Bruh
You bring up points, but it is all very much supposition based on a personal ie anecdotal experience so while I acknowledge the effort, I can’t really find myself in support of your assertions — even commies and jihadis accessing shit tier arsenals tend towards mag fed AKs as priority.
Tier 1 operators in guerilla environments also disagree, as do elite sniper units.
Nostalgia doesn’t win wars, though it may win battles, and I acknowledge their usefulness if nothing more advanced is available, but all things being equal I recommend getting an AR and learning its manual of arms.
If you have not, then reassess your position then, and if you have, then you already know your preference, which you’ve seemed to infer here
Box magazines are ideal for police & military. For private citizens who store more than ~500 rounds of ammo, a clip-fed rifle makes sense, though only if a better selection of clip-fed rifles were available. Clips are lighter, disposable, and don't jam. A Garand style, clip-fed .223, especially if it had at least a 20 round clip, would end the debate.
AFAIK, AR-15 mags cost $10-20 each. Gee, I wonder why some cost more than others, or else if the $10 mags are reliable, or corrosion and weather resistant. Aluminum clips sure are.
Anyone with less that a few hundreds rounds is just as well suited with box magazines, but permanently storing 9 or 10 loaded mags seems a lot less sensible than storing 1000 rounds of ammo in clips, simply for the fact the clips never need to be loaded and no extra resources are devoted to box magazines.
Supposing reliable mags can be purchased in bulk for $10 each, loading 1000 rounds into them costs over $330 in magazines. If we're testing the magazines first, it costs an additional 1000 rounds of ammo, so hundreds of dollars more. By the time the mags are tested and loaded, another gun could have been purchased, and that's not including the cost of the ammo in the mags.
though only if a better selection of clip-fed rifles were available
Crux of your argument is compromised by your own admission^
Based on that assertion as a premise, it’s a semantic argument regarding clip cost and feeding reliability.
I’d err on the side of the superior platform, in my and military procurement professionals’ opinion, but if you shoot straight and stay alive, I’d be the first to say — fuck my opinion
You're right, I'd want an M4gery and a 9mm too. I'm arguing for the "idea" of clip fed rifles, not their current relevancy, as the SKS & Garand are the only two example I even know of.
I actually think one reason such rifles aren't developed is because they'd be too effective for civilian use vs. box magazines, particularly a high(ish) capacity Garand-style-clip fed design.
Box magazines mean the user's maximum downrange output is pre-determined by pre-loaded magazines, or having the means to reload amidst shooting. By definition, cips are both pre-loaded and always lighter than box magazines.
A box full of loaded clips is just how they're sold, while finding a dozen loaded 30 round box magazines could be a DA's wet dream. There are so many reasons I'm right, except the actual modern guns to prove it.
Just wait 'til I post my take on revolvers.
(post is archived)