Firearms Myth #8: “High Capacity Magazines” Need to Be Banned (Part II)

Now that I have shown why “high capacity” magazines are actually just standard capacity, I am going to demonstrate why banning actual high capacity magazines is not necessary. 

In my last blog post, I revealed how current magazines are made as an industry standard because they are at the point of maximum efficiency. Therefore, if you add more rounds to a magazine then it will be less efficient than the standard capacity magazine. So why do politicians and anti-gun activists want to ban “high capacity” magazines? It is because they asserted that high capacity magazines can be used to kill more people if a criminal wanted to use them in a mass shooting. I will use the same example, everyone’s favorite gun, the AR-15 to reveal that right away, there a couple of flaws with this theory:

AR-15 mag   45 round mag      50 round drum      AR 15 round drum

30 Rounds                  45 Rounds                      50 Rounds                          100 Rounds

1. At 30 rounds, AR-15 magazines are operating at standard capacity and the maximum point of efficiency, meaning that there is the best trade off advantages of balancing the weight and volume of the magazines with the accuracy and output of the firearm. As aforementioned, if something is operating at maximum efficiency, then adding anything to it will make it less efficient. Henceforth, using an AR-15 magazine with a capacity of 45, 50, or 100 rounds (the industry produced high capacity magazines) will be less effective than using an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine. To prove this, one just needs to look at one of the world’s leaders in efficiency- The United States Armed Forces. The U.S. Armed forces use a variety of firearms that are chambered in the same caliber as the AR-15 (They only use the 5.56 x 45 NATO round opposed to the .223 Remington round some AR-15’s are chambered in, but they are extremely similar.). Some of the firearms that the branches of the U.S. Armed forces use are M-16’s (essentially fully automatic versions of the AR-15), M-4’s ( essentially fully automatic carbine versions of the AR-15), and other variants of the M-16 and M-4 such as the HK416. These firearms are similar to the AR-15, and have many of the same parts and use the same exact magazines of the AR-15, except these firearms function differently in terms of cycle rate and rate of fire. So, at what capacity does the U.S. Armed Forces use for these firearms? You probably guessed correctly at 30 rounds. Now the question that comes into play is “if they have access to magazines with a higher capacity than 30 rounds, why don’t they use them? Again this is because of efficiency. The Armed Forces knows that increasing the capacity for these firearms will not increase their effectiveness, so they go without them. Thinking logically, would a criminal who is less trained and capable than a soldier be able to an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine more effective than they can? I would like to see a good argument that can support that idea.

2. Actual high capacity magazines are not reliable, and extremely expensive compared to standard capacity magazines (Another reason why the armed forces does not adopt them). High capacity magazines in general are infamous for misfeeding, double feeding, jamming, and malfunctioning in general. From what I have found, the only exception to this is a company called xproducts that recently started manufacturing high capacity magazines that actually function correctly. That being said, look at the price of these magazines compared to the price of standard 30 round magazines, and to other high capacity magazines.

x15 drum mag X15 skeletonizedAn xproducts x15 magazine that holds 50 rounds of .223 Remington costs $245.00! If you want one of their skelonized high capacity magazines in order to cut down some of the weight, it will cost you $310.00! However, you can find a standard 30 round magazine from the best AR-15 magazine producer, Magpul, that costs just $12.99! You can find other 30 round magazines for even cheaper at $9.99, and I am sure there are even cheaper ones, as finding these took me less than a minute to do.

As you can see, accessibility to these high capacity magazines is far more limited than 30 round magazines because the price is about 20 times more expensive than a standard capacity magazine. Even so, it would be more efficient to use a standard capacity magazine rather than a hi capacity one. Hopefully this will inform you enough to form an accurate opinion on this issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s