# High Capacity Magazines



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 27, 2011)

This issue has recently received its 15 minutes of fame due to the shooting here in AZ.
I want to know everyone's thoughts on whether or not hi-cap mags have a valid place outside of the LEO/Mil world.  If so, why?  If not, why not?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2011)

Is a magazine part of a weapon?

In anything other than a muzzle-loader or single shot rifle, it is.

So, I guess the big question would be, how can this question even be asked when:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 27, 2011)

It’s a stupid, warrantless argument if you’re asking me. Magazine capacity has absolutely no bearing on if someone is going to shoot someone else, further more it has no effect on the criminal element until after they have committed a crime. Regulating any firearm or weapons, is simply stupid in the fact that it only affects the law abiding elements, and where criminals do not follow laws, it becomes pointless.

The argument always comes up that “we don’t want our LEO’s out gunned” and as much as I agree I don’t want to see them out gunned, I am not the threat to LE the criminals are. Being that they are in fact criminals, why would we expect them to follow a new law, when they are already not following current laws? Also being that the second amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms, why should I be out gunned as a law abiding citizen, when the criminal who fails to follow such laws is breaking those laws on the grounds to have more firepower.

The big issue is that gun-laws are ineffective and the NRA has proven this time and time again, yet so many fuck-stick retards seem to ignore the stats and go back to this idea that I am better protected when I am limited in how I can protect myself (pretty dumb when you see it that way eh?). What kill’s me is that our government cannot figure out how to deal with this “active shooter” threat, even though we submit overly compelling data explaining how. Not only to we provide the data, but our own citizens provide solid proof in their actions when they act to stop killing on their own and there is not a LEO in sight to help.

The way to become a more protected society is not through regulation, but through freedom, freedom to arm yourself, freedom to keep and bear your arms against other who would harm you and most of all the freedom to decide if you want to protect yourself or not. If we can get the retard law makers to understand that, we might regain some of our happy American way of life again (think pre-1950s), but until then we continue to fall victim to the criminal element and more overly our own government who leaves us unprotected through restriction and regulations.

So the short answer would be hell fucking no we don’t need to regulate magazine capacity…


----------



## AWP (Jan 27, 2011)

I have this silly idea, one which will never gain traction in our world, but in the land of rainbows, butterflies, and rivers of chocolate that I inhabit LEO's would receiver more training, more range time, and not have to spend their careers looking over their shoulders for a needless lawsuit to stab them in the back. They could go on shift knowing they've received training way beyond a few months of a police academy, they could shoot enough to be comfortable with their issue weapons, and they wouldn't have to call their union every time a "community leader" second guesses their actions based on a grainy video posted on You Tube.

I have a better chance collecting a gallon of unicorn tears.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 27, 2011)

http://slidefiresolutions.com/Legal.html
Look at the bottom right on this ad and you will find the BATF approval letter. Watch the video and then decide. It is not the size of the magazine or the number of bullets. If a crazy person picks up a weapon any weapon they can kill many people. Google machette kills or death by machette.
Google bump fire weapons or just bump fire.
Bill


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 27, 2011)

KBar666 said:


> outside....
> I'm sure they would have their place in all the high-speed competions and of course just fun to blast away and abuse your gun if your into doing so. All this provided they actualy work and don't suffer failures constatly.
> 
> Its my understanding they already had as high as 50 rnd mags in Vietnam for some the SOF back than they just weren't that reliable or they would only feed half the ammo cause the spring sucked.
> ...



Read more, post less.
You haven't even stepped off the bus.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 27, 2011)

What matters is whether or not an individual chooses to abide by the rule of law.

Criminals, by the pure definition of the word, BREAK THE LAW.  The only thing that laws do is give us a rulebook for behavior that is collectively agreed upon, for society to interact and behave.

Criminals ignore the rulebook. They disregard the legality of posessing weapons. They disregard the legality of posessing specific things like magazines, etc.

Even if you shut down and destroyed every firearms manufacturing plant out there, there are still billions of firearms and trillions of rounds available. Would it become harder to get? yeah. Would that matter for someone who really wanted something? NO.

Give me a shopping list of shit I can't legally buy and enough money to make the purchases combined with making it worth the risk, and I'll hand you a pelican case of a bunch of toys. I'm not even a criminal and I know where I can get shit at.

Come the hell on. Banning things doesn't do any good other than putting 2 parties against each other. The state, and the criminals. The state is outnumbered by the criminals. How about we ditch all these bans and actually maybe help the state outnumber them?  At a minimum, criminals are less likely to conduct stupid shit when the chances of them succeeding and/or surviving are significantly more limited.

How many muggings happen in NYC?
How many muggings happen in Anchorage, AK?
You can even just take a segment of the population to make it a level playing field.

Now look at gun laws.

Crimes against the person decrease when there is a significantly higher chance that the criminal is going to get killed in the act.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 28, 2011)

Ranger Psych said:


> How many muggings happen in NYC?
> How many muggings happen in Anchorage, AK?
> You can even just take a segment of the population to make it a level playing field.



DC and homicide may be a better comparison for your argument than muggings and NYC; some sources I've seen make me think that NYC and NY state compare pretty favorably to Anchorage and AK when it comes to things like murder and gun crimes, which I think are more germane to this discussion.




Ranger Psych said:


> Crimes against the person decrease when there is a significantly higher chance that the criminal is going to get killed in the act.



Agree.


----------



## AWP (Jan 28, 2011)

Awesome post, RP.

With regard to high cap magazines in pistols: They work and when they fail it is usually because the owner isn't taking care of his gear, they are just old and worn, or you bought some $20 BrandX magazine instead of quality gear from a reputable source. As I've posted before, even during the Clinton Administration's ban high capacity magazines could be legally purchased or obtained.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Jan 28, 2011)

Slightly off, but since some of the posts are going in that direction, I just wanna throw this out there for you guys to comment on.

Though I'd love for the Philippines to be "open carry", but the author does bring up some valid points, IMO.



> *Gun lovers become bullies at political rallies*
> 
> Gun-rights advocates showed up during presidential town hall meeting carrying firearms. One of them sported a military style AR-15 rifle amid protesters outside the Phoenix Convention Center as President Obama spoke. These gun toting demonstrators insisted they are simply exercising their constitutional right to bear arms while protesting the event.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 28, 2011)

They've got it wrong. We the people have INDIVIDUAL rights. The Government only has the rights afforded it, by WE THE PEOPLE.

So would it have been better if they had been concealed carrying? The spin there would read "TEA PARTY MEMBERS ATTEMPTING TO SMUGGLE GUNS INTO POLITICAL RALLY". Media is worthless because every outlet has something to gain from you just WATCHING, not even listening, to what they show. Newspapers, Radios, Television... advertisements. Never mind magazines where I find it hard to believe someone will ever write ill of a weapon system or object given that they've got advertising from the same company in the magazine...

Once again, banning and restricting really falls under the whole CRIMINAL bit. Criminals abuse the rights and freedoms afforded to them, break the laws of society in general. What you say, what you write in a book, matters not to them. They don't play by our rules, which is why we put them in concrete and metal enclosures for durations of time, in hope of making them realize that it's much better outside behaving than inside.

I mean... let's break it down barney style:

304.8 meters.

What is effective at 304.8 meters? Basically any damn rifle you could buy. Mosin Nagant's, Remington 700's, anything. Even some shotguns w/ slug barrels can do that 'shot'. You could ban firearms within *3,280 feet of an elected official... * and it wouldn't do a lick of good. The weapon is simply a lead delivery device, the individual is what you need to address...


Another argument: Judges have personal guards such as bailiffs and the USMS. The President has a full fucking service contingent of TROOPS to protect him. You? The Individual?

You have a supreme court ruling from 2005.
*The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm*

You're on your fucking own. Cops are ref's in this big game. They see the play, blow the whistle, and stop the play. The problem is... the play already happened and if an injury occured from that illegal tackle? What's the recourse? you're still injured....  Now you have to deal with criminal and civil court to attempt to gain recourse to put you back where you were. You think that someone who just mugged you is going to have $100,000 or more that you may get awarded in a civil case? LOL k.  The check's in the mail.

Don't get me wrong, I know some fine officers who are members here, and others who aren't on here. I like LEO's as a rule (until they're proven individually retarded, then fuck that cop) The thing is... they really can't do much more than enhance a presence in an area in hopes that the fact that someone COULD get caught if they tried something...  Take a look at how many laws are on the books that actually are for planning or premeditation, not being caught in the act or actually having committed the crime. Not many.  Even an attempt to commit, is still a very big fucking deal to the people whom it was attempted against.     All they can do, is basically pay more attention, like a referee in any sport, to the individuals on the "other team" who have a tendency or record of fouling the play or whatever. Still can't blow the whistle and stop the play even if the guy's setting up for the behind the goal start, full speed check of a dude.

Perfect example of the only general recourse LEO's have. Last fall my wife fired up the impala and drove off to work. There was a vehicle parked down the street with 2 people that WATCHED HER LEAVE, then came and knocked on the door. The man who was at my door was extremely surprised to hear a german shepherd and ME, home, and answering the door. His story sounded hinky, and the vehicle's driver looked like she had a hell of alot better places to be than in the driveway of someone who's got a pistol on their belt.  

I dismissed the individual and they departed while I noted make, model, plate, occupants description, and direction of travel. 

My next stop was the ham radio to contact the wife to see if she had noticed them. She had, and when I told her what happened (I had watched her go around the bend out of line of sight of the house before they made their movement towards my home) she agreed that contacting the troopers would be a good idea. 911 call made, I get off the phone with 911 and I have the shift captain calling my cellphone stating that there has been a rash of breakins approximately this time of day in our area, and that 4 troopers were enroute to locate and do a stop on that vehicle, thanks for the information, this is my cell if you see that vehicle again.   The trooper also told me that if I have the means, it would be prudent to ensure I could protect myself... and that's the first time a cop told me I should have a gun nearby, albeit in a "roundabout" mann

A valiant effort, but 4 cops vs 1 vehicle in my area ain't enough to find someone even if you were driving an overt vehicle with a fucking strobe light on the top. er. Never mind the only thing that would have come of them even making contact was them getting talked to, hopefully having a light out for a citation.  

If nothing had been awry with their vehicle or identification.... they would have been let go. No laws were broken, right?


If simply possessing a weapon provides enough intent that someone wants to argue that they need to be banned from an area or altogether... then we need to ban all automobiles, because they all have speedometers that indicate well beyond the legal speed limit for the majority of the US roads, and if you want to use anything other than public transportation you need to sign it out with 3 witnesses, have it transported to a racing track, and wait your turn to be able to take a lap around the track so you are only capable of endangering yourself.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 28, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> DC and homicide may be a better comparison for your argument than muggings and NYC; some sources I've seen make me think that NYC and NY state compare pretty favorably to Anchorage and AK when it comes to things like murder and gun crimes, which I think are more germane to this discussion.



Not really, NYC has double the rate of murder per 100k people compared to Anchorage. We get more rapes and aggrivated assaults but less robberies.

Out of 76 major cities, ,  over 60 of them have significantly worse (being double or better) chances for being murdered.


Comparing Anchorage to DC? DC had 31 per 100k, Anchorage 3.6 per 100k.

Ban them guns. It does a hell of a lot of good making a herd of cattle the coyotes can go after easier.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 28, 2011)

Ranger Psych said:


> Not really, NYC has double the rate of murder per 100k people compared to Anchorage.
> 
> Out of 76 major cities, ,  over 60 of them have significantly worse (being double or better) chances for being murdered.



I'm not seeing those stats in the quick looks I've done on the Internet.  In fact, in some instances I'm seeing the opposite.  What sources are you using?  They may be more credible than mine (Wikipedia 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Anchorage violent crime/murder (per 1000)8.780.05
NYC, same stats
5.520.06
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Firearms death rates per 100,000
Alaska 20 (#2, after DC)

NYC  5.1 (#48)

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08_ak.html
Anchorage:  14 murders/non-negligent manslaughter; 283,300 inhabitants 4.94
NYC;  471 murders/non-negligent manslaughter;  8,400,907 inhabitants 5.6
So in this source, it looks like NYC's murder/manslaughter rate is in fact higher than Anchorage, but it's definitely not 2X.



Ranger Psych said:


> Comparing Anchorage to DC? DC had 31 per 100k, Anchorage 3.6 per 100k.
> ...



That's why I suggested you use DC instead of NYC as your comparison to Anchorage.  :) Our nation's capital, and governed by some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and it still has a murder rate several times that of other major U.S. cities.  Makes me wonder what other factors might be in play, that no one wants to talk about.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 28, 2011)

2008 stats from the census.  First link looking them up in google.


----------



## Headshot (Jan 28, 2011)

So, if I stab someone or several people in a crowd, are we now going to argue about blade length; or was the knife really the problem to begin with?  How about we talk about child capacity for screwed up parents.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 28, 2011)

Got a few points to make, and no time to do it.  I'll be back


----------



## 0699 (Jan 28, 2011)

Just to argue semantics, a high-capacity magazine is one that holds *MORE* rounds than the designer originally planned and the gun was built for.  The Glock 17 standard capacity magazine holds 17 rounds.  Any more than that is a high-capacity magazine and anything less than that is a low-capacity magazine.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 28, 2011)

0699 said:


> Just to argue semantics, a high-capacity magazine is one that holds *MORE* rounds than the designer originally planned and the gun was built for. The Glock 17 standard capacity magazine holds 17 rounds. Any more than that is a high-capacity magazine and anything less than that is a low-capacity magazine.



Except in CA where any magazine capable of holding more than 8 rounds is "Hi-cap" and there fore illegal - my Xd is illegal in CA for just that reason, and has the warning sticker "High Capacity Magazines, Illegal in CA" and for some reason it has "Ported Barrel, Illegal in CA"... It uses the SA-Xd standard 16rd mags.

Gimme a friggin Target Master Colt Python in 45-70, single shot versus an untrained idiot with a  9mm, .40 or .45 with hi-cap mags.... who's gonna win? at 75m I'll at least hit center of mass on that target, and reload as I get close enough to finish the job if it's not already finished.

It's definitely not the mag capacity, it's the shooter.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 28, 2011)

Perfect segue X SF Med...
It seems that (as RangerPsych pointed out), the magazine is considered part of the pistol.  And with that being said, regulating magazine capacity thereby regulates our 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  So, aside from the constituional argument to regulation/lack of regulation on high-cap mags, is there a practical need for them within or outside of the LEO/Mil world?
Several of you have pointed out that it's the "shooter, not the mag".  I'm just looking for personal opinions, they don't have to be backed up with facts or stats or links to websites.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 28, 2011)

x SF med said:


> Except in CA where any magazine capable of holding more than 8 rounds is "Hi-cap" and there fore illegal - my Xd is illegal in CA for just that reason, and has the warning sticker "High Capacity Magazines, Illegal in CA" and for some reason it has "Ported Barrel, Illegal in CA"... It uses the SA-Xd standard 16rd mags.
> 
> Gimme a friggin Target Master Colt Python in 45-70, single shot versus an untrained idiot with a 9mm, .40 or .45 with hi-cap mags.... who's gonna win? at 75m I'll at least hit center of mass on that target, and reload as I get close enough to finish the job if it's not already finished.
> 
> It's definitely not the mag capacity, it's the shooter.



that also so goes for several cities around me.....I drive through Cincinnati all the time illegally


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 28, 2011)

SkrewzLoose said:


> So, aside from the constituional argument to regulation/lack of regulation on high-cap mags, is there a practical need for them within or outside of the LEO/Mil world?



Okay bro I am not trying to be a dick or anything, but your question is somewhat retarded. It’s not about having a practical reason, it’s about I don’t need a practical reason. Is it practical for a single guy with an office job to have 15 passenger van to drive to work? Nope, but it’s his damn choice to have one if he wants one. 

Personally, I have several reasons to have large capacity magazines. The big reason is the defense of my family and home, if some shit goes down where I live (LA riots type thing). I also help thin out wild hogs on friends ranches, I also shoot competitively, I also CCW with only one magazine, I have a shit load of stupid reason I can come up with. But again I don’t need to; it’s my damn right to have a weapon with as many bullets in it as I want.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 28, 2011)

x SF med said:


> Except in CA where any magazine capable of holding more than 8 rounds is "Hi-cap" and there fore illegal - my Xd is illegal in CA for just that reason, and has the warning sticker "High Capacity Magazines, Illegal in CA" and for some reason it has "Ported Barrel, Illegal in CA"... It uses the SA-Xd standard 16rd mags.
> 
> Gimme a friggin Target Master Colt Python in 45-70, single shot versus an untrained idiot with a 9mm, .40 or .45 with hi-cap mags.... who's gonna win? at 75m I'll at least hit center of mass on that target, and reload as I get close enough to finish the job if it's not already finished.
> 
> It's definitely not the mag capacity, it's the shooter.



That's my point. California in their infinite wisdom has decreed that anything over 8 rounds is a "high-capacity" magazine. Well what if that weapon is designed to hold 10 rounds? IMO, that 8 round magazine is now a diminished capacity magazine because it won't hold what the weapon was designed for.

I guess in a way we should thank the rules that only allowed 10 round magazines. That's what drove designers to make the smallest pistol they could to fit 10 rounds. Without that law I don't think we'd have G26s or 27s...


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 28, 2011)

JAB said:


> Okay bro I am not trying to be a dick or anything, but your question is somewhat retarded. It’s not about having a practical reason, it’s about I don’t need a practical reason. Is it practical for a single guy with an office job to have 15 passenger van to drive to work? Nope, but it’s his damn choice to have one if he wants one.



A-fucking-men



JAB said:


> Personally, I have several reasons to have large capacity magazines. The big reason is the defense of my family and home, if some shit goes down where I live (LA riots type thing). *I also help thin out wild hogs on friends ranches*, I also shoot competitively, I also CCW with only one magazine, I have a shit load of stupid reason I can come up with. But again I don’t need to; it’s my damn right to have a weapon with as many bullets in it as I want.


Can I go too?

I have several weapons with "high capacity mags", it's none of anyone's buisness why I have them.
My wife routinely bags on people who customize their cars, I tell her it isn't an issue because it's America and we can spend our money as w see fit.
SL- Your profile says Retail Management; do you make customers justify their purchases? same concept.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 28, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Can I go too?



Yeah I will give you a call next time I am asked. ;)


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 28, 2011)

SOWT, unfortunately, I'm the one that usually has to justify the purchase to the customer...  Point taken, though.
It seems as if I should have worded my posts better.  I did not mean for it to come across as: "is there a *practical* need for them outside of LEO/Mil?"  I just wanted the opinions of the BTDT crowd, and for that, I thank you.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 29, 2011)

Well, I'm not going to beat the dead horse (I hate coming in late).  Simply put, there is no compelling law enforcement need to restrict magazine capacity.  There is no Constitutional justification for doing so.  Unfortunately, we've allowed a lot of the Second Amendment to be bureaucratically regulated (not legislated, mind you!) out of existence i.e. the 'sporting purpose' test.

I have no fear of law abiding citizens with guns, no matter how many rounds the gun may have.  I personally like the idea of an armed populace, and will frequently tell people how to obtain a PA license to carry firearms (which sometimes gets me strange looks when I'm in uniform).

Gun control is, in my 19 years of carrying a badge, completely unrelated to crime control.

While I can think of numerous reasons why a high magazine capacity is a good thing, I agree completely that it's not about need.  It's a right, and a right needs no justification.  I carry a 1911 mostly, so I have no problems with magazine caps when I carry in Commiefornia.  Still, the principle irks me.

I also believe the term gun crime to be a misnomer.  It would be more accurate to say crimes committed with a gun.

As an aside, it will be interesting to see what Obama does re: gun control in the next couple weeks.  I'm not convinced he can get a bill through Congress at this point, but I believe he's either going to try or attempt to implement gun control measures by rulemaking or perhaps a treaty.  We'll see.  Whatever he tries, the populace must raise a tremendous hue and cry.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 29, 2011)

Ok, my turn to be a conspiracy theorist....  One of the first steps in population control as stated by Marx and Engels, Hitler, Musolini, Stalin, Beria, Idi Amin and a host of other national socialist/communist/despotic rulers is the reduction/legislation of personally owned firearms to very low capacity, low range hunting guns (side-by side shotguns, single shot low caliber rifles) and a complete ban on handguns - look at the history of the Russian Revolutions - the only people to legally carry guns after the second (Octoboerist) Revolution were those aligned with the Bolshevik or Menshevik parties and deemed as being the military or police forces for the areas and soon after that with the 3rd revolution (final purge, Bolshevik revolution) only those with that party affiliation....  Fermany, late 1920's early 1930's after the Stillenacht ...  only those Brownshirts and National socialists that were deemed police/military could own or carry weapons....   There is a practical reason for an oppressive government to legislate the reduction of those able to own carry weapons - it gives them a better control of the population and reduces the ability ofthe citizenry to rise up in an armed protest when the oppression rises to untenable levels - we are getting close her in the US right now....  Bread and Circuses, welfare, forced healthcare, new taxes and rules.... (just think in Jan 2012 any goods or services provided to a small business over the course of a year that have a value of $600 in total will require a 1099 from the receiver to the provider, so that both sides can be charged the 'health tax' on that total amount)...  gun control legislated  by the Federal government in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US and the Articles of Confederation is only a step in the Socialization/Communization of this contry due to a societal need for entitlements that are not guaranteed nor asserted by those documents....   "The good of the People" is being usurped by the "Good of the People as we the government see it"  ....  get ready for comrade Obama to be able to sway the sheeple into the same debacles of history as seen in Germany, Russia, China, North Korea and many African states... and the idiots who only care aout something for nothing to go along willingly as their freedoms are ripped from them ....  and they see it as a kindness... something for nothing....  until they are prisoners of the State by their own actions - "make me safe, take those filthy guns away from everybody"  who will protect them from their own government in the end if there is no way to defend themselves?

Pardon the rant....  and any misspellings/typos.


----------



## Headshot (Jan 29, 2011)

If they limit mag cap. Just carry more weapons and mags.  I love my commonwealth.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 29, 2011)

X_SF,  The thing is.... your standpoint is firmly placed in history and factual events that HAVE occured in the past.

Therefore, it's not a theory....


----------



## Seajack (Jan 29, 2011)

I think it's kind of humorous that the people who do make laws and regulations on firearms probably have little to no knowledge or experience with them.

You know what is more dangerous than a firearm? A bad parent. A car. An uneducated official. And the list goes on...

Yet we should be worried about these scary boom things. They hurt people!


----------



## x SF med (Jan 30, 2011)

Ranger Psych said:


> X_SF, The thing is.... your standpoint is firmly placed in history and factual events that HAVE occured in the past.
> 
> Therefore, it's not a theory....



It is a theory that there is a consiracy to replay those scenarios here is in the US... as I do not have absolute proof the legislative branch is influenced by outside interests.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jan 30, 2011)

JAB said:


> Okay bro I am not trying to be a dick or anything,



You turned into one when you _*strategically*_ omitted the rest of the question when you 'quoted' SL and basically called him stupid for asking.



SkrewzLoose said:


> This issue has recently received its 15 minutes of fame due to the shooting here in AZ.
> I want to know everyone's thoughts on whether or not hi-cap mags have  a valid place outside of the LEO/Mil world.  _*If so, why?  If not, why  not?*_



Notice the BOLD. It's a valid question with some valid responses, some, well, notsomuch. Skrewz is a good dude with valid questions and posts. Why the flame? I don't get it.

ON THREAD, I have several hi-cap mags for use with several reasons from other members here. Home/family defense.

Without opinions and questions, we'd be living the post x sf med put up, #27.


----------

