New Video Crushes Myth About ‘Large-Capacity’ Magazines

By Woody published on in AR-15, Chronicle, Defensive Tactics, Firearm Accessories, Firearms, General, Guest Posts, Handguns, Magazines, News, Rifles, Shooting Techniques

A video demonstration conducted under the supervision Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana, shows that magazine limitations have little or no real effect on a shooter’s ability to deliver aimed fire.

ken-campbell-video-capture

Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana, oversaw testing that magazine limitations have little or no effect on a shooter’s ability to deliver aimed fire. Funding for the video was provided by ArmaLite.

In the video, Sheriff Campbell says, “One of the reasons that magazine restrictions are being proposed is the perception that if the active shooter has fewer bullets in magazines, he will have to reload sooner and this will create an opportunity for someone to tackle him during the reload.”

In the demonstrations, that notion is proven to be false.

Under Sheriff Campbell’s supervision, two shooters—an experienced male shooter and a novice female shooter—are able to repeatedly fire 30-round shot strings at three targets, using 15-, 10- and 6-round magazines, all in under 30 seconds.

The male demonstrator fired 30 rounds from a pistol, first with two 15-round magazines, in 20.64 seconds. Then he fired three 10-rounders in 18.05 seconds and five 6-round magazines in 21.45 seconds.

The woman fired the same magazine sequence, emptying two 15-round magazines in 22.9 seconds. She then fired three 10-rounders in 25.51 seconds and five 6-round magazines in 26.93 seconds.

In addition, the man then fires 20 rounds from an AR-15 rifle using a single magazine, in 12.16 seconds. He then fired 20 rounds using two 10-round magazines in less time, 10.73 seconds.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (94)

  • Rural home owner

    |

    To those who think the demo shooters had convenient mag placement, mags kept at the waist in mag holsters can be drawn as easily as they picked them up off the drums. To those who commented that they had to work the action after every reload or keep 1 bullet in the chamber, most semi autos lock the action open after the last round, you slide in the new mag, touch the slide release and continue shooting. If you are going to comment on something like this you should take the time to know what you are talking about.
    JonnyDeath…wrap your superior brain around the fact that at Sandy Hook the unarmed ladies in the front office did rush the shooter and he was firing when ever he pleased because no one was shooting back. If you look at most mass shootings the attacker has purposely chosen targets where there are unlikely to be armed adversaries and there will be plenty of defenseless victims. You’ve haven’t seen very many shooters attack the police station have you? Dimwit!

    I have 30 round magazines because it’s convenient. Gun grabbers want to limit magazine capacity not because it will actually make a difference in public safety but because it’s a way to get their foot in the door to pass other idiotic laws and eventually make the entire public defenseless.

    If a shooter took that clown Biden’s advice and brought a shot gun instead of an AR to a mas shooting he could do far more damage. Most sport shotguns will hold from 3 to 5 rounds. If you load number 4 buck shot that puts anywhere form 27 to 45 projectiles in play without a reload and I can reload my shot gun damn quick.

    People are the problem not guns, ammo or magazines.

    Reply

  • Joseph E. Price

    |

    Comment #13 is a well-programmed Obama-bot. As such, the propaganda purported by the left-wingers is thoroughly and completely debunked, leaving no room for argument by any rational individual. Only the people who wish to control and disarm the American public under the 1961 “Freedom from War” policy can remain undaunted after viewing this video.

    Using the “scientific method”, this demonstration is about as scientific as it can get by utilizing a professional shooter (control) against the abilities of a normal, everyday person (variable). It shows the hypothesis of negligent timing change in relation to magazine changes and then proves the hypothesis by taking the Democratic Party argument from different angles such as semi-auto pistol, semi-auto rifle, and revolver by using current tactics or TTPs that are used on the streets of America. The data was properly collected and then proved the Democratic Party propaganda to be false. Smaller magazine sizes do NOT affect the capacity of an active shooter to do harm.

    It is the mind of the person that must be dealt with. The firearm is only a tool.

    Did Navy SEALs kill bin Laden or did the weapons jump off a helicopter all by themselves and kill him?

    Food for thought, ladies and gentlemen: I served in the Army for 12 years as an infantryman and a scout with 3 combat tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am well-versed in firearms and safety. I know quite a bit about this subject. Keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals should be the objective. Data HAS proven that towns with an open carry requirement have little to no crime because criminals prey on the defenseless. There are towns in GA and TX which fit that description. Democrat-controlled areas such as NYC and Chicago have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, yet they are the most rampant in gun-related deaths. It seems to me that if we want a safer America, we should employ the National Guard to be at our schools. They are coming home to find that there are no jobs available. They would be better employed by staying on duty in that capacity as well as securing our southern border with Mexico. They have an income, our nation is safer, and those troops are well-trained to deal with active shooters.

    Reply

  • Scott

    |

    A lot of good comments by all people. Everyone will have A different option but #13 can just suck it. What A idiot!

    Reply

  • George

    |

    I understand all the “it wasn’t a scientific demonstration” arguments; but here is the thing…where were the scientific demonstrations that justified the 10 round limit? The right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right that is not to be infringed upon. For the government to limit it, there must be a compelling reason. There were no studies cited that would indicate that fewer people would be shot if magazine capacities were reduced to 10. The 10 round limitation is an arbitrary number with no justification provided for its implementation. Here in CT, we now are restricted to that many rounds in our magazines. I believe our rights have been trampled on and there was no scientific study or demonstration to support that usurpation of our liberty.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


− three = 1