs to anything but 1 thing: die. I’m a helluva procrastinator, so those magazines might help me procrastinate another day or decade before I have to check off the universal to-do list.

          and screw the consequences for everyone else.

          I used to own an SKS with multiple 30 round magazines. Folding stock, bayonet, scope, etc. The magazines did have consequences for my friends and family – we all had a great time shooting the SKS!

          It’s not your problem. It’s not you gun nuts who are to blame; it’s those other gun nuts. But every day it gets harder to tell the difference.

          Criminals and the criminally insane are not gun nuts. A more accurate term for “gun nut” is “gun geek”. The violent people are rarely if ever a “gun geek”.

        • Alright…one more time….

          Guy goes on a stabbing spree…who do you blame?

          Guy builds a bomb and detonates it in an airport…who do you blame?

          Guy gets drunk and does a head-on with a packed minivan…who do you blame?

          You getting the picture or not?

  12. I cannot shake the feeling that if he had used a couple of regular sized magazines, he might not have fumbled. Those 30 rounds mags are unwieldy in a pistol.
    His megalomaniac thinking might just have saved some lives.

    I want to see a 4×15 rounds versus 2×30 rounds shootout and see who’s faster.
    Might make for a cool video.

  13. “McCarthy and the rest of them are wasting their time on a silly restriction.”

    May the Almighty forgive me and not strike me immediately dead, but who among us can disagree with Mikeb on this one? The magazine restriction proposal (I’m stuck with a 10-round restriction in MA) is so incredibly stupid that it exposes the anti wingnuts for what they really are. And that’s a good thing.

  14. Why Not 30 Rounds?

    Why not, 50, or 200, 8 or 1. Why does it matter. Please just leave me alone Rep McCarthy. I don’t bother you with my idealogies do I?

  15. I agree RF, and thank you for the kind words (I’m going to show this to the guys at work). Now in Israel they are already trained in the contact head shot, which is extremely effective. My lil ole 500’s are perfect for this type of shot cuz there won’t be any head left. I have more hi cap mags than I know what to do with, but I mainly use them at the range to same time reloading. I have no problem with people using hi cap mags in self defense because it gives them better odds. My primary home guns have 10 rounds each and my back ups have the big firepower. I’ll most likely take out the badguy with my two main 45’s and then I won’t need to worry about the backups. I hope this isn’t considered flaming (cuz I now have a kinder gentler side) but we should all pitch in and buy Magoo some glasses so that he can see what’s going on in the real world. His myopic view of real life is getting tiresome.

  16. I also happen to be of the opinion, and I’m likely in the minority on this, that if a weapon is too terrible to exist in private hands, then it shouldn’t exist in the hands of the police or military either. To do otherwise suggests that the government isn’t held to the same standard of behavior that the general public is, that it’s somehow OK for the state to view human life as cheap. From where I sit, it looks like a recipe for oppression.

    • How far have you thought this out? We can’t have criminals running around with grenade launchers, etc, which is exactly what you are proposing, in case you haven’t realized it. There is one word for allowing civilians open access to the same weapons available to the military: insane. Here’s a catchy slogan to promote your point of view: When M134s are outlawed, only outlaws will have M134s.

      • You seem to have missed my point. If grenade launchers are so horrible, then they shouldn’t exist, not for the public, not for the military, not for anyone. The same goes for nukes and weaponized smallpox. I’m not proposing that anybody should get any weapon, I’m proposing that certain types of weapon cease to exist.

      • Looks like YOU haven’t thought this one out either, our own military uses the same types of handguns we carry around every day.

      • Well, geez, Magoo, you can pass any laws you want but the drug cartels are going to have their grenade launchers. They get ’em from their Army. Not from us.

        And you seem to throw around that “insane” term pretty freely. Is everyone who disagrees with you insane? Or just the people who disagree with you on gun issues?

    • We may be in the minority but it’s clear that this is the only moral and consistent position. A corollary is the question of when does it become ok to steal a man’s property and throw him in a cage just for owning property and not hurting anyone else. When he owns magazines with 30 round capacity? I think not.

  17. So what are they planning for my PS90 carbine? It has a standard 30 or 50 round magazine. It is going to look pretty funny with a 10 round mag sticking out of it… The FNH Five-seveNs have a standard 20 shot magazine, how many rounds does the PMR-30 hold, 20 or 30? Don’t AR and AK types have 20-30round magazines as standard?

    • The Kel Tec PMR 30 holds 30 rounds completely inside the grip. Pretty cool littel pistol and a TON of fun at the range.

  18. “exchanging existing ones in private hands with equivalent amounts of 10-round magazines through the constitutionally-sanctioned process of eminent domain”

    So this guy would use one part of the Constitution to INFRINGE on rights guaranteed (not to mention God-given) by the Bill of Rights? A right, I might add, that the Founders of this once great nation saw fit to put 2ND on the list only behind Free Speech and Freedom of Religion at number one.
    My 30 rounders have never hurt anybody and they never will……unless someone tries to hurt me and my family first. Then it will be part of one the BEST systems I can put together to protect me and mine, whether from a lone burglar or from twenty-five looters after a hurricane. That’s MY right, whether or not some liberal loon thinks I “need” it or not!!

  19. It’s irrelevant that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for rifles since WWI, pistol magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds have been available since the 1930’s, and millions upon millions of so-called ’high capacity’ magazines have been bought, sold, traded, given away, misplaced, lost, damaged and thrown away as trash in the U.S. for decades.
    What is relevant is that Loughner used one in a premeditated, preplanned assault resulting in murder and wounding of innocent people.
    While Loughner is the only person accountable for his heinous crimes, the libtards try to make themselves relevant by blaming everyone else and whatever thing they can point to as being relevant, hoping to convince other weak minded dolts like themselves that morally-conscious, law-abiding persons are the ones who are really responsible for what Loughner did.

  20. Open to relevant correction here, it’s most relevant to McCarthy that her husband was killed and son wounded in a premeditated and preplanned massacre perpetrated by a racist Jamaican who married into citizenship, bought a GUN, broke numerous, provably-worthless ’GUN control laws’ and proceeded kill and wound unarmed-by-law, victims-victims-in-waiting on a Long Island commuter train in 1993. After suing everyone she could try and make relevant to the murderous act and losing, she ran for office on a GUN control platform.
    McCarthy’s introduction of legislation to ’ban’ high-capacity ammunition feeding devices is relevant to a now lengthy list of attempts at using her position in office to enact more ’GUN control’ laws as part of her personal vendetta against GUNS, GUN-related thingys and of course, all GUN-owners.

  21. Wholly irrelevant now is the IIA, written as a prohibitive law against those in the Federal government declaring a right which predates and preexisted all forms of American government and specifying that said right shall not be so much as ‘infringed’ from the Federal level. Violations of this law written specifically against those in government have been occurring regularly since the 1920’s and continue virtually unabated to the present day.
    Relevant to some is that sooner-or-later, persons prohibited by law via the IIA from doing so, will render themselves more lawless than they already are, and will finally break the law to the extent of enacting legislation which will, in effect, make everyone who owns a fire-arm or some firearm-related thingy criminals under law.

  22. Do any of you idiots even understand what the Second Amendment was designed for? Do you have any clue at all? Well, let me help you. Let’s start at the beginning of these United States. On July 4th, 1776, our nations founders signed the Declaration of Independence. In that document is the following:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

    Pay special attention to this part:

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

    I wish I could highlight it but, the whole purpose for the Second Amendment is so that “We the People” will have the means to overthrow our government if they get too big and too intrusive in our lives. That’s right, I said “over throw the government”. The Second Amendment was NOT designed so we could hunt or sport shoot. We are already at a disadvantage thanks to the “National Firearms Act of 1934” which makes it illegal to own a fully automatic weapon or a short-barrelled weapon without special permits and registrations. Slowly but surely “they” are taking away our means to resist when they move to further restrict and regulate our lives. And, dumb asses like the author of this article are willing to let them restrict the capacity of our magazines. I spent 22 years sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC…” Anyone who would rather restrict the masses than severely punish the guilty is, in my opinion an enemy”. Keep your damn hands off of my Constitution and my rights!!!

  23. It dont bother me, because i have about 20 or so hi cap mags, mainly the glock 33 rounders, & no im no killa, its just they are so fun at the range or out in the woods, i enjoy shootin small trees down with mine. Im not turnin mine in if they ban em either, i may however trade up with em, like ill give up a few mags in exchange for a flamethrower, actually glock should make a flamethrower, prob not in the budget tho, also id tell the government i want a tour of area 51 and i wanna go in hangar 18 & see the aliens n stuff. Because ive been abducted by aliens before and it was cool as hell.

  24. Well people, Chainey spoke, so it’s official: those of us with 30 round mags are mass-murdering spree killers. That’s it, there’s not disputing it, it came from his mouth. You people should all be ashamed of your mass-murdering selves. Chainey says “Buy 10 round mag, then you too, will no longer be mass-murderer.”

  25. The argument is so stupid. To say that people don’t need 30 round mags. Of course they don’t need them, but what is that supposed to mean. People don’t need cars that get 50 mpg or do 200 mph. They could deal with worse. People don’t need fast computers or internet connection. They could just take 10 mins to load any website. You don’t need these things, but it just makes things more convenient. 30 rounds means you have to reload 3 times less while doing conventional shooting. If people always had the mentality that we shouldn’t have something just because we don’t need it we would all still be living in caves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *