I think it's not uncommon to store a large number of loaded mags. https://pic8.co/sh/NzTc37.jpg
A guy kept a PMAG loaded for 12 years and it still worked with no problems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILy6HNbsUU8&feature=emb_title
The purpose of keeping ammo loaded into clips or magazines is to have ammo quickly available for combat. You could argue that it isn't necessary to keep more than 9 loaded mags per person, since that's about the maximum you can carry on your person. However, one could also argue that having more magazines loaded would be useful for a protracted home/business defense scenario in some future mega-riot.
So no, I don't think clip-fed rifles have an advantage. AR/AK magazines aren't that expensive and you don't need to keep more than a couple dozen of them loaded. Clip-fed rifles have too low capacity.
You're suggesting keeping 24 loaded 30-round magazines? I'm not opposed, I'm just questioning the logistics, practicality, and ultimately your ammo capacity in an extended firefight scenario (albeit highly unlikely).
In an epic battle, 720 rounds pre-loaded + 720 rounds in clips is still trumped by 1440 rounds in clips, particularly the Garand style clips. I don't particularly like the SKS style using normal stripper clips, but it fits the category.
24 loaded AR mags is nothing. Some people have way more than that https://pic8.co/sh/J8Vam2.gif
- 24 magazines costs?
- How about for magazines that never jam, how much do those cost?
- Is each magazine independently tested fully loaded?
- How much extra does it cost to test?
By the time you test enough of them, the magazines cost more than another gun would.
Part of my point is that there's precisely zero argument about storing ANY number of clips, unless or until the argument over "too much ammo" is brought up. With clip fed rifles, ALL of the ammo can be "combat ready" ALL of the time.
The disadvantage of the ammo being in 8-10 round packages for obsolete rifles outweighs the advantage of having all your ammo be inexpensively combat ready.
Yes, a competent shooter with an SKS or Garand would probably do just fine in the future collapse of America. But the AR-15 is just better. There's a reason the military doesn't use the Garand anymore.
I can agree about obsolete rifles. There's no reason a modern 20 or 30 round clip-fed rifle couldn't be developed, except it would be such a huge strategic advantage over mag-fed rifles the powers-that-be wouldn't want it.
Magazines can be kept loaded, but how many? If you have less than 300 rounds it's not really an issue, but what if you have 2500 rounds? Are your 9 loaded mags for fighting, and the rest of the ammo is just for barter? Do you reload during a fight if your mags run out? None of these questions apply to a clip-fed rifle.
It really depends on what you think the future catastrophe will be like. I plan on keeping a plate carrier's worth of mags loaded in case I need to go "do something", as well as a few dozen more loaded mags in case I need to fight a mob at my house or someone else's property. If my mags ran dry when defending a property I think I'd have time to reload them behind cover. The additional thousands of loose rounds I hope to have will be for reloading magazines in between fights. The U.S. government will probably ban 5.56, 9mm, and other "assault calibers" at some time in the near future, so that's why it's good to stock up.
The bigger the stockpile, the more sense the clip fed rifles make, albeit none of relevant calibers or designs are available. I hope you can see the value of clips beyond just the available guns on the market. A 20-30 round internal magazine would make external mags obsolete for all but dedicated police or military use.
(post is archived)