Fast Magazine Changes

[Bert Gamble]

I question your ideas of "highly skilled" and "excelent training."

He is ok, she is not even really aiming at the targets, just waving back and forth while firing around each one.

She is getting shots off. The aiming didn't change with each mag limit. Her's was a fair test, as each mag change cost her some time.

[MoBait]

Cool video, thanks Go Navy. I disregarded Jim's demonstration since he obviously shot faster with the standard mags (unclear whether it was intentional), however, Christy seemed to shoot consistently regardless of which mags she used....

I don't think having the mags on the barrel or on the belt makes a noticeable difference in reload time. It seems the point of the video was to demonstrate that you probably wont have time to go hands on with a shooter during his reload. You will have to hope the shooter has little training and situational awareness.

[MoBait]

In response to the comments about this video being used by the gun grabbers as well:

This video showed that an active shooter can be just as affective against unarmed individuals, with neutered mags. However in a gun fight, the second or two it takes for a reload might cost you big time....

Never mind, gun control nuts don't use logic so they'll probably use this to get guns restricted to single shot.

[MmmSti]

You can clearly see he is trying to get the rounds off much faster when using the smaller mags. Still interesting. And I notice a lot of people shoot non slide lock. That is, discard your mag when you are 0+1

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Baboosh]

This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nP...layer_embedded

Yup.

In a home defense, or self defense, scenario this is far more likely than having extra magazines handy.

[Go Navy]

You can clearly see he is trying to get the rounds off much faster when using the smaller mags. Still interesting. And I notice a lot of people shoot non slide lock. That is, discard your mag when you are 0+1

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

In watching it, I just assumed that, with three alternating targets, they were counting for some reason. I might need to watch it again, but I think there are also some moments when the slides lock back. When I took an action pistol course, they advised us in some situations to drop a mag that was almost empty and insert a full mag. I seem to recall it depended on the target sequence and movement.

If you change mags before a lock back on empty (absent a timed event like I described), you're still single action mode with a round in the chamber, so maybe you save a fraction of a second not having to thumb the slide release. I'm not sure that's worth it in a social situation, but I'm not expert enough to have an opinion on that. Maybe others will chime in.

[ZombieTactics]

An Anti they would look at this viedo and say, "so why are you complaining about lower capacity magazines if it's the same thing?"

Because - as a law-abiding citizen - I don't walk around with a bag full of magazines or revolvers.

A criminal can easily plan his way around these restrictions, even if he's following the stupid mag-restriction law to the letter. It doesn't set him back one bit in reality.

However, me the guy who is no harm to anyone ... you want to limit me. After all, I'm the one who will most certainly only have 10 round magazines, and only one spare.

But even if there is "no difference", that in itself makes it clear that this law does no good ... it "makes no difference".

If there is some difference, you are passing a law which only places the law-abiding at a disadvantage, which is the exact opposite of what you should want.

[omgwtfbbq]

Because - as a law-abiding citizen - I don't walk around with a bag full of magazines or revolvers.

A criminal can easily plan his way around these restrictions, even if he's following the stupid mag-restriction law to the letter. It doesn't set him back one bit in reality.

However, me the guy who is no harm to anyone ... you want to limit me. After all, I'm the one who will most certainly only have 10 round magazines, and only one spare.

But even if there is "no difference", that in itself makes it clear that this law does no good ... it "makes no difference".

If there is some difference, you are passing a law which only places the law-abiding at a disadvantage, which is the exact opposite of what you should want.

Agreed, but again your opinion is based on logic and experience. The Antis do not have nor care for either of those things.

Where we who believe in personal liberty hear, "It makes no difference" we say, "Then don't limit our freedom."

To Antis who hear, "It makes no difference." they say, "See? Quick your whining about us wanting to limit your freedom."

It's an entirely different mental approach, and frankly it's the largest stumbling block to any kind of serioius discourage between pro and anti 2A.

[Go Navy]

Because - as a law-abiding citizen - I don't walk around with a bag full of magazines or revolvers.

A criminal can easily plan his way around these restrictions, even if he's following the stupid mag-restriction law to the letter. It doesn't set him back one bit in reality.

However, me the guy who is no harm to anyone ... you want to limit me. After all, I'm the one who will most certainly only have 10 round magazines, and only one spare.

But even if there is "no difference", that in itself makes it clear that this law does no good ... it "makes no difference".

If there is some difference, you are passing a law which only places the law-abiding at a disadvantage, which is the exact opposite of what you should want.

Agree 100% Zombie. If the anti-gun types want to use this same sort of demo to assert that their restrictions are ok because they make no difference (or that sort of argument worded differently), then they should be put on the defensive, and required to show what really IS their justification for infringing on our Constitutional rights. Just why do they assert that their restrictions will accomplish anything?

[Capt.Dunsel]

Great now they will try to limit the number of magazines we can have .

[hks95134]

Yeah, this video is confusing, I mean you can take away several things from it

1) Why are you restricting capacity to 10 rounds, it's a pointless stupid law

OR

2) Why are you complaining about the 10 round restriction, you can see that you can reload just as fast with just the 10 rounders.


So ... uh, what is the actual point? I believe the video is saying point number 1, but I can see point number 2 being used as well.

Throw in an empty slide-locked gun and things change and you can see that the 10 round mags might cost you your life if you don't hit your target in 10.

Yah why complain about 10 round mags?

We're lucky the anti's are so stupid or else they would outlaw detachable box mags altogether if not semi auto carbines completely.

[hks95134]

Great now they will try to limit the number of magazines we can have .

I have a bunch, yah.

[hks95134]

Because - as a law-abiding citizen - I don't walk around with a bag full of magazines or revolvers.

A criminal can easily plan his way around these restrictions, even if he's following the stupid mag-restriction law to the letter. It doesn't set him back one bit in reality.

However, me the guy who is no harm to anyone ... you want to limit me. After all, I'm the one who will most certainly only have 10 round magazines, and only one spare.

But even if there is "no difference", that in itself makes it clear that this law does no good ... it "makes no difference".

If there is some difference, you are passing a law which only places the law-abiding at a disadvantage, which is the exact opposite of what you should want.

They fit nicely on a bandoleer though, or else in a backpack or deep pockets.

[Go Navy]

Yah why complain about 10 round mags?

We're lucky the anti's are so stupid or else they would outlaw detachable box mags altogether if not semi auto carbines completely.

Why complain? Because I want larger capacity mags, and I see that as my Constitutional right. I should not have to justify that in any way.

By the way, I don't think the anti's are entirely stupid....although I agree some are really, really stupid.

But the ones leading their army are smart, relentless, are well-funded, and have made major advances in a number of states. They've only been partially stalled by years and years of litigation and two recent Supreme Court decisions. But they're still coming at us.

One of the leading stupid ones is Joe Biden, who advises you to just get a double barreled shotgun. Gee thanks, Joe.

[44fred]

The best thing about the video is the stats on officer involved shootings. Bottom line is, under pressure your hit ratio drops embarrassingly low. This is actually a very good argument for our side. You need more because the odds of making a threat stopping hit are pretty low.
The argument the antis have been using is for bad guy restrictions. If the bad guy can't get standard mags, he's less of a threat. Of course we all know the bad guys will follow all the laws we are following.
It makes complete since. ;-)