That's a purely B.S. argument. It's like saying CNN runs fake news stories because that's what the public demands.
A "mini Garand" in .223 would sell like hotcakes, and you'd want one too.
I don't think so. The AR-15 will remain the king of civilian rifles for a long time. People don't want a new primary fighting rifle with new parts when they have a ton of AR accessories already.
I have hundreds of rounds of .303 British loaded into Enfield clips, in bandoleers. I once put on as many bandoleers as I could and it was absurdly heavy. The volume of rounds you are talking about is only relevant in a static defense scenario, and the only situation in which there would be an advantage to clips would be if you were firing nonstop for hours and any break in firing (to reload mags, for example) would result in your position being overrun. It's a one-in-a-trillion scenario. Clips don't have any advantage in any scenario that is likely to happen.
You've made a good point, that clips are particularly superior for defending a static position. The disadvantage of clips you site has only to do with the antiquated rifles, not the actual technology of using clips. Other factors being equal, a 20-30 round internal magazine fed rifle with a big Garand-style clip would trump an externally fed one, for all but dedicated police or military use (when they know exactly when/where they'll need to be loaded and ready).
(post is archived)