Politicians adore the term “high-capacity magazine,” in references to guns that they so passionately hate. President Biden has made it a favorite term when advocating for gun control, and he blames the ills of weapon-related deaths on such accessories. It is important, however, that despite the rhetoric, people understand what this term means, and how it is being misused, because what people often say are “high capacity” are nothing more than old standards.
“High capacity” would logically refer to something excessive from the norm. Generally, politicians advocating for bans of such items claim this includes any firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (some states, such as Colorado, have set this limit at 15 rounds). One should ask, is this appropriate? The clear answer is “no.”
More than 10 rounds of ammunition does not logically mean these magazines are “high capacity,” and research is constantly being misconstrued by disingenuous politicians to falsely claim that guns with magazines over 10 rounds are more deadly.
To get to the root of what kind of capacity was the norm before this “high capacity” term came into vogue over the last few years, we can look back at some fairly standard measures. In the 1960s, for instance, we find that the introduction of civilian M16 variants came standard with a 20-round magazine. Double, then, of what politicians later blindly decided was their target limit.
We also find that it was then only a few short years after the Gun Control Act of 1968 that the United States Army set a standard of 30-round magazines accompanying issued rifles during Vietnam. Further still, in 1980, NATO–through STAGNAG (NATO Standardization Agreement)–adopted the 30-round magazine as a standard, as well. As we see, whether for civilian rifles or military rifles, never has 10 or 15 been a standard number when it comes to ammunition feeding devices.
Regarding pistols, capacities of 10 or below were a product of early gun design (think revolvers and the iconic 1911) that has long been advanced upon, even well before the proliferation of the “high capacity” term.
One of the most famous guns of all of course is the Glock 17, designed by Gaston Glock. That pistol, introduced in 1982 and having since become a stalwart in both civilian and law enforcement circles, holds 17 rounds, and has ever since its inception. That is just one model and one example that for more than 40 years has maintained a 17-round capacity. Reportedly, more than five million Glock 17s have been sold, on top of the fact that most other full-size Glocks also carry similar amounts of ammunition. This means that just one brand has sold perhaps more than 10 million models that have magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. At this point, calling a standard Glock 17 “high capacity” is nothing short of hyperbole.
Beyond Glock, the examples abound as well. To use just another popular model with great history, we can look at the Beretta M9/92SF, made famous by its use in the United States Army. That gun comes with 15-round magazines and has done so since the model’s adoption in 1990. More examples include the Smith & Wesson Model 59, introduced in 1971 with 14-round magazines and even the legendary Browning Hi-Power that came out in the late 1930s and typically carried 13.
Under any consideration, there is no fair basis for referring to magazines with more than 10 rounds of capacity as “high capacity.” It is irrational, and irresponsible, for politicians to adopt such terms, and it is nothing more than made up political drama designed to carry favor with people who encourage civilian disarmament and at the same time, simply do not know any better.
The easiest thing gun advocates can do is stop playing the “high capacity” game. There are a myriad of wonderful advocates for gun rights out there that have unfortunately started using the language, and by doing so, they assist in normalizing the nonsense. Advocates for gun rights should use appropriate terms when discussing issues involving potential gun restrictions and be clear: some states are attacking the right to own standard–capacity magazines. That is the fact, full stop.
Anti-gun politicians hope it sounds outrageous when they say an incident occurred with a “high-capacity” magazine. They want to stir emotions and solicit favor for gun bans and further gun restrictions, even though it is clear they do not work to reduce violent crime (unsurprisingly it is already illegal to harm someone in most circumstances). In response, advocates for gun rights should make sure that it evokes equal outrage when they point out the truth that many elected officials are attacking the lawful right to own a standard accessory.
The reality is that saying something repeatedly does not make it true, but in this case, it can if we let it.
—By Dr. Nate Jendrick, Guest Columnist
Author Bio:
Dr. Nate Jendrick has been a law enforcement officer since 2014 and is currently a K9 handler in Washington. Nate holds additional duties as a Field Training Officer, Patrol Tactics Instructor and Defensive Tactics Instructor. Outside of policing, he is also the author of numerous books in various nonfiction categories. He earned his Master’s in Public Administration from the University of Texas, and his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice Leadership from Liberty University.
The entire notion is arbitrary, imaginary and subjective like how many unicorns can fit on the head of a pin. Nothing any rational person would attempt to legislate or regulate and discussion of it is no different than arguing over cape shit but here we are where the beautiful people and 1% earn six figures attempting to make it real through threats of violent enforcement and theft.
No unicorns can fit in the head of a pin. Pins are a myth invented by European colonizers. Unicorns only appear in gunfree zones. Then when a gun shows up, they haul ass.
I am surprised I have to tell you this.
“Standard” capacity magazines are whatever the manufacturer designed for and shipped with the weapon. If I bought California compliant replacement magazines for a pistol that would make it…………..SUBSTANDARD !
There is no such thing; it’s a communist buzzword used to scare the uninitiated and the willfully ignorant into supporting more and more gun control.
Nothing technical about it. Its a made up term plain and simple.
High capacity is whatever a Dim decides. Fun fact:Yesterday I was at Cabelas Hammond,IN & noticed a young brown fellow buying a substitute GLOCK©(Promag)9mm 30 round magazine. Golly I wonder whut that’s for🙄😀
Well, gee, you said it yourself. It’s a substitute for the original that must have been lost or damaged. He probably has arthritis and can’t fill magazines easily so the larger one cuts down on the times that he has to reload.
fun fact, if you have arthritis or weaker muscles due to a medical condition. The spring tension to load 15 rounds into a 17 round or 30 round magazine is less and so requires less effort on your part. That would be another reason.
Maybe he prefers a mag more likely to jam his gun? Maybe it’s for stoppage clearing drills?
Well for the popular Glock Model 17 Glock makes a 33 rounder so 33 rounds plus 1 it is. If you legally own a 17 don’t just sit there like a bump on a log go order one just in case. After all when it comes to defending you and yours allow no Gun Control sack of insanity to tie yours hands…
I’d recommend against it. It adds weight to the gun and changes the center of gravity, making it harder to control. As a bonus, it’s unwieldy.
plus it doesn’t fit anything i own.
You need to eat your Wheaties. The benefits of a 33 round mag outweighs your hypothesis. Let’s say the weapon is loaded with 17 rounds, surely you are not dumb enough not to consider having another 17 round mag at the ready? Weigh up two loaded 17 round mags and do the math. You will need two 17 round mags plus a successful mag change to do what one 33 rounder can do in situation where 17 rounds is too short for the task at hand. So yes indeed having a 33 rounder on hand is a good suggestion.
jr…your cut in line reply doesn’t fit.
Screw that. If you want to shoot 33 rounds from a handgun, you need to readjust your reality meter. Just get a goddamned AR and shoot all the 33-rounders that you want.
A 17-round magazine that fits the weapon it is designed for, is the ideal. If you can’t manage a mag change in a reasonable amount of time, being in a situation where only a 33-round magazine will suit is a situation that you’re probably not gonna survive anyway.
Where are you gonna keep that 33-rounder so it is “on hand?” In your mag pouch on your gun belt? How about a 66-round mag? Perhaps a crew-served weapon would be more appropriate in that sitch.
Probably good for a PCC that takes Glock magazines.
Now do “assault rifle” and “weapon of war.”
… and then do ” Large Ammunition Cache “, followed by
” A Veritable Armory ” and OMG –
Optical Sights.
The Dimwit voter base feels safe now.
Anyone who claims to define what “high-capacity magazine” means is just as silly as someone who claims to define what “high-capacity soda bottle” means.
As almost all of the comments have implied or outright stated, the term “high-capacity” is totally arbitrary. Of course governments absolutely love arbitrary terminology in political discourse (and especially laws) because it allows them to increase confusion among the populace and target their political enemies.
Correct. “High capacity” is, just like “assault weapon”, anything the Legislature says it is in the legislation enacted into law. The capacity limit is as small as the Democratic Party can jam through the particular State legislature. Which is why in California it is 10 rounds, and in NY it is (was?) seven rounds. If they could pass single shot black powder muskets, they would. They can’t, but they would settle for six shot revolvers.
Are my 9mm Suomi 50 round coffin mags and 71 round drum magazines ‘high capacity’?
You forget there was a time they came for those muskets 😉
But there are “high capacity” soda bottles.
Have we all forgotten the great soda tax scheme NY?
The dems went from wanting to tax your snacks and drinks to just now complaining about shrink-flation.
Well, isn’t less product for more cost what they always wanted?
Oh, my bad, what they actually wanted was just more taxes going into their pockets. Not a lesser volume of diabetes causing poison going into our bodies.
My 12 gauge, 3&1/2″ chamber length shotgun can be loaded with #00 or #4 buckshot. Cartridges of #00 buckshot hold as many as 18, .33 caliber projectiles. Cartridges of #4 buckshot can hold as many as 54, .24 caliber projectiles. I guess my politically correct, double barrel, break action Fudd gun qualifies as high capacity.
Just FYI, there has been no dearth of mass shootings committed with shotguns. They just don’t get the publicity that shootings with AR-15s provoke.
It is perhaps fortunate that few people understand just how devastating shotguns can be. Most mass shootings are at close range. The pattern of a shotgun is likely to be only a few inches in diameter. At longer range, say 50 to 100 yards, the pattern is likely to be about four feet to eight feet in diameter. A possible scenario would be to attack the spectators stands at a high school football game from the far side of the field. This is not good for a hunter that wants to be humane. However; for a mass shooter that is attacking a large, densely packed crowd, it is perfect. They will likely wound or kill several people with every round.
Buzz words used by low capacity intelligence liberal/progressive democrats, politicians and their media acolytes.
In short, it (shouldn’t) matter.
What matters is:
1. Does it implicate the TEXT of 2A. Much like paper and ink implicate “Freedom of Press” in 1A, so do magazines and ammunition with 2A.
2. Burden shifts to GOV to show that there are analogous regulations from ~1791-1830.
At the time of the Revolutionary War, the average soldier was provided a 1-2 boxes of musket balls (cartridge box) holding 18 musket balls each. By the Civil War, that increased to ~40 per box.
In short, there were no regulations limiting the amount carried, and 18-36 were “common”. This isn’t a “hearts and minds” argument. It’s a LEGAL argument.
The other one I love is “Military Grade”. It some how makes it more dangerous.
While other pundits point out that “military grade” means the product of the lowest qualified contractor that meets the bid specification.
Perhaps the author is in favor of re-branding the Browning Hi-Power as the “Standard-Power”?
I’d consider a 50-round drum for a 1911 pistol high capacity. But it should still be legal.
““High capacity” would logically refer to something excessive from the norm.”
“Logical” debate eliminates about 3/4 of the gun-hate crowd.
“Honest” debate takes out the rest.
But unfortunately, ” Feelz ” has no place for either logic or honesty, and it has become the Official
Language of The Left.
Still better than “High Caliber” magazines.
In reality, the antis are looking for scary labels they can use to frighten non gun savvy people.
The goal of anti-civil rights h0 m0sexu@ls like Tom Ammiano was to destroy the public education system. As a proud openly gay man. He got elected the San Francisco school board and did away with the rifle teams. And stopped all 2A education in the school system.
Because that f@scist c0mmunist h0m0 sexu@l needed to have a population that had been deeducated about its civil rights.
At one time in america most people knew some basic information about guns. Unfortunately, now you have a population, that doesn’t know the difference between a revolver and a semiauto.
Is his sexual orientation at all relevant here? Perhaps it’s Italian-Americans like him who are trying to encourage ignorance and ban guns.
Doesn’t the Glock 33 round mag fit in the 17, 19, 26 and any other Glock in 9mm that feeds double stack Glock mags? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Carry on. Cut out the B.S. please.
“High capacity” is anything a fascist commie prog doesn’t like.
Washington State Retailer Fined $3 Million For Violating Mag Capacity Law
https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/wahington-reatiler-fined-mag-capacity/491512
obscene moronic
When I was living in a ban state, I called any unrestricted high cap mags as happy mags.
And it’s STANAG, not “STAGNAG”.
100% agree with this piece!! We gotta stop using the commi terms the Dems love. We need to stop normalizing there “HIGH CAP” crap!
It is all part and parcel if a plan to disarm all civilians in the soon-to-be former United States of America.
They have plans…to subvert US autonomy and subject the citizens of this nation to a “higher authority” which will be able to negate any of our Constitutional Protections when a higher court than the United States Supreme Court overrules decisions such as Heller and Bruen.
Once they have disarmed us all they can start to upend our other rights such as freedom of speech and arrest us for “hate speech” like they do in Europe. They can pretty much do all the things that an armed citizenry would otherwise step up and stop.
There is Logic behind every single gun-control effort; move the ball a few inches towards the endzone of total civilian disarmament. If we continue to let them win it will be our own fault.
“high capacity” is a relative term and does not mean any particular thing. Just like “high definition”. It’s a place that is constantly moving. Like the term ‘rich’. Being rich does not mean having lots of money (necessarily). I’m not sure why this is so misunderstood. High capacity doesn’t mean a 30 round magazine when it’s the only one in a pile of 100 rounders. In that case it’s quite obviously a LOW capacity. This is simple logic and has nothing to do with 2A or your opinions about guns one way or the other. It isn’t even a matter of law (state or federal). Some guns are made to hold six rounds and others are made to hold fifteen (as the come from the manufacturer). Inherent in the design of most semiauto firearms, magazine capacity is not a fixed number.
There is no reason for someone to allow themselves to be lied to and fooled by ignorant politicians (on either side). Joe Biden and most Democrats are clueless as to how guns actually work. To them, it’s the pointy thing that goes up. It’s the 9mm that seperates someone from their lung. It’s just as ridiculous as Gore suggesting that HE invented the internet.
Sure, restrict or ban magazines. And, just like narcotics or cash, or firearms, or even humans, with the current foolishness on now both northern and southern borders, we will see the various cartels/gangs shipping in whatever people will pay for. Tell me again how well the prohibition on alcohol or narcotics worked again. Perhaps it would be a better idea to identify, arrest, prosecute, and convict/imprison those who commit the violent crimes instead of punishing people who have not committed a crime.
Sohbet ve Chat yapmanızı kolay ve güvenli hale getiren Sohbet odaları sorunsuz kesintisiz arkadaşlık yeni kişilerle tanışma imkanı sağlar.
On board absolutely with the message. Everytime a republican uses this crazy term we take one step back toward the liberal madness. STOP SAYING HIGH CAPACITY PEOPLE… THEY ARE STANDARD CAPACITY
I think we’re still having trouble trying to unify around the desired term: “modern sporting rifles (MSR)”. How log tiĺl gun grabbers twist it into shooting humans for sport? They are just rifles! Magazine’s are just magazines; regardless of the amount of ammunition they can contain. Period!!!!
Comments are closed.