Yes, there is a big difference between a clip and a magazine...anyone familiar with firearms knows the difference.
I guess you're also not too familiar with the Ruger 10/22...I have a couple of 25-rounders for mine, and they make 50 and 110 round drums for it.
Also, the Brits did just fine with their semi-auto only L1A1 SLR. Granted, in the Falklands, many Tommies ditched their L1A1s and picked up surrendered Argentine select fire FALs, but keep in mind, that came only after the battles, which the Brits won with their semi-auto L1A1s. So yes, you can successfully assault an objective with semi-auto rifles.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Not familiar with any larger rifles though I’ve held an old original AR-15 in Cambodia, an AK47 in So. Vietnam, and and M 16 and PRG at the Grenada exhibit at Andrews Air Force Base in 1983.
I only have an old 1968 Remington 15-LR ramrod rifle for target shooting (I was able to shoot a 1.5” pattern at 75 ft. Did shoot a shotgun at a tree - made it into toothpicks. I’m not a hunter. However, used to shoot .22 cal rifles, single shot, at amusement parks when I was young.
Only time I fired a handgun was when my son, a police officer, took me to an indoor range and lent me his Ruger. I was a pretty good shot at 15-25 feet. Stitched a Bin Laden target vertically from his forehead to his chin in 3 shoots. Most of the others went into his chest.
My daughter can shoot very well, as can my granddaughter. Her husband is a Marine veteran of combat in Kosovo and Iraq. My son is a combat veteran of Iraq, a sharpshooter with an M249. Also a former police officer. Pick a weapon and he has probably fired it either in combat or target practice.
I got a rifle because of the 1968 riots in DC (I lived nearby) and Baltimore, where we had a family store and the mayors of both cities, plus AG Ramsay Clark, did nothing to stop the rioters, arsonists, and looters.
I just wanted to know that I could shoot accurately if there was an emergency to protect my family, friends, or even strangers from the psychos who roam our streets.
Interesting comments on the Falkland Islands war. The Argentinians used FALs (Israeli or Belgian?), while the Brits had “semi automatics only”. Something was wrong with the Brits esp. for those who fought in Vietnam (over 2,000 or more) and knew that automatic rifles were needed for jungle and grassland warfare, as well as some mountain warfare (The Falklands were nothing but a pile of rocks for the most part).
The main point I wanted to make is that most journalists and news talking heads don’t know shit about weapons, period. Lots of them still thought that the old police lead .38s were a good weapon, not realizing that it usually didn’t stop a PCP-crazed assailant unless they were shot in the head or the heart. That is why most PDs went to the .45s or S&W Specials or .357 Magnums. Stopping power.
Thanks for the information. It just goes to show how complicated the “assault rifle” issue is and how it can get screwed up by the media, as well as just by us plain old civilians.