Rifle capacity question

20131021-110006.jpg

On the left we have a non-scary, Clinton-approved 10 round magazine for a VZ-58 Sporter. On the right is a scary, illegal in some places, evil 20 round magazine for an AR15 style rifle. One of these magazines is arbitrarily bad, and one is not.

Gun control advocates are forever going on about “need” as though it matters; we all know that “need” has nothing to do with the exercise of a Constitutional right. We also know that if we ever needed a rifle, more is better than less, a truth that’s been born out by the evolution of modern warfare.

That’s not to say that a lower capacity rifle is useless, either. I am hard pressed to think of a situation as a civilian that I couldn’t solve with 10 rounds of 7.62×39 ammo; but at the same time I’m thinking of those situations, I can’t seem to think of one where I’d also not want even more ammo. That’s the thing about long guns – using them is quite likely going to be a very rare event indeed. Yes, everyone should own a rifle and a shotgun because long guns are excellent and useful tools (they’re also fun), but the reality of the situation is that suburban and urban gun owners are probably never going to need a long gun.

This changes if you live out of the city limits in a rural area of course, in which case a long gun makes a lot of sense. But for me and people like me, I have rifles because they’re cool. Not because I think Red Dawn is going to happen.

I will say that one advantage to the 10 round magazines in my VZ-58 is it keeps the rifle nice and light. Fully loaded, the VZ-58 weighs right around 7 pounds, making it quite handy to tote around. Of course, my AR with a 20 round mag weighs the same…and has double the ammo.

9 thoughts on “Rifle capacity question”

  1. Until David Gregory is in prison, and standard-capacity magazines are taken away from the police — who use them to fire 100+ rounds at women delivering newspapers * — the gun-owner control lobby has no logical nor moral right to demand restrictions on magazine capacity.

    Of course, hypocrisy has never stopped them before.

    * Whatever happened to the LAPD officers who shot at Margie Carranza (47), and her mother, Emma Hernandez (71)?. Or the cops who shot at David Perdue that same day? Have their names even been released?

  2. You state, “suburban and urban” gun owners are never going to need a long gun. Really??? I’m going to pretend that you, Caleb Giddings, didn’t really mean that. As you state earlier in the post, need has nothing to do with the issue. Sometimes you are such the competition/sport shooter. You want to rethink that statement, don’t you? If trouble comes your way or finds you, anything a handgun can do, a long gun can do better. I’d love to see you say that at a panel of your fellow gun media/training types, and see how long it takes for someone to light you up for that foolish take.

    1. It’s painfully obvious that you never read the post a few weeks back where I recommend everyone should have a rifle for home defense because they’re better at everything than a handgun.

  3. I did read that post. That’s why the part of this post that I highlighted had me so perplexed. Also, I do understand newer shooters who have rifles because they are cool. Even if you have rifles cause they’re cool, if you own one you need to know how to use it for defensive purposes, not just for 3 gun competitions. You were in the USCG, so I know you learned how to use it for serious defensive purposes. This is what we need to communicate to new rifle owners. And the Red Dawn reference sounds like a thinly veiled threat at the prepping community.

  4. I get a kick out of people suggesting that nobody “needs” a firearm with a high capacity magazine or a defensive rifle. ( I’ve stopped using the term assault rifle). By their reasoning, nobody “needs” : more than 1 TV in the house; a Ferrari; a swimming pool in the back yard when they live a mile from the ocean; an Armani suit; a smart phone. The list is endless. What we need and what we want are 2 different things. And the Constitution says we have the right to have firearms. No mention of need.

      1. I did read the entire post. I was just commenting on the phrase often used by liberals like Gov. Coumo that nobody needs a large capacity gun to hunt deer. And when I referred to “people”, I was referring to the anti-gun lobby who seem to confuse rights and needs.

Comments are closed.