All the anti gun comments I've read seem to miss the point that only a law abiding citizen is restricted by magazine capacity laws. If someone is planning a mass shooting, are they going to make sure they don't run afoul of the law by carrying the proper low capacity magazine? Or are they going to go ahead and grab one of the millions of standard capacity magazine out there, regardless of any law saying they aren't supposed to? The only thing these laws do, is make sure the law abiding victims cant carry more than 6-10 rounds.
Joe H if you read the article it states that he built the guns from AR-15 parts he legally purchased so he built a gun that is illegal in California out of parts you can buy in other states.
For sure. His cadence is noticeably faster on the smaller mags. He speeds up because he's paranoid about the mag changes. I gave up on the video though. Do we ever see targets? Did they hit shit?
He’s counting the rounds so he never exhausted the mags and let the slide lock back which kills time in speed shooting. Ironically using lower capacity mags makes that technique easier and faster since you don’t have to think about a higher round count and can shoot faster.
+11B30Inf If you remember when Cuomo and his band of misfit toys in New York snuck the "SAFE" (LOL) Act through at the midnight hour with minimum presence required or a vote, the Police departments threw a MASSIVE fit, because the dipshit libtards didn't exclude the police from the 7 round magazine restriction... Guess how many of those police were gun control advocates, and had told countless citizens who applied for conceal carry permits no? I'll bet quite a few. It's always funny how gun control must be enacted for the safety of the public, but when the corrupt police forces get roped in, they throw massive fits. I wonder if as many bystanders wouldn't have been shot if the NYPD had been restricted to 7 rounds... LOL
+11B30Inf Thank you. Bigger mags are better. I want responsible citizens to have the most effective means of defense. A larger magazine is better than a smaller one. This video is BS. You can shoot more rounds if you don't have to reload as many times. One Ten round mag is more effective than two 5 rounds with a reload.
Love how those tell us that we don't need 30 round magazines... ten rds mags is enough! Okay.... Than why do police not use 10 rounds magazines? Aren't they suppose to be better train than most people? Another words they should practice what they preach to us.... but they won't.
Well the answer to the military is easy. Us guys in the Infantry don't NEED a 30 round magazine for our M4s. However we're in war, and a 10 round mag would just add more mags to our gear which adds more weight. The standard load-out for your regular infantryman on patrol is seven 30 round magazines OR a minimum of 210 rounds. If no S.O.P. is in place technically an infantryman could carry two 100 round drum mags and a ten round box mag if he wanted too, but that's why Battalions have S.O.Ps. in place so no idiot actually tries that. Also most of the time we start shooting at an enemy we're not really aiming at him/her on point, we're aiming where their general location is. A good 70% of that mag goes to straight suppression so a flanking element can deal that one lethal round. Which goes without saying is easier to dish out with one 30 round mag than three ten round mags in the middle of a firefight. As for the police their main sidearm of choice is the Glock 19 9mm. Which comes shipped default with two 15 round magazines. Buying shit tons of ten round mags would be so cost effective that it would throw our economy off scale and cause an uproar of the law being put into place and ten round mags couldn't be found because the cops have them all made for Glock 19's, the most common pistol out there today. In turn they would have to unload all of those 15 round mags back to Glock putting 15 round mags in the hands of civilians causing an issue that would get more police killed. Baddies get 15 round mags and cops only ten. Of course it's bullshit we are subject to the ten round mag law, and the police are not, however it's as simple as this. They don't have to reload as often as an attacker which can provide that life saving moment when the attacker (if he's actually following the law which is most likely not happening for obvious reasons) goes for his reload because he's the most retarded criminal on earth and decided to follow the law of only having 10 round magazines for his AR-15, AK variant rifle, or pistol while he's breaking the law and shooting at cops. Maybe he's going for the first man that killed a cop by following the law other than murdering a law enforcement official? Who knows? Other than that it's all stupid. I'm fine with weapons being regulated to the point where a mentally handicapped person can't get one (i.e. insane), people can't just go out and buy a fully automatic machine gun without a permit, people can't just go buy a rocket launcher, and people can't have a 100 rounds drum mag. The entire no mags over 10 rounds thing of course upsets me, however I fully understand why it's in place. In conclusion? Even if the law sits with the 10 round mag thing as is, if the government tried to take over the America by force they are looking at 30-100 round mags still because people still have them hidden away. People who are good on the law still can gain permits to own a fully automatic light machine guns (M249 S.A.W. or 240B/L) and there are a lot of people that own these. So the government will also face those. That coupled with the people that have an AR-15 with five or six 10 round mags that are follwing the law will still fight standing next to the others that own AR-15s and other rifles with five or six 10 round mags, which is still a massive number of Americans. The entire U.S. Military consists of 1.3 million people. Only about 400,000 of them are Combat Arms. The entire police force has about 1.1 million full time employees, which only 750k of them are officers with arrest powers and guns. Which totals an entire force out to about 2 million. The U.S. civilian force consists of about 322 MILLION people (information provided by the Census). Even if only 1% of the entire American population fought back (which isn't likely and more like 90% of the population would fight back). The Government would have a VERY VERY VERY large issue. This isn't even including the Military Personnel and Police Officers that would desert to the other side to fight back against their old tyrannical leaders, which would be more than likely at LEAST 40%. Sorry for the essay.
And for the record. If I got the order to go cruisin around the streets of my home country and kill Americans? I would defect/desert immediately, and so would my entire Company including our Commanding Officer.
Seems a lot of people are missing the point of the video. 1: standard or 'larger" capacity magazines are useful for people who'm carry one in their firearm to defend themselves. 2: Restricting magazine capacity won't do anything to impede mass murderers, but it will certainly impede law abiding civilians, by limiting their round, especially if they only carry one, in their gun. 3: the video wasn't about demonstrating how fast you can burn rounds, it was showing that reloading doesn't take a long time. Whether your mags are on a barrel, on your belt, in a book bag, whatever. Reloading does not take very long. If you are a determined massed killer, limited capacity magazines won't do much to slow you... But if you are a civilian, obeying the law, and you only have one mag for your gun... Fewer rounds, could be very bad for you...
Trishooty45, I'm not sure what video you're watching, but the male and female Shooters using one magazine 3 magazines and 5 magazines was absolutely an attempt to try to limit magazine size.
Changing a magazine does in fact take a long time. There are plenty of RU-vid videos where you can see a cop and reload in the middle of a shootout. It takes a lot more time than having a magazine laid out in front of you on a table. I don't forget, cops have their magazines on their belt. In a concealed carry state you would also have to dig into a holster or pocket or some other hidden compartment to get an extra magazine. No thank you.
Trishooty45 The problem is this video does NOT show reloads from a belt or backpack. Having the magazines out and above your waist is huge when it comes to reloading. I'm a cop and a Marine. I can say with confidence, from experience, reloading takes much longer when the magazines are in some sort of pouch than when already out. My comment is not meant to be in support of limited magazine capacities but you don't help the cause when you say things that aren't true.
Let's be clear: The scumbag attacker has the advantage of knowing when the attack is going to happen. He is the only one that can show up with a bag full of 6-shot revolvers. The average concealed carry civilian will have only one, maybe two magazines with which to defend. That's why the laws only hurt the good guys. Conclusion: I'd feel safer with either Jim or Christy teaching in my kid's school.
Well in Canada I can get a 100 round mag... with a rivet in it for 5. If you're already going to do something criminal, a tiny rivet isn't much of a roadblock.
Yeah, no shit. I went to a gunshop in MD yesterday to pick up a few new ar mags. Was surprised by the rivet restricting it to 10 rounds. A cordless drill will make short work of it I guess if that's my intention.
+RandomActsOfGaming You can get them without the rivet, you just need to find them on the black market. You can get drugs and weapons in prison, why would illegal magazines be a problem to find out of prison? Unless the authoritarians of the world are willing to make the world a prison then they have no chance of real weapon prohibition having any impact but moving items like this to the blackmarket in mass.
+RandomActsOfGaming Can't buy high capacity mags in California, but you can if you drive to Nevada or Arizona! Not extremely convenient but not impossible either!!
+K N Come on over. May as well move to Las Vegas. No state tax and many of the taxes are pay to play so not everyone is paying for services you do not use. No mag restrictions, and NFA items are legal, even encouraged. The homeless population is rapidly declining, there are jobs everywhere in every sector, and everyone minds their own business. It's not crowded, the roads are pristine, most people can afford a home where many are in gated communities. Crime is isolated to very few areas and anyone legal to own a gun can carry it loaded in their car. Open carry is legal and common and a CCW is shall issue. The police are top notch and friendly. I could go on and on.
The official point of this video. Reloads take less than 2 seconds and making mass shooters reload won't save anyone or slow a rampage down at all. So don't take away higher capacity mags from people who enjoy them, like me.
And the "If they have to reload, the people have a fighting chance" argument, is really the only one they have. But they will never watch a video like this and consider it's validity. Instead they will pass laws, and "feel" better and safer because law-abiding citizens will respect the law and have restricted magazine capacity.
ScarsRemain94 Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Those who are anti gun rarely take the time to research and understand what they are afraid of. Therefor through a lack of understanding they pass "feel good laws"
Smart people don't consider the validity because it is not valid. Take 3 10 round mags, put on in the firearm, put the other 2 in a jacket pocket. Then do this test and see how long it takes.
Who cares how long it takes to reload from a jacket pocket? How is that going to save lives? And what makes you think a criminal is going to use a restricted magazine instead of one of the hundreds of thousands of standard capacity magazines? Just because you disagree with the video doesn't mean you are smart and anyone who disagrees with you is not smart. There's a name for that way of thinking. It's called "Elitist".
No it is not called "elitist", it is called calling out someone on their BS. This officer is making a case that restricting large capacity mags would make no difference, when he knows that is not true. Or at least he SHOULD know if he is an actual experienced, trained officer. As to people ignoring the laws and staying with the large mags, that is why we need laws with real teeth. Get caught with an illegal mag, 10 years mandatory. Use a firearm with a illegal mag to commit a crime - 25 to Life mandatory. Little by little people will get the point.
And the mag cap limitation wouldn't do anything to stop mass killers. If we imagine that somehow a bad person is forced to use 10 round magazines like everyone else, they still have the luxury to carry vests, pouches, bags, etc. To hold many spare magazines. Meanwhile the average citizen doing concealed carry is only limited to one or two 10-round magazines, when normally they could be higher capacity. This restriction affects law abiding civilians the most, EVEN IF bad people somehow also only had access to 10 rounders.
This demonstration is a bit flawed. Someone in a mass shooting isn't going to be counting shots to leave one in the chamber each time. It would be more realistic to just shoot until it is empty, then do a normal mag change. Either way, we don't need to be trying to prove that a lower capacity magazine is just as fast as a normal capacity one. That's missing the point entirely. There should be no restrictions on magazine capacity, period. FYI, good ole Sheriff Ken Campbell had to resign his post early this year for doing something he put many people in jail for: www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/06/19/boone-county-sheriff-resigns-amid-prostitution-probe/11015867/
You know they set people up all the time right? Get someone who's a little more....compliant to take his spot, maybe? Not saying he is, but really, wouldnt be that crazy if it was.
chevy6299 well hardwired was saying the demo was unfair because they counted their shots in the mag. zech said to hardwired that how could hardwired know if the bad guy was counting his shots or not, I think zech was just saying it was a possibility.
I believe the point of the comparison is to show the comparison using best possible case for speed in each case. It was not to make the comparison totally realistic because that would be impossible to do anyway.
If you practice like I did growing up and have a father who is a expert competition shooter like I did,yes I do expect anybody can become a proficient shooter like I did when I was 12 or 13 years old.
@@sarahhess464 Probably a hundred cases of 22 caliber ammo,then my daddy moved me on up to the 7.62 mm rifle. It only took a couple of hundred rounds on this rifle because it was more powerful and accurate than the 22 was. I could hit bulls eyes consistently at 800 yards with the 7.62.
@@lawnmowermanlawnmowerman9930 A couple hundred dollars in ammo? I used home made ammo stored in a large barrel made using home made black powder and a bullet making machine allowing us to store huge amounts of ammo made very cheaply.
The problem with making the "it doesn't make any difference" argument is that the gun grabbers will say, "OK. Fine. If it doesn't make any difference, you won't mind being limited to 10".
+jjohnston94 a citizen wont carry 6 magazines he would carry a spare 1, a mass shooter would carry shit loads so we should restrict the civilian into having 10 rounds or turning him self in to an arsenal of magazines
+Ryan Freeman I honestly don't have any idea what you said. I recognize the words individually, but put together the way they are in your comment, they make no sense.
jjohnston94 a ccw owner would carry only 1 spare mag , however a shooter would carry an arsenal so this proposal is only going to cut on the amount of ammunition a ccw holder carries since he wont carry a thousand mags.
+jjohnston94 Actually hemade perfect sense. THe reason a civilian will be hindered is because he or she is not out to carry a dozen magazines. A normal ccw would carry one in the gun and 2-3 spares max. This limits the amount of firepower you can bring against say a mass shooter with 30 or 40 magazines or more in a bag and in his or her person. The bad guys love the restrictions hell they are hoping all guns are taken away so he can do even more damage.
Yep. Not exactly well represented in any explanation. Empty mag, slide locked back, load mag and charge weapon, bang. That’s real world. If your in a situation where you dump every round you have to you will have to do the above mentioned. Under stress.
Basic. If you fire to "click", then you have to re-rack the slide on those double-action pistols. Any murderer intent on maximum destruction will use these kinds of techniques to maximize their effectiveness. Though, most don't have the opportunity to train for the event. Still, I think they're trying to drive the point home that any determined killer can come up with a myriad of different ways to maximize their lethality regardless of whatever "rule" you can post in the hallway that would stop the attack from happening in the first place.
anyone who's ever shot a gun knows that the whole "tackle him while he's reloading" gimmick is a complete and utter joke. yeah, maybe if you're dealing with a 12 year old girl that's never fired a gun before. but if someone's actively shooting a gun, even with a 6-round magazine, NOBODY is gonna be tackling him. you think you'd tackle him? i'm sorry, but i know from experience, you would be cowering in the corner like a house cat. the reality is that you're not going to be comfortably sitting behind your computer, planning your course of action, when shit actually hits the fan. it will be completely unexpected, you will have no time to think, and you will simply react based on instinct. and, understandably, your instinct will be to run away, cower, and hide. the sheer effect of fear will make it impossible for probably 99.9999% of all civilians to tackle the shooter, regardless of his magazine size. even if you were somehow looking at the shooter dead on, and managed to see EXACTLY when he ran out of ammunition, and then managed to react, based purely on trained reflex, to tackle him without any hesitation? you would have to close the distance between him and yourself in less than a few seconds, knock him on the ground, disarm him (so he doesn't shoot you while he's on the ground) and knock him out or kill him. the odds of this happening exactly as planned are astronomical, and you KNOW this. that's why it NEVER happens. when's the last time an unarmed civilian successfully tackled an armed and active shooter with a semi-automatic weapon? wanna guess? NEVER! because we know that it's inherently MORONIC. it's the dumbest thing you could possibly do in an active shooter scenario. but what if you tried? well, for one, you'd have to be watching the shooter to know when he's reloading, as opposed to simply not firing. you would have to look at him, with your face directed at his. you might not know this, but it's a primitive reflex to look away from attackers when you know you are completely outmatched. psychological studies have shown it increases the chances of survival, and this is probably why animals evolved this instinct. so you would first have to get past the primal instinct to look away from your attacker, and face him dead on. you'd stick out like a sore thumb, while everyone else is cowering on the ground and looking away, or down. you'd have to stare at him, and hope that he doesn't shoot you once he notices your face. if you managed to survive the staring match, and you saw he was reloading, you'd have to get up, run, and reach him with enough momentum to knock him down. if you are close, you might have enough time, and the actual fact that you attempted it might really catch him off guard. but if he's a trained shooter, 1) he will not be caught of guard, 2) he will react instinctively to either defend against your tackle or shoot you, and 3) he will have left a bullet in the chamber to protect against exactly this scenario. anyone who takes an intermediate gun self defense course knows to do this; it is one of the most important techniques in gun self defense, because reloading is indeed your one weakness when shooting unarmed individuals. but let's say he wasn't a trained shooter (as school shooters often aren't trained) and wasn't aware that you're supposed to leave a round chambered when you reload. assuming he's an untrained imbecile, you might have a chance. but how long does it take a complete rookie to reload? would anyone actually commit a mass shooting if they hadn't trained? wouldn't they be aware that reloading is the only potential weakness? wouldn't this be the one, single thing they would know to train for? so isn't it likely that they would have, at the very least, practiced reloading quickly? and this is still assuming that they somehow never found out that you could keep a round chambered, remember. so really the bare minimum is to reload quickly. we have to assume that they can reload at least as fast as christy, the rookie in this video. if you were actually in that situation, wouldn't you OVERestimate, rather than underestimate, your attacker's skill? it's a life or death situation, and you are already in flight mode, so you are far more cautious than you were when you were arguing on youtube. in this situation, do you really think you would assume that your attacker will take 10 seconds to reload, and doesn't keep a round chambered at all times? it's extremely doubtful that you would take such a risk, even if the shooter was 15 years old, but let's say you did. for the sake of argument, let's just assume that you went for it. maybe you were on meth or PCP, who knows? so you go for it, you run... are you close enough to make contact before he's loaded and ready? how long does it take you to run 10 feet? 15 feet? how close would you really be to this armed, vicious shooter? would you really be close enough that you could tackle him before he's loaded? wouldn't you try to get as far away from him as possible, as your instincts and logic scream at you to do? by the time he starts reloading, wouldn't you already be so far that it would take you too long to run up to him? what are your odds of surviving if you are closer to him than everyone else in the room? are you really prepared to resist your instinctive reflexes (which are extremely hard to resist, even physically) and willingly put yourself at a higher risk than is necessary? and once you've done that, are you sure you are close enough to reach him? are you sure you want to take the chance, knowing that he could 1) have a bullet chambered, and 2) reload within a second? i can reload a pistol or rifle magazine within a second, and tens of thousands of other americans can do it too. there are competition shooters who can load a pistol magazine in less than a quarter of a second, without even making an effort. it's casual for them. i was able to reload within a second after only a few months of practice... when i was only 16 years old. most mass shooters tend to be under the age of 30, at their athletic prime. it's very easy to move quickly at a young age, and it's also very easy for the young brain to quickly learn new muscle memory and perform new actions very quickly. so do you really think you could tackle me within a second, even from 5 feet away? even assuming i didn't leave a bullet chambered, and even assuming you were capable of staring at me, resisting your primal reflexes and instincts, and reacting instantly? the answer is probably no. and the fact is that you would probably be at least 15 feet away, cowering against the wall in the first place. it might take the shooter longer than it takes me to reload, but he would still have enough time to shoot you before you reached him. and in a real-life situation, you probably would not even think of tackling him. even if you did, you probably wouldn't be capable of staring at him. even if you did stare at him, you probably wouldn't be capable of reacting instantly to maximize your safe time. even if you were capable of that, you probably wouldn't be physically capable of running 15 feet and tackling him before he takes even three seconds to reload (and he probably would take less than 1.5 seconds) anyway. and even if somehow you were able to do all of those things, would it really matter? isn't it likely that he has another round in the chamber? isn't it likely that he shoots you even after you tackle him? the obvious answer to a situation like this is to carry a gun yourself. you would have to train for years to be able to tackle an armed, active shooter. most of that would be mental training, so that you are capable of consciously resisting your primal reflexes to extreme fear. the adrenaline rush (fight or flight response) is much too powerful for an untrained civilian to resist. even if you did all the mental training necessary, the chances of the attacker having a chambered round are very high, so you still have a high chance of failing and dying. you would have much better chances of success if you simply carried a gun and took some tactical training classes. when you have a gun, your immediate response is different. you no longer feel outmatched and at the mercy of your opponent, so you tend towards the "fight," rather than "flight." with a gun, you do not need to accomplish all these incredibly difficult and infeasible mental and physical benchmarks. you only need to avoid getting shot long enough to shoot him yourself. it's literally that simple. if it were so easy to take out an armed shooter, why do cops even bother carrying guns? why don't they just tackle their adversaries? why aren't SWAT teams replaced with squadrons of sumo wrestlers and NFL players? because tackling a man with a gun is the stupidest fucking thing you could possibly do.
Man, I don't know who you are, but this is the truest and most thought out thing I've ever read in a youtube comments section and would love to vote for you if you want to get into politics. Seriously. More people like yourself need to be in our government. Because the disillusion about this stuff is all too real, and our politicians are just not using their heads when it comes to this stuff. I would love for a group of guys, one with a fake gun, and one with a camera to 'test' these politicians beliefs: When the politician is walking down a street, he would confronted by the man with the fake gun, who could even act as if he is reloading, slowly. I guarantee that an anti gun politician would haul ass in the other direction.
***** a gun is astronomically different then a knife, with a knife you do not feel fear from a distance from the attacker(which is why people run for the hills at the sound of gunfire but only step back and pull out their smart phones to video a stabbing), with a knife u KNOW he can not harm you UNTIL you tackle him, so u can be very surgical about how u tackle the attacker(with a gun u have less then 1.5 seconds if u are lucky to make ur move AND succeed), and with a knife once u do tackle him all u have to do is hold onto his knife hand and squirm as he might he wont be able to stab you, tackle a man with a gun and even if u grab his gun hand, he dosent need to slash or thrust the gun into you, all he needs to do is pull the trigger. and finally, by ur own admission u said u got multiple gashes all over ur hands from ur heroism... that alone... is more then enough reason to justify simply shooting the attacker. NO innocent person should EVER have to take so much as a SCRATCH in order to save a attacker from harm, up to and including death. and by the way, the assumptions he made about others courage are more assumptions about instinctive response rather then courage AND they are extremely conservative and realistic assumptions. is anyone at the sounds of gunfire going to go into combat mode and stare into the opponets face, react instantly to the maybe 1.5 second window of oppurtunity and then succeed, all assuming they dont leave a round chambered of course? with the exception of superman, captain america, iron man, batman, james bond, jason bourne, chuck norris, yoda, and COD kids in their dreams, the answer is obviously NO.
Lol, I was thinking in similar terms! They're shooting like an ordinary person at a range would, with magazines lying out in front of them in easy reach. A mass shooter is going to have mags in a bag, or in magazine holders strapped to a tactical vest. The bag is the worst option, with magazines shuffling around inside making it harder to grab one facing the proper direction to get inserted. And tactical vest would require practice removing and loading the mags quickly and efficiently, and would vary based on the type of vest and holders. I was in the Army; sometimes your magazines will get a little caught in the holder, slowing down reloading.
+Tre Burrell Have you never heard of a 30 caliber magazine clip? You can put it in a ghost gun and shoot 30 rounds in less than half a second! It's really cool! Look it up!
I see that people are mad in the comments saying that the test is unrealistic and I will agree. However, you have to realize that the few instances of mass shootings do not support a nationwide or even state wide magazine restrictions. Most shootings are done with a handgun and its between gangmembers. People are deflecting the issue of bad mental health care and gang violencr in the hopes to play into the agenda to cut back on firearms. The way I see it, reducing a mass shooter's ability to reload is way too late of a solution when you are in fact treating a symptom and not a cause of the mass shooting in the first place.
Duzzins Sama I'll agree with you, a year later, except anytime people promote healthcare reform people freak out crying something something socialism without doing an ounce of homework. Other countries also don't have a 2nd ammendment so they never had to worry about guns being ingrained into society. Fix Healthcare, fix social problems and fix living conditions, or reduce victim rate of firearms.. Which is harder?
Are you kidding me in? In a mass shooting you have all the time in the world to reload. Imagine walking down a high school hallway after you shot up a room. Do you think there are going to be people trying to attack you? Know. People are going to be running from you and locking themselves in rooms. That's exactly the type of situation where magazine Size Doesn't Matter.
Well if you're planning on doing something illegal in the first place... you're not gonna choose a restricted mag, your ass is getting the extended or drum mags lmao
Yeah like laws are gonna stop a mad man and or a terrorist . What we really need to do is fix mental health . I just feel the ball was dropped on the Vegas tragedy . No one noticed him bringing in possibly 30 or more cases inside the hotel ? most likely the guns were brought inside in rifle cases. Not sure how true this is , I hear he bought 30 guns within 30 days , And that's not normal for your everyday avid shooter. Only firearm dealers , or terrorist do this. No one noticed ? .
mick the whole thing is bullshit....that guy is probably jsut an innocent dead body left at the crimescene...only thing missing was for the first responding officer to sprinkle some crack on his deceased body to seal the case
can't agree more mickslone. There's something in our society that makes people want to gain by taking advantage of others and despite capitalism I think we shouldn't feel that way about one another. I guess growing up in Tennessee may have affected that. But I was shooting .22 and .223 and 12g at 6-9 years old. Also 7.62x39 through an SKS i used to carry outdoors. And I've never killed anything besides birds, turtles, snakes, coyotes, etc. (Unfortunately I had to kill cows/pigs with a sledgehammer, that's the largest animal I've ever hurt) I don't even like deer hunting anymore and I never killed one. I used to go along just to walk around with a gun and I'd always ask to shoot when we were done. I've had chances to kill deer and small game where I'm armed with one in the chamber and I just let it go all the time. Yes, I have a somewhat "childish" obsession with firearms and military history. But I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anything. What people don't understand, is that it's the police's job to investigate and prosecute ONLY AFTER a crime has taken place. It's your job to defend and protect yourself and your family. And if everyone in America was required firearms training we would see far less of this bullshit that happens. Firearms respect is taught... Muzzle control is taught... Even if you're like me, and you don't like hunting, it is your DUTY to your family to know and understand firearms to the best of your ability. You don't see trained firearms users acting thuggish and pointing their weapons at people and shit like that. You only see ignorant, uneducated people (at least on firearms use) doing these dumb things. It's not the kid that goes hunting with his dad every weekend that's shooting up schools. It's the kid that hates his dad and steals his weapons while dad is drunk or some shit doing it. We will never stop people from hurting one another. All we can try is to stop anyone from hurting US, to avoid being a statistic. Keep it up, guys. We can't bury our heads in the sand and act like criminals and bad men don't already have assault rifles and such. We have to be better than them.
True. But for the test to be accurate that has to be a constant. I still think high capacity magazines dont make a difference, but I dont think this test proved that.
+Joseph Levin The woman was consistent, at least. Jim's results would be unreliable as proof. Not sure if he did it intentionally, but it was a pretty significant difference in firing speed.
+Joseph Levin If you look at the overall times...Christy unloaded all her magazines at under 30 seconds. And Jim under 22 seconds. All anyone needs is practice time and a willingness to disregard human life.
Videos Yeah, the time it takes to reload a magazine is very superficial and has little impact on a gunfight. The only people it would hurt is those who don't carry around multiple magazines, like civilians. Mass shooters on the other hand will most like have an entire bag filled with magazines. The best part of this video demonstration was when they showed the guy trying to tackle the "shooter" during reload. Completely debunks the argument of people who want to limit magazine size (which is silly, because criminals obviously aren't going to follow that law anyways and fill their magazines completely rather than just with 5 rounds or whatever the local laws have the limit set to. IIRC, a lot of places have pistol limit set to 10 rounds and rifle limit set to 5 rounds. And the magazines just have tiny aluminum clips to limit them, that could easily be filed down by someone who is willing to break the law)
+JustAGuy No. I believe the Moral is if someone can fire from 15, 10, and 5 round magazines with minimal time difference, then why bother making a law restricting capacity if it is not going to really make a difference.
***** I like that idea. Just not sure if that's what they were getting at. I don't remember what all was said in this video. While I do live in a state that doesn't limit magazine capacity, I feel it ridiculous for those that do. If EVERYONE had a gun on their hip, I do wonder, would crime go up or down? I believe down. Not that the media would reflect the truth.
+JustAGuy I agree. My state doesn't have restrictions either. I believe Kennesaw GA. Made a city ordinance that all head of households were required to own at least one gun with ammo. The cities crime rate dropped dramatically because of it.
+JustAGuy Well, greetings from AZ, we don't all have a gun on our hip here but open carry is legal and at least semi-common. We have Constitutional Carry meaning we can concealed carry without a permit with just a few restrictions and it is a "shall issue" state for those who want a CCW permit. While our violent crime stats aren't the best you have to factor in all the illegal immigrant gang violence we get here. Overall our murder rates are still just a fraction of Chicago or DC with the most restrictive gun laws in the US.
Jim was lollygagging on his two 15-round mags. That should have been his fastest time, but he was purposely shooting slower. And with the AR, Jim again lollygags, purposely shooting slower with the higher capacity mag.
My takeaway from this: The more you breakup semi automatic weaponry ammunition into smaller allotments per magazine, the more weapons training makes a difference in overall performance times. So untrained civilians do worse and worse versus any form of government soldier, law enforcement official, or privately contracted mercenary. ... ...I'm beginning to see why pro-government liberals and rich elitists like this idea so much.
Yea and sadly it only affects law abiding citizens because criminals will still have hi cap mags and full auto or short barreled gun ect. It's literally a ridiculous argument of gun control.
+mk4vws No doubt. They can literally print them. www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/
Same with taxing, testing and licensing. The principle has been in practice from feudal Europe to Stalin's Russia and to American liberal elites - restrict weapons to the ruling and social elite classes, to maintain control of the subordinate classes. Of course, suggest to gun control fanatics, licensing and fees for voting or blogging and they completely lose their minds.
+TymeTwyster Last if you think soldiers attain near the level of proficiency with firearms that someone who has time to go to a range 3 times a week does you are sorely mistaken
Luis Barros well if it’s in your house no one would know, until an intruder gets shot I guess. I’d rather have high capacity over low any day, you have no clue how a situation is going to unfold and how many intruders there are. A shotgun would render more useless than a .40 with Remington Ultimate Defense ammo. You would need more than 1 bullet per person.
Oh, by the way, the most important realization we can come to is that even if there is a 10 round limit, most anyone that is going to murder a bunch of people wouldn't care and just bring "high-capacity" magazines.
+HunterXray That's very likely. As long as they are legally available somewhere in other states, limiting magazine size is not going to deter a perp with financial resources. At the very least, the approach needs to be consistent. Either legalize them in all 50 states or make them entirely illegal. Otherwise, it's an exercise in futility.
True the only way would be to prohibit there manufacture (including spares) entirely and let nature take it's course over the next 100 years. Somehow I don't see that happening.
+El Guapo Criminals would still have them, they'd either simply keep smuggling them in, modding the restricted magazines or making their own magazines, just like they did with booze back in the 20's.
***** I think at this point that would be even harder than taking away everyone's guns. There are far more 30 round magazines than there are firearms they are used in.
I'm behind the message of this video, but this is an pretty dumb demonstration. 1. Keep a consistent rate of fire. Don't speed up your shooting with the smaller mags. 2. Shoot realistically. I'm pretty sure no one counts shots so they can +1 every mag in a real shooting situation. Shoot till it locks empty, then reload.
+splewy the point is that its doesnt take long to reload, not that either of the three options are faster or not, but that the reload time isnt an opportunity to tackle and subdue a gunman.. which is the whole point behind smaller magazines, that they will shoot less bullets in a similar amount of time
+Nathan Jacobson also that you CAN actually shot just as fast if not faster WITH a reload if you want to. the reload has less than 2 seconds of time to perform.... not long enough to stop someone.
Jason Neri Yeah I understand the point of the video, and I agree with it. The whole "tackle the shooter while they're reloading" scenario is ridiculous. The Columbine shooters reloaded about 20 times been the two of them, and it made no difference. My point is that this video is kind of a dumb and non-scientific demonstration that leaves itself open to being picked apart. That just gives anti gunners ammo to keep spreading their ignorant rhetoric.
+splewy "That just gives anti gunners ammo to keep spreading their ignorant rhetoric." I also agree that smaller magazines wouldn't help US situation. US needs to do the same as Australia. Let's just look at the facts: "In the decade prior to the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings that left 100 dead.There have been none since."www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/26/gun-control-mass-shootings_n_8043364.html There have been none since because they adopted strict gun laws and bought back guns from their owners. This is no rhetorics. Just plain facts. Something gun lovers have a hard time coping with.
Mathieu Comeau In fairness though, almost all recent proposed U.S. gun control legislation has been a bit nonsensical. -They go after magazine capacity, which is of little detriment to someone using a gun in an offensive capacity, but does little to impede someone using a gun offensively. 10 rounds instead of 30 in a mag could make all the difference for a person just trying to defend themselves though. -They go after cosmetic features. Ban flash hiders, ban pistol grips, ban "barrel shrouds". Why? Not because they make a weapon any more dangerous, but because they make it look "scary". -They try to ban semi-automatic rifles, but not handguns, despite the fact that handguns account for 20 times more homicides every year. You may see "assault weapons" all over the news, but the truth is that very few people are actually killed by them. Only about 300 a year. More people are killed every year with knives, blunt objects and fists. The point is that people like me don't oppose gun legislation because we're anti safety. We oppose it because the legislation introduced thus far makes no sense.
You guys do realize that it is possible to reload with a round in the chamber? Meaning if you try to rush him while he is reloading, he still has a bullet waiting for you before he finishes reloading. So the whole myth of rushing a guy while he is reloading is idiotic. I am not even a skilled shooter and I can reload a mag from my pocket in under 2 seconds, even less if I left a round in the chamber. Unless you are superman you will not be closing any distance in 2 seconds.
most people who even regularly train and pumped with adrenaline forget about the ability to reload with 1 in the tube. Try thinking about that when some jacked up punk comes at you shooting with bullets wizzing by your head -- if your lucky,
John Valnes In a mass shooting scenario (which is what the whole magazine size debate was created for), these shooters choose unarmed locations where opposition is minimal. So the chances of being able to reload with one in the chamber is far higher than in a firefight. It is also common practice to put tracer rounds for the last two shots for this purpose as well.
Shinzu good point! Tracer rounds for the last two makes sense. To be perfectly honest, I am uncertain as to which perspective the video is coming from. Pro high cap or pro restrictive capacity. Trying to prove that we can all do just fine with lo - cap mags or, neither makes a difference so lets all have hi-cap mags? Me? Very Hi-cap friendly. In the end, I believe the video shows very little proof towards either side.
John Valnes I think they are proving that restricted magazines do not help improve safety in a mass shooting scenario, so if it does not fix anything why ban it? It becomes as pointless as the Norway ban on nun-chucks, and butterfly knives.
You need to learn the definition of myth dumbass abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933 blog.timesunion.com/lawrencewhite/another-shooter-stopped-by-unarmed-citizens/1789/ thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/06/3445966/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-number-of-bullets/
Jim fired MUCH faster with the 3-10 round magazines AND the 5-6 round pistol magazines AND with the AR magazines...this was not a very accurate comparison. It does however show that the capacity does not really matter for a seasoned professional or a nutjob who's been practicing. I would also have liked to have seen the actual hit percentage for each shooter. Overall, I agree with the premise of this video, you just needed to benchmark the overall exercise.
Most do though. If it is a group, many are punk kids breaking in unarmed. Give me the stats for the number of times multiple SERIOUS threats break in(or assault an individual anywhere) compared to the negative incidents involving high capacity magazines, i.e., theft, gang violence, massacres. Oh, guess what, training(VERY FEW criminals train to ANY degree of seriousness for their deeds, but you have every reason and opportunity to do so) can cut reloading down to a fraction, 1/2 the amount of time from vest/pocket to well. Also, training to leave a round in the chamber nullifies slide-lock, which can get you down to a third the time of a real situation reload. Mags aren't in a convenient place in a firefight...
Sterling Roberts Also, gun range, FFS! You'll never be as accurate in a gunfight, but missing 10 shots within pistol range against 1-2 assailants? Please, don't go on about the ever elusive 3+ attacker notion... and you really think they're just going to walk up on you after you shoot a few rounds? Like, you really don't have time for a 2-4 second reload? Maybe stop dropping the mags out of the well and telling them you're empty(if they're even smart enough to identify that sound), huh? MoC, some people...
No, I'm 22 and am an avid gun owner. Just think his argument is a little(lot) silly. I do not feel as if I need that many rounds to put down my targets. Also, the likelihood of multiple assailants vs the likelihood that any criminal will use these magazines for their deeds? Come on, you really think multiple assailants are more common than the amount armed with these magazines they stole from legal owners? I'm also not saying magazines should be taken from citizens, just that we don't push for 100 round mags for our Glocks. They more powerful weapons and equipment we legalize, the more criminals get them. Training, however(and most don't have half a lucid brain), is one thing you can bet they don't have.
Sterling Roberts But then why does law enforcement feel the need to have large capacity clips? They train weekly in most cases and still need large magazines. Someone that has less training, needs more capacity to defend themselves.
@Charles Kurtz Little confused by your statement. How can a state government override a federal ruling? Isnt oklahomo in the great united states of america? Did you read that last part, the UNITED states. So if a federal ruling is applied by a serious federal government not one controlled by corporations like you have in merica then you will have to comply.
@Charles Kurtz sureee because transitioning at random from normal text to all caps then ending with some rant about liberal leftists "infecting us" in all caps lock definitely doesnt make you come across as crazy lmao
@Charles Kurtz all im saying is that, when you type normally, people will be more open to reading and understanding your cause. When you randomly start typing in all caps, people just disregard you as some crazy person that is unhinged and cannot hold a civilized conversation.
this is ridiculous, the guy is shooting slower with the bigger magazines and a lot faster when switching to smaller magazines, rigged test results haha
No one can really believe this video, can they? He is so obviously shooting at different rates and the guy "running" towards the shooter is hilariously unrealistic about his speed. You wouldn't carefully jog towards the shooter. Ridiculous.
Reality check..... How many people do you truly believe are going to run at the shooter period.... Look at any surveillance video that has been released over the last decade involving a shooter in a mall or place of business...... Everyone is running away from the shooter!!!!
@ craigmancool.... Plenty.... Not that I need "bloviate" my credentials on some RU-vid thread, but I am more than qualified,, all from personal and professional experience, to levy an opinion on this topic..
I agree 100% with your findings. The problem is that many people I know who are anti, are “too upset” by the sound of gunfire to watch a video like this and learn. Hard to reason with people who refuse to listen to both sides
For everyone that has asked about why Christy only shot 5 rounds on the first mag and 7 on the last one, here's the explanation. The first mag had 6 rounds, she pulled the trigger 5 times and the 6th round went into battery but it wasn't fired until the next magazine was inserted. This is why you don't see the slide lock back. The next mag had 6 rounds plus one already in the chamber from the previous magazine, she fires 6 rounds which again leaves one in the chamber. Repeat until last magazine where there are 6 rounds plus the one in the chamber so 7 shots are fired. 30 rounds from 5 magazines of 6 rounds each. Again, you only see the slide lock back on the last magazine when there is no more ammunition in the magazine. Lastly it wasn't just Christy, they both did this.
Exactly..... explanation of bolt not locking out of battery after last round. Must be that Bump stock, barrel shroud and thing that goes up. Nancy Pelosi is really 🔥!!!
@@inland85 I think what the demonstration was trying to show is that the law limiting mag capacity itself is the real BS. They more or less brought that point home so kudos to them.
@@rishardlampese8947 But they minimized the effect of the mag changout by doing this. This is a bogus test. Each changeout would have lasted much longer if the slide locked back after each mag.
To all calling this technique BS, nobody said they couldn't be smart about it. There were 30 shots fired each time with pistol, 20 shots fired with the long gun. Being smart isn't against the rules. But an emergency reload isn't much slower than the tactical reloads performed here. Your talking about hitting a slide release. NBD.
Not really. Unless they are walking around carrying a 50 gallon drum to place their magazines on and orientate them in the right direction for easy reloading.
@@smith97320 Or, you know, unless you're defending yourself against an unexpected attack, or... you know... executing defenseless victims as they try to hide, cower in corners and beg for their life. Which scenario do you suppose favors or negates magazine restrictions?
@@springbloom5940 idea.. EXECUTE people who use guns in crimes! -- don't restrict crap, BUT if somebody uses a gun, to commit a crime, EXECUTE them! IF the government would execute kids who use guns to kill their classmates; school shootings would stop. (name 1 school shooter who has been 'punished' for his actions).
Those that propose "gun restrictions would reduce gun crime" must first explain the drug epidemic in America. It all has little to do with guns and a whole lot to do with control.
I am buying a new 3D printer that would allow me to design and print my own machine guns, rockets and statues or be lazy and use paper blue prints or download blue prints and would still require making the fuel with my chemistry set for the rocket fuel and 3d printers still require you to assemble the parts after printing them.
@@cendregaming3200 thousands even millions of people have already purchased home 3d printers and a portion of them could be made to mass produce machine gun parts that then could be assembled and the large majority of them are not using them to make guns.
I don't get this "Me wife stole my gun" "I lost them in a boating accident" If they ever come knocking again, the correct thing to say is NOTHING. Silence. Anything you say will only be used against you. Repeat that last sentence over and over. People love the second ammendment but are pretty ignorant about the 5th.
looneyburgmusic “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” This? I understand it as it was written. I and many other Americans are not part of a militia... The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans regardless of service in the militia.
XrayOptical The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)), nor is the Constitution a suicide pact.
You’re correct, it isn’t an unlimited right. Neither are any rights that the government poses. Remember that the United States Constitution was written in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Well here is how I look at it. I am not "anti-gun", I have no problem with people owning guns, I have no problem with people carrying guns. However, that being said, we have a serious gun problem in this nation, and not all the "shooters" are criminals, or "bad guys." Even a perfect, law abiding gun owner can "lose it", and start shooting up the local preschool. I don't know what the answer is for the United States, but what I do know is that doing nothing will only allow the carnage to continue.
When a crazy suicide/murder bomber blows him/herself up we don't blame the bomb materiel maker...when a drunk driver kills someone in a vehicle collision, we don't blame Budweiser or Chevy...
I blame explosives for the lives of Muslims. I just blame the Muslims for strapping said explosives to them in the first place without an expert in the area.
+Me No you don't but if you hand beer and a car to a 14 year olds you'd see a few more accidents on the road. Not everyone is capable of handling firearms.
As someone who is pro gun, i appreciate what they are trying to convey, but they went about it in a bad way, the mag placement being one, but the biggest issues i have is the lack of consistancy in the time between rounds. the rate of fire in the control was noticably slower then the rest of the tests, if we wanna convey the truth to people who dont know better the arguments have to be AIR TIGHT. That being said the only thing that effectively stop someone with a gun is someone else with a gun, its a terrible reality but a reality nonetheless, and mag restrictions do nothing but endanger law abiding citizens. It wont stop criminals, and it wont stop active shooters.
Daniel Diaz Why is the time between rounds fired an issue? The point of the test isn't to see how quickly you can fire individual shots in different magazines, the point is to show that reloading takes very little time, and since you never know when the shooter will reload, you can't time a tackle to take him out.
SpotlessGreg their is no gun in the world that can fire that fast! It's just stupid liberals that get their info wrong for stupid people to believe that
Yeah .. and I might get hit by a bus crossing the street. Or hit by lightening on a clear day without any warning. Did you have a point to make, or are you just repeating more nonsensical anti-gun fanatic talking points that you don't really understand. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of instances where police have not shot civilians with a gun defending themselves or others. Get the facts instead of just being another sheep.
You literally made up a stat then told me to get my facts straight. Maybe you should provide any solid evidence that the risk is negligible then maybe you have something. Specifically though I was referencing a New York Times article about the Dallas shooting. Thirty or so protesters were dressed in fatigues and gas masks carrying rifles. When the shooting started police were confused by men running with rifles, gas masks, and fatigues. This at the very least was a distraction that may have provided the shooter more opportunities to move without being noticed. Anyway, it's something to keep in mind. - the blind sheep regurgitating nonsense
+Jordan Weimer I may stand the risk of being shot by confused police, but I guess I'd rather take that chance rather than being shot by some crazy guy.
The only one having to reload is the citizen following the law. The criminal can use as big magazines as he wants - he isn't following the law anyways!!
Yeah, that's actually a decent argument, and one that I haven't heard. Of course the counter-point is "OH SO MORE BULLETS ON THE STREET BLAH BLAH" or the same logic some people (often the same people) use for gay marriage. "OH IF YOU LEGALIZE HIGH-CAP MAGS NEXT IT'LL BE FULLY AUTOMATIC TANK SHELL SHOTGUNS" ...dammit, now I want a fully automatic tank shell shotgun. :C
Why does a single youtube video give you a desire to add more guns to your collection? Perhaps you should understand that you have a serious impulse control problem.
Those thinking that limiting mag capacity will reduce violent crime have no clue regarding firearms or the criminal mindset. Thanks Sheriff and be safe.🇺🇸
His idiotic video actually did the gun community a disservice by further proving antigun agenda that "high capacity magazines makes no difference so why do civilians need it to defend themselves?"
@@ashleyjohansson230 this wasn't a very well thought out illustration. Having the magazines sitting out on blue barrels instead of in tactical vest magazine holders, or a bag worn by the firer is not an accurate simulation of how a mass shooter would be equipped. A sheriff should know better. And reducing magazine capacity isn't supposed to directly reduce violent crime. It makes it necessary to reload much more often, which increases the time you spend not shooting people and increases the time you could be subdued in between loads. If you're well practiced and adept at shooting and you decide to go on a mass shooting, it will hinder you less, but hinder you still in some measure. If you're a mentally disturbed or impulsive mass shooter who isn't well practiced in tactical reloads, it will hamper you greatly. This gives civilians or police more opportunities to take them out.
@@ashleyjohansson230 Because a mass shooting is premeditated and the shooter would be at least somewhat prepared. A civilian is going to have to deal with a surprise attack. She'll be be aroused from sleep, shooting in pajamas or panties or boxer shorts, barefoot. No time to strap on spare mags. As for concealed carry, where are you going to stash extra magazines within easy reach? Lower capacity magazines affect no one who's prepared to use them. They only jam up those dealing with a surprise attack.
Yes, with modern firearms it's safe. And, if you can, you should carry with a round in the chamber. Now, there are some pistols designed to be cocked or racked when drawn but most modern pistols are designed to be carrier "hot". Before carrying any firearms you should know the do's and don'ts of it, how it functions, how to clear a type 1, 2, or 3 malfunction, ect.....you get the point. :) All part of being a responsible gun owner and carrying responsibly. I carry my Glock 22 gen4 (striker fired) with a round in the chamber. It has no frame safety but has a double trigger. The only time it's unsafe is if the pistol is something like a wheel gun (think, old western revolver) with the firing pin on the hammer. (not all wheel guns are like this though) Something like that should be carrier on an empty chamber. Most of this you can learn with a simple google search. :) I'm happy to help though. If you have any other questions just ask. Have a great day!
Of course all this pertains to carrying a pistol for defense. As far as having one laying around at home, it all depends on your situation. You got kids and no place to put a gun that they won't have access to? Then you'll be better off leaving the pistol without a round in the chamber. If you're like me and are single and those you live with understand the do's and don'ts of a firearm then you're likely okay to leave it "hot" on your bedside table. In the end it all comes down to you, your needs, and what you're comfortable with doing. :) Hope this helps.
A solid idea. Alot of people slap one mag in their pistol and go out. Not a good idea. I carry my glock 22 concealed even though it has a 15 round in a mag (plus 1 in the chamber) I always have a spare mag. Someone asked me awhile back, "Hey, why do you need another magazine? You going to war?" This is because most people think another mag is for more ammo. For me, it's really not. If you're in a self defense situation and you have a jam that requires you to release the mag it's much easier to have a spare to slap in than pick up your mag off the floor. Now, in your case only having 6 rounds to a mag, carrying additional mags is a solid idea for reasons above but in your case, you may actually need more ammo. You carry a compact glock? Like a glock 43?
And...let's also keep in mind there have been more than a few mass shootings wherein "high capacity" magazines may have contributed to jammed weapons. I believe the Colorado murderer had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum. It double-fed and he couldn't clear it. That's when he abandoned it and switched to his handguns. If he had been limited to smaller magazines, he may have continued with the AR, which is easier to handle, better at point-and-shoot, and does more damage than a handgun (especially if he was using FMJ in the pistols). The Parkland shooter used 20-round magazines in his AR because the 30+ round magazines he had wouldn't fit in his duffel bag. Here's another disadvantage of "high capacity" magazines...they're less concealable.
I don't know if that's the case, but I wouldn't doubt it. There's a reason the military does not use drum magazines. They're unreliable. I own a lot of guns. I would never consider owning a drum magazine. They're a novelty in my mind. Nothing more. They're not serious items for serious shooters. They're not particularly dangerous and I see no reason to ban them. I also see no reason to own them.
I'd argue that a 9mm Para/Luger (using the confined spaces listed as examples) would do more bodily harm than a 5.56. 5.56 isn't a _Wunderpatronen._ It's not magical. It's a small bullet, that goes very fucking fast; it's known more for its penetrating power than its kill potential. Not only is a 9mm larger, it's much denser, and at close range, that matters - because physics. And, given the lightweight, small nature of pistols, they're much more maneuverable, concealable, and in confined spaces, easier at point-and-shoot (particularly in or at a crowd, where aiming isn't quite necessary, anyway) than any rifle.
@@MaddenMagician And _you_ couldn't take the extra tenth of a second to put the y and o on the word "you"? I _said_ I'd _argue,_ not that I was right - which I wasn't.
The hell are you on about? This video is simulating an active shooter... the two shooters in the video are demonstrating that limiting magazine size does little to affect their killing capabilities.
@@Chironex_Fleckeri I believe hes saying that law abiding citizens would have limited magazine capacity and a criminal would not. Thus "wasting time reloading mags while and assailant isn't"
Yeah I know - I used to do the same thing in the army. But if you're trying to make a political point you should replicate reality as closely as possible.
He could have as easily used two open-top magazine pouches for his belt to hold 3 or 4 magazines. It wouldn't have been much different at all. For me it's easier and quicker to grab a magazine from my side than in front of me on a table top which involves me having to look quickly.
+Jay Santos Yes trained people plan this stuff out but if you look at these shootings a lot of them are people who are mentally deranged and do not think like that if they did they would have an almost 100% kill rate as they clear don't plan on getting out in anyway
Jay Santos and you know when those cops have the opportunity to take that shot? When he is reloading. I never said someone tackled them. Don't assume my words.
Anybody notice my comment from 2 months ago, or make the same statement I did, but on their own? No. Jim was wasting time (deliberately or not?) in the beginning, then changed his tactics. When shooting 321321321, time is wasted when he's swinging over to repeat the 321. Then he begins to shoot 321232123, which eliminates swinging over to repeat. If I did a video on this subject, I would at least make an effort to be consistent, so that no one would be able to make any allegations that something is being done on purpose, to skew the results. The 2 15-round magazines sure took a long time to empty!
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean I noticed it too. I guess they figured most ppl they are trying to get a point across to wouldn’t notice it. I still get their point but like you said it’s best to not leave any flaws in the “experiment”.
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean he had to count shots to make sure he could do a speed no rack reload which was probably a issue for the test ether way a criminal can find a piece of plastic or metal ether way
the MYSTERIOUS Eddie Dean he was counting shots as to leave one in the chamber. Otherwise the slide locks back which slows the reload. It’s harder to count shots with higher capacity.
Anthony Fletcher he is counting shots to leave one in the chamber as to avoid locking back the slide which would slow the reload. It’s harder to count shots when dealing with higher numbers, so it’s easier to shoot faster with lower capacity
DoctorBrian60 Normal everyday citizens are not trained Navy Seals. It also depending on the caliber of the gun too. If its a low caliber pistol that uses 9mm then it will take way more than 1 shot to stop an invader.
+DoctorBrian60 have you fired a gun before lol plus waking up with the rush going they may be bug and a 9mm might not do shit unless headshot that's why you get yourself a man stopper .45 colt
Sparda take a 85 grain piece of lead to the knee cap at 1300 (9mm) feet per second from 20 feet away (about the longest home defense range) and see how much fight is left in you use before you stop being a jerk... go ahead and try it...
I guess the next thing is to label passenger jets as weapons of mass destruction and turn the the airports into Gestapo depots where people going to visit mom are subject to a cavity search. Wait; no wonder I just drove to Idaho.
Jim Boatwright I prefer the assault drums. It is mostly cosmetic differences from the tactical, but it does fold up, you can adjust the height, change the angle, and they have all-terrain wheels optional.
If anyone else noticed that if the runner had a gun they could have stopped the shooter from the safety of cover instead of trying to be a mindless hero. Or in a real life situation they could have stopped the shooter from the safety of cover without being a helpless victim waiting on the police to save them while they are being shot at.
He went a lot slower in the first trial, and he didn't go back and forth. In the first one he went from right to left and then restarted at the right, but the second one he went from right to left, and then shot the middle one continuing to the right. I'm pro gun, but these test are inconsistent.
+Caleb Webb It's total BS to be able to shoot quicker, while having to reload. Now the difference it takes to reload compaired to not reloading might not be that big of difference, but the shooter is totally biased, and shoots faster to make up for the reload time.
+Caleb Webb so many replies(i know i can edit, but then you don't see what I was thinking before the edit), but the runner lazily jogged towards the girl, who was clearly to reload slower.
+Caleb Webb Its not bias, its being human. Humans speed up shooting after each reload as a rule from adrenal spike. I will just keep repeating it hoping that people will take other factors into it. As the ammo count is less unless instructed otherwise will ALWAYS pick there shots more carefully as the clip goes on. Its instinct to preserve less of something. Most people saying these comments never fire in any competetive sports. I have noticed the argument becomes those who shoot and those who say they are "Pro Gun". Not saying they are bad people trying to skew these results, just that they dont shoot much and or have never been shot at or studied the subject heavily. Also, once more guys will dump multiple rounds into people much more often and execute more often at beginning of reloads. people with half empty clips will often times surrender and even let victims go. Truth is we are much more animal than we think.
+Chad Mesiroff You say that people what to preserve less of something, doesn't that mean people should shoot shoot slower with smaller magazines right off the bat,not faster? No, I'm not a competitive shooter, I bench shoot.
Here is an old standard that has been forgotten and abused....4 words....."Shall not be infringed" . That should be the end of ALL the debates and there should be no other regulations. period.
I agree with you, but many of the same people who want to restrict mag size also want to remove the 2nd amendment. If they get rid of that one they will have free range to go for the rest.
@@golling3334 One piece at a time our rights to bear arms has been chipped away at. One thing here, another thing there..... all sold as protections of the people when in FACT the best protection the people have is their right to bear arms and protect themselves. This false protection is actually the exact opposite..... it is a long term goal to end our rights and make politicians safe from us protecting ourselves from them. They are the biggest criminals in our society playing like they give a shit about the people. They lie.
You’re forgetting the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” part. I love my guns but we have to be honest when we have this discussion and not omit parts of the 2nd all because we don’t like it. We also have to put the 2nd amendment into context of the times where states kept their own militia forces that the federal government would call upon in times of need or the state. This is what the 2nd amendment was made for, as we can clearly see by the language given. Now a common misconception a lot of gun lovers like to push (I used to aswell until I thought about it) is the militia was referring to the civilian populace, no it’s not. See the militias became the State National Guard, which fulfills the requirements set to us by our founding fathers and thus the Second Amendment, in its current form as the founding fathers wrote it, would apply to the National Guard. So how would we argue for guns? Well instead of fighting regulation why not propose new ones? Maybe a mandatory gun safety course or mandatory trigger locks? Maybe a safety inspection is required or mandatory magazine lock with every purchase. See regulation is going to happen, the more we fight restrictive regulation the worse it’ll get. If we want our guns in their current state then you need to propose differing regulations that don’t effect the weapon but rather how it’s maintained and how much the owner is responsible for negligence
@@cendregaming3200 wrong. Your tieing the word militia to people. The comma after militia separates the militia from the people, and thus leaving the right to the person over the militia. Goole search " pen and teller explain the second amendment".
@@giggsreaper347 Penn was wrong, because Penn is a highly emotional person who wants strong solutions, not vague advice. The comma business is just bullshitting people with bad reading skills. Including Penn. A comma means that both sides of the sentence are part of the same idea, not separate. Furthermore, if they would be separate, we should just assume people writing it were not sane at the time, as the cohesion of the sentences is lost. From the side of the english language, from historical and political factors, the meaning very specifically means banning of guns is specifically allowed to anyone NOT in well regulated state militia. The SIMPLE solution to this? Re-establish free militia, not as national guard but as specifically MILITIA. Not as part of military, maybe, but under, say Sheriffs department or something, joining legal and political into the mix. There is absolutely no way those guns could ever be taken away, as they are very specifically protected by constitution, no matter how you read it, its not under military control, not directly under governor, but still not actually private either, its still government under the name. Government cant attack it without attacking itself. Protected by checks and balances, in a way. Legally locked in place, barring total end of all laws, at which point LOCAL people have the control and the guns. People and militia not as different, but as one and same. No, its not my idea, just the original idea by the historical constitution dudes, dude.
Note that the shooter (like most competitors) counts his rounds so you'll see that he DOES NOT SHOOT TO SLIDE LOCK. The gun is never empty when he reloads. If it were empty, each reload would require thumbing the slide stop lever, or slingshotting the slide. Just something to think about.
That is actually normal, the leave one round in, it's to assure the weapon is still HOT, when needed with switching mags, plus it does save precious time in not racking the slide. Not a uncommon way of training really
Michel Linschoten Exactly, TRAINING. He's referring to the fact that both experienced(not as many) and inexperienced people in a life or death situation do not often keep track of rounds fired, so when that slide locks open, it takes precious time to realize the gun's empty, you can't deny seconds(even milliseconds) count in a firefight. It's little things like that that add up to a highly skewed video. My mags are never on an ideal height barrel in front of me, ready to go. They're most often in jean pockets(for some with space constraints or little training, other items may be in the same pocket), and much harder to access(unless in really rare cases in which someone's wearing a magazine rig or pouches which are still harder than on a barrel), especially if crouched or seated in cover. The list goes on, in my previous posts, but everybody is blind.
Sterling Roberts *He's referring to the fact that both experienced(not as many) and inexperienced people in a life or death situation do not often keep track of rounds fired* Jup completely true... *so when that slide locks open, it takes precious time to realize the gun's empty, you can't deny seconds(even milliseconds) count in a firefight* Although i totally agree, a real life firefight does not take a whole magazine. Unless, you're in a very extraordinary situation. That you need to empty your gun. *It's little things like that that add up to a highly skewed video. My mags are never on an ideal height barrel in front of me, ready to go. They're most often in jean pockets* I carry always my 1911 as we speak even, i got 2x20 (extended mags) in my belt mag pouch 1 and 1 in the gun. Which is always, locked and loaded. I can recommend mag pouches. As you later on state, makes it still hard. I have no problems dropping my mag, and reload one. It's more about placement of the pouch. And what kind, i do not LIKE the tactical pouches. I got a good old fashion leather pouch around my belt.
So, you're saying that you grew up learning firearms the responsible way and learned reloading? So a 2 minute lesson in reloading is enough to negate everything I just pointed out? Took me a while to become truly proficient at reloading, but yeah, I've always known how. Do you think criminals, by and large, are as well versed as you and I are? That's a real dumbass thing to say, you know? How can I be labeled anti-gun if I A. Have been collecting firearms since I was 18. B. Have only questioned the bias nature of this video. C. Have not once said a blanket statement about either all guns or the firearm community. D. Have only three things in my closet, clothing, a Ruger 10/22 and a Remington 870? I want to know how that works. Go ahead, tell me how I can be a GTF and anti-gun at the same time. You're real ignorant, you know that? How ignorant? Ignert. Unless you have something intelligent to reply with, don't. Stick to your assumptions if you like, I don't care anymore that you can't handle the truth of the matter.
Nearly everyone? Really, how do you know this? You think the media shows you everything? I'm certain they show us only the worst of the worst, and many go unnoticed.
All the video showed me was that having smaller capacity magazines will give victims a false sense of security. They'll think they can run at the attacker while he's reloading. All they'll manage to do, though, is make themselves an easier target by being closer when the attacker finishes reloading.
Agreed; which is why I'm so vehemently opposed to magazine bans. My favorite semi-automatic rifle (non-rimfire, that is) doesn't even come with a magazine option over 10 rounds, and the 4 round stock magazines are generally more reliable. Accuracy in most modern tacticool rifles is far less stellar than any decent semi-auto hunting rifle...at least until you start modifying them. What most people DON'T realize is that an AR-15 used for 1/4 MOA target shooting does not have the same kind of barrel or tolerances as a military style weapon made for high rate of fire in adverse conditions. Firing off two 30 round mags as fast as you can pull the trigger through one of these rigs will absolutely destroy the barrel (relative to it's former accuracy) and that's if you're lucky enough to keep it from jamming once it heats up due to the tolerances. This doesn't even cover the mediocre power of a 5.56 or 7.62x39mm in comparison to even my "lowly" little .243 Winchester..much less verses a full sized .308, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, .270, .338 Federal, .338 RCM, etc. The .243 makes up for brute energy with extremely flat shots...but that's another story. Now I'm not so sure that I agree with anyone believing that they can charge an attacker...much less that most would have the nuts to do it. This is fairly moot though when you consider the comprehensive truth in terms of full auto, semi auto, etc. There is more than enough data showing that automatic "spray" is far less efficient and accurate than precise semi-automatic fire...and is only useful in target rich areas or for suppression purposes (getting people to hide from the noise/gunfire). It would only make sense, in terms of that logic, to realize that well places aim will generally negate any real differences between a 10 or 20 round magazine and that spraying will, again, be far less deadly and precise than meticulous aiming.
I agree their is not much difference , but when they fire the 15 round mags, there's more time in between each shot, and they speed up as they go along...I agree that the difference would be minimal, but the test is still flawed....
and another thing....criminals aren't going to the gun range and practising....and it's not like they can practise anywhere else, especially in big cities, they are looking for the score, not a gun battle........as they would likely get caught.....it's a bit different when a person who hasn't committed a crime in the past loses his shit and goes on a shooting spree....most criminals aren't competent marksmen imo
see, ya totally missed what I was saying....most criminals aren't spraying bullets all over hell....the regular guy that goes looney is. They aren't a criminal til they loss it and got to a school or a mall. these aren't the ones i was talking about as i said in my comment....a regular criminal isn't going out into the woods and practising with their guns....it's the guys that practise with their guns, that aren't actually criminals and then go nuts and shoot up a school are usually talked about like "he was a nice guy, never got into trouble, always quiet"....and to repeat...these guys aren't criminal, until they they loose their shit and go on a shooting spree...
"The Fort Hood shooter was a psychiatrist, not a soldier."The Fort Hood shooter was an enlisted soldier for 8 years before he went to medical school. He had, at least, basic marksmanship training.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Hasan
im pro gun .but this test isnt realistic... no one in a self defense situation is on a range with no stress and theyre magazines layed out so as to facillitate easy mag changes...
They aren't arguing on self defense, they are claiming it doesn't make a difference for the mass shooter, who would be the only one armed (usually) and may take up a sniping position where he has magazines laid out in front of him.
The only portion of the "realworld" it is attempting to replicate is the reload as that is the argument they are making. If you feel the quick reload aspect of the video is inaccurate, try watching one of the other million quick reload videos.
+Merb34st not concerned about quick reload im more about putting lead on target accurately... a single well placed shot from most weapons will disable the target...be cool
The begining of the video says that 80-85% of shots miss even for well trained officers. We all know a well placed shot can mean the end but the chances are slim under stress.
+Alica Ljungberg also, adrenaline makes a mag change a hell of a lot harder, have them go for a run abs get their heartbeat up to say, 130bpm, then shoot
+maksim tsionskiy I think people greatly overestimate these psychopaths training for these situations the kill percentage is almost always under 50% after including the crazies dying themselves if they were so trained the percentage would be a lot higher
In a real life situation you are not going to have your spare magazines already out and laid out in front of you. Instead you are going to have to get them from their pouches or pockets and reload them which will take more time. Larger magazine is always preferred to me
If you were defending yourself they will be quickly accessible, but not out. If the shooter was perparating a mass shooting I'm guessing that detail would be handled by sewing little half pockets in his shirt to have them out in an instant.
They leave 1 round in the chamber so they don't have to charge the rifle or cycle a round between reloads. All the mags have the same number of rounds.
The point should be made by shooting as fast as humanly possible with every magazine size, not intentionally skewing the results by shooting slower on purpose.
I do, I always plan ahead. I have an instantly inflatable barrel shaped balloon that hardens into a convenient metal table at a moment's notice! You mean you don't have one?? NOOB! Haha, really though.
Who's to say an active shooter isn't an experienced and trained shooter? Sure the magazines layed out is a bit artificial, but how many seconds does it take to reach into a vest or bag to get a new mag? It still wouldn't be enough time to tackle the shooter.
Yes, he has the magazines in front of him. In real life you have the magazine in your hand before the one in the gun is empty. The reload will be faster than this, if anything, as long as you can count the shots like they did (if you notice, they first fire one shot less than the mag capacity, then the same amount, and with the last magazine they fire one round more). Since you couldn't, you'd take extra time charging the rifle, but that takes such a short moment that it doesn't matter.
+Lynx Antarcticus you're magazines would be on a chest rig, or on your belt. You need both hands to manipulate the gun, at least if you want to be effective.
I am 100% pro-gun but don't get me wrong The Experience shooter is definitely firing at a faster rate when he knows he has to reload multiple times. Not the greatest example but it does demonstrate that magazine capacity ultimately doesn't really make a difference. Criminals are going to do what they want when they want how they want no matter what. That's what makes them a criminal.
Lawrence Khellendrose how fast he shoots is irrelevant, the entire point of the video is the reload-magazine size comparison. Not the output of “damage”
Yeah, it's not the best test, but the point was still illustrated with Christy (I think that was her name). All that's needed is to bump up the sample size to 20 people and we have some decently solid proof against magazine restrictions.
I see what you are saying, but I guess when you go real life (in terms of like a mass shooter) I think you would probably have that effect. If they had smaller magazines they would probably fire faster to get more shots off. I also think when we talk about these dumb mass shooters...it isn't just one long continuous fire like a video game. They are moving, going to different halls, rooms, etc. I would think the fire would be a very random at rate. What do you think?
Wtf? Are you insane or just fucking stupid? If you think magazine pouches add a negligible amount of time to reload, then I want proof. I want THAT to be on the video, not nicely laid out magazines sitting at a comfortable hand level for convenient reloading. Put it up there. 4 six cartridge magazines. Let's see it.
I hate how Jim was shooting the high capacity magazines slowly and then rushing his shots with the lower capacity magazines. You can tell he did it on purpose.
Yeah, it’s a rigged demonstration... if it didn’t make a difference, we wouldn’t want them... The difference is negligible with the exception that people can panic and flub the reload.
@@thesmirk the point of the video is to demonstrate that a mass shooter is gonna be just as effective with 6-10 rnd mags as with 30 rnd mags. Basically elimating the idea that magazine regulation laws are necessary or warranted
@@yungdomino4718 Except the entire test was rigged as The Smirk said. It isn't meant to be an accurate or consistent representation. There were so many uncontrolled variables preventing you from drawing accurate conclusions. You can't record time but then fire at different rates to try to manipulate the outcome. You need each test to be consistent, he should have already been warmed up before he started the first test. By going in to the first test cold you're skewing the results. Then there's also the absurdity of having targets at all. At a range like that your time to aim to target is negligible, he might as well have just been mag dumping down range at that point; especially since the accuracy didn't really matter. Then didn't take in to consideration how many shots were actually effective or landed on target so why did they bother having the targets in the first place? It makes no sense that they prepared magazines on the barrel in front of the shooter, it's just another attempt to try to mitigate the time it takes to perform a reload in favor of painting magazine restrictions in a bad light. Might be worth pointing out that I'm not even in fair of magazine restrictions proposed here but this test is such an awful counter to that argument. They essentially tried to create a situation in which you might as well not even have a reload as a way of showcasing how little reloads affect overall rates of fire. They allowed him to count rounds instead of emptying the chamber to avoid the time it would take to release the slide, and they completely overlooked the increased time it would take to retrieve another magazine from whatever you have it contained it. A mass shooter or even in a self defense situation typically wouldn't have magazines prepared on a surface before hand like that so why would they utilize that in their test? Especially under adrenaline, the more actions you have to perform to reach your final conclusion, in this case firing a weapon, the more opportunity you have for a mistake to go wrong. In this completely idealized, unrepresentative situation it is incredibly simple with very few instances to slip up. In a more realistic example you would have to deal with potentially fumbling a magazine out of your carrier, struggling to release the slide, manually removing the magazines if you have rock and lock type magazine, and more. If mass shooters were going to be just as effective with smaller magazines then why do we equip soldiers with 30 round magazines instead of 10 or 20?
I don't know... I see a few things that make me think this test is substantially flawed. 1) An active shooter, MORE THAN LIKELY, isn't going to be standing in one spot, with readily accessible magazines lying within arm's reach, at chest level. They're probably going to be in a pocket, or some type of holster/harness. 2) Jim had a noticeably higher rate of fire, from the 2x 10 rd magazines, as opposed to the one 20 rd. I think the total times would be more accurate, if both participants had a set rate of fire. 3) Active shooter situations do not involve SOLELY standing and stationary targets. Granted, there would undoubtedly be a few seconds of victims not being aware of what was going on, but after that, it would be a scene of people running everywhere, albeit, probably in a panic. A shooter won't spend the entire time standing still and firing aimed shots (obvious exceptions like Charles Whitman exist). I'm sure that a lot of their time would be spent moving, walking, running, turning their head, etc. 4) I'm assuming the vast majority of mass shootings have not been, and will not be perpetrated by highly trained competitive shooters or active duty military or LE, with years of combat and/or range experience. They're going to be excited. Their sympathetic nervous system is dumping huge amounts of epinephrine/norepinephrine into their system. Elevated heart/breathing rates can be accompanied by trembling hands. They're going to be looking around. They're probably going to be having tunnel vision like you wouldn't believe. I can't see them changing it magazines as easily as EITHER of the two test participants. Full disclosure: I'm not for magazine restrictions. I do think they can only be detrimental, in the long run. However, what I DO believe in, in situational awareness. It never hurts to offhandedly realize where the exits are, especially if you're in a room or building with a large group of people, ESPECIALLY if it's someplace you've never been before. (Doesn't exclusively apply to shootings either. Remember the night club fire where Great White was playing? And all those people ran toward the only egress they knew of - the front door.) I also wouldn't necessarily say that if you're carrying, if engaging the shooter is a good idea. Remember that elevated heart rate and breathing rate and shaking hands? That will be you too! That decision is solely up to the individual. If they want to take a chance on hurting innocent bystanders, then that's on them. (btw, I do carry, myself). I also implore each of you that carry to go to the range as often as you can. Get to know every single intimate detail about your handgun. Anyway, I digress. I appreciate the point this video was trying to make, but I would have liked to have seen the flaws worked on, and then it presented.
I couldn't agree any more, this test was purposely deceptive and it bothers me that all these people would swallow this argument that made by this particular channel to defend their 2nd amendment.
+J Calhoun Well i could do it better by picking it off the table, when i go to the range i have it on the table and so do many other people so it becomes natural.
One way to account for some of these variables would be to replicate a scenario with airsoft guns. I know KWA makes police training variants. By firing BBs at the shooter under evaluation, the effect of adrenaline on their fire rate and reload times can be examined. Obviously, it would effect amateurs and less skilled persons more than military and enthusiasts, but it would still show interesting results. Overall, I love that people are taking a scientific approach to this issue, rather than just spewing rhetoric at each other. Now if only the CDC was allowed to investigate.
If you're headed to slaughter a bunch of innocent law abiding unarmed citizens, then it makes NO difference if your magazines and weapon are visible. You're headed to murder people, which carries a far greater sentence than a weapons charge. Not to mention almost all of these people kill themselves. You can also practice magazine changes and firing at home with snap caps, so the reload time between using a chest carrier while tossing spent mags wouldn't be that different. You can also tuck your shirt into your pants and throw spent mags down your shirt, or wear cargo pants and toss mags in your thigh pocket. You don't need to waste time shoving mags into magazine holders when you're actively engage, and if you're on a suicide mission why bother? Too many nice people ASSUME that the terrorists or these mentally ill mass shooters think like them; THEY DON'T. The crimes you actively avoid committing, or would never think to commit mean nothing to them. Thank God none of them funnel their victims, because the numbers would be a fuck load worse in most of the events.
Not a very good demonstration. In a REAL active shooter situation, the shooter will not have the mags in a nice, easy to get to platform in front of them. Try doing this again with real scenarios
+TJentzsch Ever heard of open top mag pouches? They make reloading even faster than this. Thats what an ACTIVE shooter uses. They are in a nice easy to get to platform and are right on your belt. Try doing some research.
I agree. However the reason a magazine ban was placed was from all the premeditated murders happening in schools and theaters and such. And with a premeditated mass killing, generally they have back up ammo at the ready on their person. Whether we find this video accurate or not as far as ease of accessibility isn't the point, it's to show that stupid politicains have taken away high capavity magazines away from us law abiding citizens, and now the only people who can get them are the criminals who shoot up innocent people.
+SortaMrCraig 73 yea, I'm in Colorado where for some reason every crazy bastard has to kill innocent people. and those crazy people got them banned for everybody here. lucky me, the day before the ban went into effect, they had a huge sale. I bought nice 30 round AK mags for $5 a piece. AR mags for $8, and glock 17 mags for
I feel like this test wasn't very scientific. It's just obvious that having to change magazines would obviously slow someone down. The amount of time needed to change would depend greatly on their skill. There's no doubt a trained person could use smaller clips and just practice changing them faster. It's clearly demonstrated with the man shooter. He just shoots the smaller clips faster. I'm pro gun, but this is frankly a poor test.
it doesn't slow you down as much as you'd think, with some training you can change them pretty quick. As I only have training with the HK 416 (same magazine and magazine well as the AR-15) I'm gonna use that as an example. A prone magazine change under perfect conditions took me usually 1.6 - 1.8 seconds. from trigger pull -> right index finger on mag release while left hand opens mag pouch, and retrieves the mag -> insert into the magazine well and chamber a round -> trigger pull. while this is done I always keeps my sights on the target. it's a lot quicker standing up in a shooting position.
in the event that you come across an attacker and you happen to have multiple small magazines, do you really think they're going to be sitting on an elevated surface just beneath your gun?
dc2008242 You don't open the pocket. Either you use speed reload pouches, or you tuck the flap into the pocket, so you can just grab the magazine. Thats how people use magazine pouches on flaks.
dc2008242 I personally find it a bit faster through a pouch than a table. Granted, this video does still have some issues, like how he's definitely shooting faster for the smaller magazines than for the larger capacity ones. But honestly, it might just be from using a pouch more often than picking mags up from a table, but I feel like taking it from a magazine pouch is a little faster than taking it from a table.
Jordan Gerecke I think there would be a bit of skill to it, like someone who doesn't use the rig very often might fumble a bit when going after the mags
I have 27 years in Law Enforcement in the 8th largest city in the US. That said, this is a BS demo. I will call it the "Christmas Scenario"...if you got everything you want it would turn out how the Sheriff said it would. In most of these demos these folks are standing at a range with mags laying on barrels in front of them. In real shooting situations you ain't going to have mags sitting in front of you. Best case you are pulling them out of mag pouches....with a lot of these mass shooters they are pulling them out of backpacks, pockets etc. In real life shooting situations you are under stress and moving. I have seen trained professionals fumble with mags. try to put them in backwards and drop them. My point is MOST shooters are NOT going to perform near as well as in this "lab environment". So, as a pretty good shooter myself, I would prefer if I am engaging someone with an assault rifle I would prefer he have to reload a couple of more times (10n round mags) which in reality because of the "Whoopsie Factor" I have mentioned above it will give me a few more seconds to pop my head up and dump the guy.....or for the unarmed civilians out there a few more seconds to "RUN FORREST RUN! All the statistics about misses given in the beginning are true. PRACTICE...PRACTICE...PRACTICE! For those who think the large cap "Spray and Pray" method is viable, just remember you are responsible for what you hit. If you send 30 .223 rounds down range and kill a non-combatant you WILL be held responsible. If you pull that crap in your house you are likely to kill a family member or even a neighbor. Hands down the best home defense weapon...a pump shotgun with bird shot. The bad guys know the racking sound, you get a nice wide pattern on a shorter barrel and bird shot is not going to pass through several walls and kill little Jimmy. Even if you miss you will scare the bejesus out of the bad guy.
