This week, in Part 3 of this series, we continue our exercise of trying to define “military-grade.” If you recall, we’re trying to determine if there is a feature, or combination of features, that helps us define military-grade reasonably and practically. Once again, we are trying to find a definition that aids the designs of gun control. Last week, in Part 2, we began our deep-dive into the features of the most hated (and most loved) firearm in America: the AR-15. In that article, I started by looking at whether we can label a semi-automatic firearm as military-grade. At length, I arrived upon the only verdict reason allows: that the semi-automatic function is far too standard in civilian use for us to credibly define such weapons as military-grade. Here in Part 3, I’m going to discuss the next AR-15 feature that gun control advocates so often treat as military-grade: ammunition capacity.
The well-known phrase when it comes to ammo capacity is “High-capacity.” “High-Capacity Magazines” are a top target for gun regulation. Some states already have burdensome regulations on what they define as high-capacity mags and on the weapons that can use them.
Specific to the AR-15’s ammo capacity, it has several standard magazine options which include 10, 20, and 30. Far less common, but still available, are 50-round drum-mags and 100-round dual drum- mags.
Given the ability to quickly reload an AR-15…
…ammunition capacity beyond the standard magazine options has not played as significant a part in making the AR-15 more lethal in its application as some might assume. But it does play a role if the shooter knows enough about the proper operation of his weapon.
The ability to maintain a steady barrage of fire leaves fewer gaps for a driven response against the shooter. It can also allow a much higher saturation of fire at the start of a shooting if the shooter targets tightly packed crowds or if the shooter is positioned at a choke point. If a shooter overcomes the higher chance of the weapon jamming, a far clumsier reload, and the increased difficulty of storing and concealing such large mags, the shooter achieves the potential for using what would otherwise be a point weapon as an area weapon (I discussed the difference in Part 1).
However, military and law enforcement rarely use mags beyond 30-round capacity, if ever. This is because most drum-mags are known to jam. Also, experience has shown that the pause in shooting forced by a reload keeps the weapon from overheating, avoiding weapon-crippling malfunction. Constant reloads also help combat the effects of tunnel vision. In fact, the M16 was first fielded in Vietnam with only 20-round mags because the military did not yet consider the available 30-round mags reliable enough for the field.
Drum magazines in use by active shooters have malfunctioned and jammed. Specifically, the Aurora Colorado Shooter may have been able to kill many more than just 17, given the confined space and the locked exit, if he had not used a 100-round dual drum magazine which caused his weapon to fail repeatedly.
Most weapons in use by the military do use detachable mags with a capacity above 20, even the ones that aren’t semi-auto. There are reasons for this. However, using the ammo capacity as a way to classify a weapon as military-grade runs into the same problem that we had trying to use the semi-auto feature. Most semi-auto weapons use detachable mags or have internal magazines with considerable capacity. Remember that Ruger 10/22 I mentioned in Part 2 that I got when I was 12?
Yup, essentially all the same magazine capacity options. Most popular, and even outdated, semi-automatic pistols have extended and drum magazines designed for them as well.
Once again, we’re talking about the vast majority of civilian-owned firearms. All of the same problems that we discussed in Part 2, in regards to semi-automatic firearms, also apply to weapons that can use large mags. To classify firearms as military-grade based on their ability to accept large mags would be to classify most civilian-owned and used guns over the last century. Clearly, ammo capacity doesn’t make for a military-grade weapon.
But, in this aspect at least, gun reform activists have taken a different tact and gone after the magazines themselves. They argue if they can ban magazines beyond a certain capacity, then semi-automatic weapons become far less deadly. They also assert that just as there is no civilian need for an area weapon, like we talked about in Part 1, there is also no civilian need for high capacity magazines.
They’re saying that instead of classing weapons as military-grade we can instead class accessories, like high capacity mags, as military-grade. With this one, the devils in the details.
As I mentioned before, the military and police do not use drum magazines because they are unwieldy and highly prone to causing weapon failure. Mass shooters have only used drum magazines in a few instances. It is arguable whether they afforded any impact on the number of casualties since the perpetrators of most of the worst mass shootings used only standard-size magazines.
Clearly, to have an impact, a ban on magazines would have to target more than the 50 and 100-round drum magazines. So, what would be a sufficient number to specify? The amount would have to be surprisingly low to have any impact.
Do you remember what we talked about earlier with M16s in Vietnam, how soldiers only had 20-round magazines? Any surviving Viet Cong can probably attest to the M16’s effective use even with 20-round magazines.
So, we’re left with the smallest AR-15 mag size: 10. But, if you’ve been paying attention to the pattern here, you’ll probably see the issue. Most of the semi-auto weapons in use by civilians, especially pistols, have a standard mag capacity larger than ten. A ban on high-capacity magazines defined as more than ten rounds would instantly render almost every magazine currently owned by law-abiding gun owners for their semi-automatic firearms as illegal and render illegal many firearms with internal magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Once more, we are forced to conclude that, given the general usage of semi-automatic firearms with large ammo capacity among civilians going back more than a hundred years, we cannot reasonably consider a weapon military-grade based solely upon this feature.
In the next article, we’re going to finish things out by discussing the rest of the AR-15 features. We’re also going to discuss whether a combination of features allows for a usable label of military-grade. Then, we’ll wrap it all up and conclude whether military-grade is a workable weapon classification (and whether it even means what this series has been assuming it means).
Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk. As a political writer, his principles and ideas are grounded in the ideas of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. His writing has been featured at the Federalist Coalition, the NOQ Report, and Porter Medium. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
- The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
- Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
- The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020