Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-28-2013, 01:18   #1
Andy W
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,954
how did the 10 round mag limit come about?

Who originally came up with the idea of reduced capacity 10 round mags? Why 10 rounds? Who originally thought it was a good idea to outlaw standard capacity double stack mags in favor of these? It's something I've been wondering about and it would be great if someone who has been around a while could shed some light on it.
Andy W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 01:29   #2
xRUSTYx
9mm Fanboy
 
xRUSTYx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Deep South
Posts: 63
In my opinion ... They needed to start some where.

With common standard mags at 12/15/20/30/etc... I feel the Democraps wanted to still *allow* a 2 digit number, being the smallest they could = the number "10". Less people would *****, moan, & complain.

Look at Cali folk vs the new New York ban. Most people don't blink an eye at 10 round limits, but as soon as that drops to 7, all hell breaks loose
xRUSTYx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 01:31   #3
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
how did the 10 round mag limit come about?
It came from retarded Liberals that like to pass more laws that make them, "Feel Good" rather than blame a system that they already put in place that doesn't work.
__________________
When you finish speaking, don't forget to wipe.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 01:33   #4
BobbyT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,794
Some states limit you to 20, some 15, some 10, now NY goes with 7. Nothing magical about them, just the closest they could get to 0 at the time.

Some claim that eeeeeevil "rich" starts at 1 M, some 400k, some 250k, some 100k. In Greece it's now 55k.

Some countries have tax rates of 12%, some 20%, some 40%, and some 75%. Nothing magic about those either, but each of the latter is the closest they could get to 100 at the time.

Control freaks want control, in whatever amount you will give it to them. Their definition of "reasonable" will always be just a bit further than what you've already given them, and they'll never give a real number to "fair share", it's just more than whatever it is now.
BobbyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 01:36   #5
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,252
It came about the same way that 98.389% of all statistics do. Somebody pulled a number out of their ass, and some people fell for it.
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 01:46   #6
Andy W
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,954
Weren't 10 round mags actually produced before the ban on "high caps?" I remember reading that the NYPD ordered them for their early issued semiautos because they felt high caps would cause their officers to "spray and pray" even more than they were already in the habit of doing.









'
Andy W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 05:55   #7
RUT
Senior Member
 
RUT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 723
>>Who originally came up with the idea of reduced capacity 10 round mags?<<

To put it into liberal parlance, it's a good "first step". New York has shown us what the "second step" is.
__________________
Ham Shack #11 (K1HS)
NRA since '63
USMC
"Foreign Aid: The transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries."
RUT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 06:34   #8
MrMurphy
Lifetime Membership
*********
 
MrMurphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Buried in the X-files
Posts: 31,706
Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.
__________________
"And Shepherds we shall be. For thee, my Lord for thee. Power hath descended forth from thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In nomine Patris, et fili, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen."
MrMurphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 07:47   #9
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 15,350
10 is a nice round number for the simpleton antis. NYC PD also used to use FMJ ammo back then. So you can see the stupidity of those that were in charge back then.

Last edited by cowboy1964; 01-28-2013 at 07:47..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 07:52   #10
BuckyP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
BuckyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 9,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMurphy View Post
Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.
Yep, the "libs" didn't think up magazine capacity limits. Bill Ruger said 15 was enough. Interestingly, this was when his pistols were loosing sales to the then new to the US 17 round pistol.

California passed a 15 round AWB ban, and New Jersey soon followed. Neither had any kind of grandfathering. The ban was overturned in California because of it. Of course, California followed up with a different ban later on.

The case was also brought against the NJ law, but apparently the US Constitution somehow doesn't apply the same, so NJ was, and still is, stuck with this law.

As for 10, once the seed was planted, it was the anti's way in as a way of incrementalism. Now NY is going to 7 rounds, and there are bills being proposed to limit to 5 rounds (I got a newsletter saying someone is proposing this in NJ, though I don't know the details, or if it has any sponsors).
BuckyP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 08:12   #11
CMG
Senior Member
 
CMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Don't Mess with Texas
Posts: 4,401
I apoplgize in advance, as I've lost the citation for the following:

"...on 30 March 1989 (WBR) had his proposed legislation delivered to 535 members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

'The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:

'The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.'

'Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate.'

Bill was trying (in a misguided way) to prevent a ban on any semi-autos by suggesting instead a limit on magazine capacity. The demoncraps in control of congress (along with Clinton and Gore) simply changed it from 15 to 10, then added the mag restriction on to their AW bill and passed it with Gore casting the deciding vote in the Senate.

Although WBR usually gets all the blame, Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby also supported Bill's position at the time… They were all members of SAAMI.

Bill Ruger in 1999 or 2000, in an interview with the NRA, when he donated about a million bucks to them, said in hind-sight, he shouldn't have made the proposal.
__________________
Nobody has the right to never be offended!
CMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 09:50   #12
collim1
Shower Time!
 
collim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 10,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMG View Post
I apoplgize in advance, as I've lost the citation for the following:

"...on 30 March 1989 (WBR) had his proposed legislation delivered to 535 members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

'The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:

'The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.'

'Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate.'

Bill was trying (in a misguided way) to prevent a ban on any semi-autos by suggesting instead a limit on magazine capacity. The demoncraps in control of congress (along with Clinton and Gore) simply changed it from 15 to 10, then added the mag restriction on to their AW bill and passed it with Gore casting the deciding vote in the Senate.

Although WBR usually gets all the blame, Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby also supported Bill's position at the time… They were all members of SAAMI.

Bill Ruger in 1999 or 2000, in an interview with the NRA, when he donated about a million bucks to them, said in hind-sight, he shouldn't have made the proposal.
Wow, I had no idea SAAMI Benedict Arnold'd us that way.
collim1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 09:53   #13
Darkangel1846
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,764
the number 10 is stuck in the Democrat mind because thats either their IQ or the last grade they attended before dropping out of school.

actually feinswine came up with that number.
__________________
Peter 5:8
"Be sober, be vigilant; Because your adversary the Devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour."

Last edited by Darkangel1846; 01-28-2013 at 09:54..
Darkangel1846 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 09:57   #14
arclight610
Senior Member
 
arclight610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by collim1 View Post
Wow, I had no idea SAAMI Benedict Arnold'd us that way.
I will never follow their maximum safe pressure in my reloading data ever again.
arclight610 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 10:31   #15
brisk21
Senior Member
 
brisk21's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,738
Whoever came up with it first doesn't matter. Its still an arbritrary number. How do you just draw a line in the sand with something like that? 10 is ok, but 11!!! 11 makes the gun too deadly for us meager subjects to the law! C'mon!
brisk21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 10:57   #16
garya1961
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyT View Post
Some states limit you to 20, some 15, some 10, now NY goes with 7. Nothing magical about them, just the closest they could get to 0 at the time.

Some claim that eeeeeevil "rich" starts at 1 M, some 400k, some 250k, some 100k. In Greece it's now 55k.

Some countries have tax rates of 12%, some 20%, some 40%, and some 75%. Nothing magic about those either, but each of the latter is the closest they could get to 100 at the time.

Control freaks want control, in whatever amount you will give it to them. Their definition of "reasonable" will always be just a bit further than what you've already given them, and they'll never give a real number to "fair share", it's just more than whatever it is now.
This^. Excellent post.
garya1961 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 11:01   #17
ca survivor
Senior Member
 
ca survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMurphy View Post
Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.
Bill also said, that he wouldn't built a gun that will fit in a pocket, look at Ruger now.... he must be turning
ca survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 11:28   #18
concretefuzzynuts
Brew Crew
 
concretefuzzynuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: PNW
Posts: 6,269
Because that's the number of fingers we have and that's as high as liberals can count.
__________________
GTDS Member #7
GOTOD Member #757
Snub Club Member #757
NRA Member
Member
concretefuzzynuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 13:49   #19
BuckyP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
BuckyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 9,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts View Post
Because that's the number of fingers we have and that's as high as liberals can count.
BuckyP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 16:16   #20
poodleplumber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,114
Thirty-round magazines have been used in some shootings, and the gun grabbers can't think of any numbers between 10 and 30.

I am just astounded that those people think that a momentary pause in shooting is a solution to a mass shooting. The real answer, of course is the incremental-ism that was cited above.
poodleplumber is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 547
129 Members
418 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31