I don't think there's any real importance in differentiating the two unless you are a gunsmith.
There is.
For example, the M1 can be tooled to accept magazines. If you're trying to communicate that to someone, and you say "My M1 takes clips", they'll think it's clip-fed.
I don't think there's any real importance in differentiating the two unless you are a gunsmith.
NO! IT MATTERS!...
Actually, to the average joe shooter, it doesn't really. Though it is annoying to people that have learned to differentiate the two, including me. I'm not sure why though. I supposed the best way to compare it would be if everyone used the terms "airplane" and "helocopter" interchangeably, and aircraft hobbiest's got bothered by it. I won't correct someone for misusing the word though.
But an airplane and a helicopter are painstakingly obviously different things.
Maybe fighter and bomber and I'll see your point :wink.gif:
but to gun enthusiests, clips and magazines are painstaking obviously two different things. : )
I'll be the first to admit it's pretty dumb how it came to be this way, considering "clip" and "magazine" were used so interchangeably in the past, that even the manufactures would sometimes market magazines as clips.
Plus the word clip has a connotation of "COD noob" to a gun enthusiast. Pretty much if someone calls a magazine a clip, they will instantly lose credibility to most gun fans.
This is one of those things where everyone can be right. (in their own way)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
After 10:30 PST, my IQ drops to around that of a shovel, please disregard anything I say after aforementioned time, it will likely not make any sense, and is best ignored.
But an airplane and a helicopter are painstakingly obviously different things.
Maybe fighter and bomber and I'll see your point :wink.gif:
Fighters and bombers are also generally very easy to tell apart.
Fighter (F-16 Fighting Falcon multirole fighter, the quintessential "fighter jet" to most people)
Bomber (B-52 Stratofortress)
Generally, bombers are several volumes larger than fighters. Unless, by "bombers", you're also including "fighter bombers", which covers pretty much every fighter fielded by the US Armed Forces because of the versatility of weapon hardpoints.
When people say "fighter plane" I usually think of a P-51 mustang.
but yes, fighter and bomber (to most people) are quite different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
After 10:30 PST, my IQ drops to around that of a shovel, please disregard anything I say after aforementioned time, it will likely not make any sense, and is best ignored.
For example, the M1 can be tooled to accept magazines. If you're trying to communicate that to someone, and you say "My M1 takes clips", they'll think it's clip-fed.
For example, the M1 can be tooled to accept magazines. If you're trying to communicate that to someone, and you say "My M1 takes clips", they'll think it's clip-fed.
Sure can! That's pretty much how we got the M14.
Well, I mean, a standard M1 Garand can be tooled to take a magazine. The M14 capitalized on this, and AFAIK enhanced the mechanical bits and bobs in the receiver.
And holy **** M14s are sexy. I was at a shooting event at the Sheriff's Office, guy beside me was using an M14 in OD Green with some kind of crazy-ass scope mounted, pulling magazines out of an old .50 cal ammunition box.
It also serves to note he was one of the instructors.
California sucks, we don't have any cool shooting events, just gun laws. (many, many gun laws)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
After 10:30 PST, my IQ drops to around that of a shovel, please disregard anything I say after aforementioned time, it will likely not make any sense, and is best ignored.
Plus the word clip has a connotation of "COD noob" to a gun enthusiast. Pretty much if someone calls a magazine a clip, they will instantly lose credibility to most gun fans.
I share this sentiment. On the handful of airsoft forums (read: gun nut havens) I used to frequent, the difference between a mag and a clip was a major point of contention between noobs and veterans.
So, I like thinking way ahead. At some point I'm going to live off-campus. Then I'll be able to own a gun. There seem to be plenty of knowledgable people in here, so I'll ask everyone's opinion: What would be a good first gun to own for home and personal defense and for target practice? I like the look and feel of the H&K USP. I've only fired two guns thusfar. Those were the Baretta 9mm and the .44 Magnum. The Magnum felt overpowered for my purposes. I'm not a fan of revolvers. I'd prefer a magazine-fed handgun. Not sure what my budget will be by then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
So, I like thinking way ahead. At some point I'm going to live off-campus. Then I'll be able to own a gun. There seem to be plenty of knowledgable people in here, so I'll ask everyone's opinion: What would be a good first gun to own for home and personal defense and for target practice? I like the look and feel of the H&K USP. I've only fired two guns thusfar. Those were the Baretta 9mm and the .44 Magnum. The Magnum felt overpowered for my purposes. I'm not a fan of revolvers. I'd prefer a magazine-fed handgun. Not sure what my budget will be by then.
Revolvers are a lot easier to maintain, and the only fail-to-fires you'll get will be a result of the ammunition instead of the action. From a personal defense standpoint, the six (or more/less, depending on the model and manufacturer) rounds you're allotted will be enough unless you're caught in an extended firefight (you won't be unless you're a dumbass).
My dad carries a S&W Sigma in .40S&W, it's pretty much a Glock clone but cheaper. I love firing it, only point of contention is the trigger, far too stiff (but you can fix that with a quick modification, replace the spring with a softer one from, say, a mechanical pencil).
Plus the word clip has a connotation of "COD noob" to a gun enthusiast. Pretty much if someone calls a magazine a clip, they will instantly lose credibility to most gun fans.
I share this sentiment. On the handful of airsoft forums (read: gun nut havens) I used to frequent, the difference between a mag and a clip was a major point of contention between noobs and veterans.
So, I like thinking way ahead. At some point I'm going to live off-campus. Then I'll be able to own a gun. There seem to be plenty of knowledgable people in here, so I'll ask everyone's opinion: What would be a good first gun to own for home and personal defense and for target practice? I like the look and feel of the H&K USP. I've only fired two guns thusfar. Those were the Baretta 9mm and the .44 Magnum. The Magnum felt overpowered for my purposes. I'm not a fan of revolvers. I'd prefer a magazine-fed handgun. Not sure what my budget will be by then.
Glocks are great pistols, you really can't go wrong with one. I would just suggest trying to get your hands on one to make sure the grip angle is comfortable for you (it's a shallower angle and some people don't like it). I have a Springfield XDM in 9mm as a carry/range pistol and it's pretty decent, but also pretty expensive. I've never owned a revolver and the only one I ever shot was a cap and ball. Revolvers are more reliable but don't think that magazine fed pistols are unreliable. I've put a couple thousand rounds through my Springfield and haven't had a single problem.
1911's are extremely popular. You can get them in other chamberings besides .45 but they are a touch more expensive, accessories are harder to find, and some have tons of problems (my Kimber Ultra CDP2 in 9mm is a $1300 POS).
Try and fire as many different rounds as you can to see what you like. Don't listen to anyone that tells you 9mm won't stop anyone, they are full of ****. .45 is kind of the mainstay of self protection but it is more expensive to shoot (almost 2x more than 9mm) and you can carry less in the pistol. 9mm is less effective then .45, but if you are using hollow points (I don't know why you wouldn't) and shoot the bad guy somewhere that matters, you will put him on his ass.
Plus the word clip has a connotation of "COD noob" to a gun enthusiast. Pretty much if someone calls a magazine a clip, they will instantly lose credibility to most gun fans.
I share this sentiment. On the handful of airsoft forums (read: gun nut havens) I used to frequent, the difference between a mag and a clip was a major point of contention between noobs and veterans.
So, I like thinking way ahead. At some point I'm going to live off-campus. Then I'll be able to own a gun. There seem to be plenty of knowledgable people in here, so I'll ask everyone's opinion: What would be a good first gun to own for home and personal defense and for target practice? I like the look and feel of the H&K USP. I've only fired two guns thusfar. Those were the Baretta 9mm and the .44 Magnum. The Magnum felt overpowered for my purposes. I'm not a fan of revolvers. I'd prefer a magazine-fed handgun. Not sure what my budget will be by then.
You definitely don't need a .44 mag for concealed carry. On that note, what you can carry will depend on your body type. I, being the small and skinny guy I am, would never be able to get away with concealing a USP, or even the compact version for that matter, unless of course I was wearing a heavy jacket too. Anything compact and chambered in 9/.40/.45 would be your best bet. As far as what model to go with, the sky is the limit right now, as there are so many good designs out. Glocks are good, as well as M&P's, XD's, FNP's, Sigs, and of course H&K's. It really comes down to what you like the best, and what you can conceal well. Pocket pistols have recently made a comeback too, and while they are convenient, I'd carry something bigger if possible. The only Pocket pistol caliber I'd even feel comfortable carrying is .380. Any caliber less than that (.32, .25, ect.) is going to serverely lack in penetration.
Plus the word clip has a connotation of "COD noob" to a gun enthusiast. Pretty much if someone calls a magazine a clip, they will instantly lose credibility to most gun fans.
I share this sentiment. On the handful of airsoft forums (read: gun nut havens) I used to frequent, the difference between a mag and a clip was a major point of contention between noobs and veterans.
So, I like thinking way ahead. At some point I'm going to live off-campus. Then I'll be able to own a gun. There seem to be plenty of knowledgable people in here, so I'll ask everyone's opinion: What would be a good first gun to own for home and personal defense and for target practice? I like the look and feel of the H&K USP. I've only fired two guns thusfar. Those were the Baretta 9mm and the .44 Magnum. The Magnum felt overpowered for my purposes. I'm not a fan of revolvers. I'd prefer a magazine-fed handgun. Not sure what my budget will be by then.
You definitely don't need a .44 mag for concealed carry. On that note, what you can carry will depend on your body type. I, being the small and skinny guy I am, would never be able to get away with concealing a USP, or even the compact version for that matter, unless of course I was wearing a heavy jacket too. Anything compact and chambered in 9/.40/.45 would be your best bet. As far as what model to go with, the sky is the limit right now, as there are so many good designs out. Glocks are good, as well as M&P's, XD's, FNP's, Sigs, and of course H&K's. It really comes down to what you like the best, and what you can conceal well. Pocket pistols have recently made a comeback too, and while they are convenient, I'd carry something bigger if possible. The only Pocket pistol caliber I'd even feel comfortable carrying is .380. Any caliber less than that (.32, .25, ect.) is going to serverely lack in penetration.
So what I'm getting from this is that the magazine is what actually supplies the bullets that go in the chamber. The clip is a device for guns that have an internal magazine, but either the loading mechanism would be awkward/impossible or holds too few bullets to be useful? Is this accurate, albeit very imprecise?
You definitely don't need a .44 mag for concealed carry. On that note, what you can carry will depend on your body type. I, being the small and skinny guy I am, would never be able to get away with concealing a USP, or even the compact version for that matter, unless of course I was wearing a heavy jacket too. Anything compact and chambered in 9/.40/.45 would be your best bet. As far as what model to go with, the sky is the limit right now, as there are so many good designs out. Glocks are good, as well as M&P's, XD's, FNP's, Sigs, and of course H&K's. It really comes down to what you like the best, and what you can conceal well. Pocket pistols have recently made a comeback too, and while they are convenient, I'd carry something bigger if possible. The only Pocket pistol caliber I'd even feel comfortable carrying is .380. Any caliber less than that (.32, .25, ect.) is going to serverely lack in penetration.
So what I'm getting from this is that the magazine is what actually supplies the bullets that go in the chamber. The clip is a device for guns that have an internal magazine, but either the loading mechanism would be awkward/impossible or holds too few bullets to be useful? Is this accurate, albeit very imprecise?
Clips load magazines, magazines feed cartriges into the gun.
I would prefer a magazine fed handgun over a revolver for defense because revolvers have a low capacity, and although they do make speed loaders, and some revolvers take moon clips, reloading is still more complicated than for a magazine fed weapon.
A question!
How do handguns and weapons with the magazine behind the trigger fire?
For example. Steyr AUG.
Maybe I haven't evolved from trigger pulls hammer, hammer strikes primer/charge, bullet go bang.
But how does the hammer get from the trigger to where the mag is?
There is.
For example, the M1 can be tooled to accept magazines. If you're trying to communicate that to someone, and you say "My M1 takes clips", they'll think it's clip-fed.
NO! IT MATTERS!...
Actually, to the average joe shooter, it doesn't really. Though it is annoying to people that have learned to differentiate the two, including me. I'm not sure why though. I supposed the best way to compare it would be if everyone used the terms "airplane" and "helocopter" interchangeably, and aircraft hobbiest's got bothered by it. I won't correct someone for misusing the word though.
Maybe fighter and bomber and I'll see your point :wink.gif:
So is a mag and a clip. If we are in a zombie situation and someone asks me for a clip, I will hand them a paper clip and leave them to die. :B
but to gun enthusiests, clips and magazines are painstaking obviously two different things. : )
I'll be the first to admit it's pretty dumb how it came to be this way, considering "clip" and "magazine" were used so interchangeably in the past, that even the manufactures would sometimes market magazines as clips.
Fighters and bombers are also generally very easy to tell apart.
Fighter (F-16 Fighting Falcon multirole fighter, the quintessential "fighter jet" to most people)
Bomber (B-52 Stratofortress)
Generally, bombers are several volumes larger than fighters. Unless, by "bombers", you're also including "fighter bombers", which covers pretty much every fighter fielded by the US Armed Forces because of the versatility of weapon hardpoints.
but yes, fighter and bomber (to most people) are quite different.
Sure can! That's pretty much how we got the M14.
Well, I mean, a standard M1 Garand can be tooled to take a magazine. The M14 capitalized on this, and AFAIK enhanced the mechanical bits and bobs in the receiver.
And holy **** M14s are sexy. I was at a shooting event at the Sheriff's Office, guy beside me was using an M14 in OD Green with some kind of crazy-ass scope mounted, pulling magazines out of an old .50 cal ammunition box.
It also serves to note he was one of the instructors.
I share this sentiment. On the handful of airsoft forums (read: gun nut havens) I used to frequent, the difference between a mag and a clip was a major point of contention between noobs and veterans.
So, I like thinking way ahead. At some point I'm going to live off-campus. Then I'll be able to own a gun. There seem to be plenty of knowledgable people in here, so I'll ask everyone's opinion: What would be a good first gun to own for home and personal defense and for target practice? I like the look and feel of the H&K USP. I've only fired two guns thusfar. Those were the Baretta 9mm and the .44 Magnum. The Magnum felt overpowered for my purposes. I'm not a fan of revolvers. I'd prefer a magazine-fed handgun. Not sure what my budget will be by then.
Revolvers are a lot easier to maintain, and the only fail-to-fires you'll get will be a result of the ammunition instead of the action. From a personal defense standpoint, the six (or more/less, depending on the model and manufacturer) rounds you're allotted will be enough unless you're caught in an extended firefight (you won't be unless you're a dumbass).
My dad carries a S&W Sigma in .40S&W, it's pretty much a Glock clone but cheaper. I love firing it, only point of contention is the trigger, far too stiff (but you can fix that with a quick modification, replace the spring with a softer one from, say, a mechanical pencil).
Glocks are great pistols, you really can't go wrong with one. I would just suggest trying to get your hands on one to make sure the grip angle is comfortable for you (it's a shallower angle and some people don't like it). I have a Springfield XDM in 9mm as a carry/range pistol and it's pretty decent, but also pretty expensive. I've never owned a revolver and the only one I ever shot was a cap and ball. Revolvers are more reliable but don't think that magazine fed pistols are unreliable. I've put a couple thousand rounds through my Springfield and haven't had a single problem.
1911's are extremely popular. You can get them in other chamberings besides .45 but they are a touch more expensive, accessories are harder to find, and some have tons of problems (my Kimber Ultra CDP2 in 9mm is a $1300 POS).
Try and fire as many different rounds as you can to see what you like. Don't listen to anyone that tells you 9mm won't stop anyone, they are full of ****. .45 is kind of the mainstay of self protection but it is more expensive to shoot (almost 2x more than 9mm) and you can carry less in the pistol. 9mm is less effective then .45, but if you are using hollow points (I don't know why you wouldn't) and shoot the bad guy somewhere that matters, you will put him on his ass.
You definitely don't need a .44 mag for concealed carry. On that note, what you can carry will depend on your body type. I, being the small and skinny guy I am, would never be able to get away with concealing a USP, or even the compact version for that matter, unless of course I was wearing a heavy jacket too. Anything compact and chambered in 9/.40/.45 would be your best bet. As far as what model to go with, the sky is the limit right now, as there are so many good designs out. Glocks are good, as well as M&P's, XD's, FNP's, Sigs, and of course H&K's. It really comes down to what you like the best, and what you can conceal well. Pocket pistols have recently made a comeback too, and while they are convenient, I'd carry something bigger if possible. The only Pocket pistol caliber I'd even feel comfortable carrying is .380. Any caliber less than that (.32, .25, ect.) is going to serverely lack in penetration.
Aren't you british?
So what I'm getting from this is that the magazine is what actually supplies the bullets that go in the chamber. The clip is a device for guns that have an internal magazine, but either the loading mechanism would be awkward/impossible or holds too few bullets to be useful? Is this accurate, albeit very imprecise?
Clips load magazines, magazines feed cartriges into the gun.
I would prefer a magazine fed handgun over a revolver for defense because revolvers have a low capacity, and although they do make speed loaders, and some revolvers take moon clips, reloading is still more complicated than for a magazine fed weapon.
How do handguns and weapons with the magazine behind the trigger fire?
For example. Steyr AUG.
Maybe I haven't evolved from trigger pulls hammer, hammer strikes primer/charge, bullet go bang.
But how does the hammer get from the trigger to where the mag is?