New Video Crushes Myth About ‘Large-Capacity’ Magazines

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.

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.

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 (95)

  1. 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.

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. To arkolgrumpy: I did serve as an infantryman in vietnam for a whole year and in the field. I know what it takes to peotect myself and you obviously do not. You must be a clairvoyant who sees in the future and can tell what the threat to your family will be in advance. You sir are an idiot and I would guess a liberal. Only liberals talk like you do. Jefferson was one of many of the writers of the constitution that knew that we get our rights from god (and you seem to have a problem with God as do most liberals – if you don’t want to include God just think of it as “natures” law), not from any government. I don’t believe that we should be able to own F16s because the cost would be too probibitive. As far as all the other stuff like suitcase nukes, you are the screwball by even suggesting that. You people are always trying to paint us as nut jobs but it is you that is nuts. Your statement about “The lie that we need high capacity mags” says it all about you. You make a statement like that and then try to cover it up with more BS. There were many libs here before the election making statements like “you guys are so silly! Being worried that Obama will take away your guns! Why – Romney is the only one who passed an assault weapons ban!” Remember that? I’m sure you do because you were probably one of the jerks making those comments. Go to hell.

  6. To Frank: And you want me to get serious?

    You claim to have a God-given right to cannons, machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, TNT, dynamite, C4, napalm and suicase nuclear weapons? That makes you sound like one of the knuckleheads that motivates the anti-gun crowd. C’mon, man. The military needs high capacity magazines because they are fighting unknown numbers of hostiles, and law enforcement needs them because the criminals often outnumber and out-gun them. Until the SHTF, we are, for the most part, talking about defending ourselves, our families and our stuff against a limited number of home invaders; a good 12 gauge loaded with no. 4 buckshot will do that pretty nicely. When Armageddon does come, it will be no holds barred.

    However, if you had read my post a little more carefully, all I said was that a test like the one described also supports the argument we do not need high capacity magazines; I did not say I agree with that argument. In reality, I do not think more gun laws, including restrictions on magazine size, will remedy the problem, which traces back to the breakdown of the family and of the moral fiber of our people. Guns are a tool; people are the problem.

    By the way, Jefferson wrote the Constitution. God did not appear in some burning bush in Washington and inscribe the Constitution on marble or granite slabs. Jefferson even included a mechanism for changing the Constitution–called amendments–but it requires a very strict procedure, and Obama and his leftwing disciples cannot accomplish it by Presidential fiat.

    You do not have any God-given right to an F-22 fighter, a B-1 bomber or a nuclear submarine. If you want to play with those toys, serve your country honorably in the military; otherwise, you sound like someone who should not be allowed to own a firearm at all.

  7. To arkolgrumpy: “the lie that we need larger magazines” is a lie. We DO need them. If they are not needed why does the military ans ALL law enforcement have them? Get real. You are not helping this conversation at all. This is way more that a “slippery slope” this is about the rights we already have from God. The subject of small or large capcity magazines and whether we should be “allowed” to have them is nonsense. We by law (the constitution) are protected to have the right to whatever the military has. The fact that we don’t have cannons, machine guns and rocket launchers only serves to prove how many rights we have lost already.

  8. Someone may have already said this, but, it seems to me, the downside to this test is that, to some extent, it puts the lie to our argument that we need the larger capacity magazines. If one can shoot almost as many rounds, almost as quickly, out of smaller magazines, what purpose do the larger magazines serve?

    However, allowing the anti-gunners to impose restrictions on magazines is just another step on the slippery slope to registration,further regulation, and, ultimately, congfiscation. Stop them in their tracks.

    molon labe

  9. Did j’all notice that those trolls from the Al Franken post didn’t come over here? Yeah, this is too hard for them to argue about. You know who I mean.

  10. All the discussion of scientific technicalities and rate of fire, split times, etc., misses the main point which I believe is this. Regardless of the size of your magazines, 30, 20 or 10, most anyone with decent shooting skills can fire off one hell of lot rounds in a very short period of time and can continue to do so until they run out of ammo, thus making the anti-gun lobby restrictions on magazine size totally worthless in controlling or stopping criminals with guns.

  11. I totally agree with the CRITICISMS that are made here EXCEPT for one.

    No one is SHOOTING BACK———Well we have GUN FREE ZONES where there is NO ONE firing BACK—-That is the WHOLE POINT.

    All the others are very well found founded.

    I use revolver and USE speed loaders and I have BEAT people with magazines in contests of accuracy and speed of shooting.

    IN THE END we still have our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS being stolen from us.

  12. do mass killers really ‘aim’?

    ‘tactical’ reloading is a recommended practice for engaged shooters.

    bad mouth the set up and execution of this demo all you want to.
    every single action recorded in this video can and will be duplicated by the bad guys with guns.

    ever notice bad guys with guns stop shooting when there is returned fire,
    they are at best cowards, or bully’s.

    you pass enough laws you will make every man a criminal.

    the ignorant,the uninformed and the corrupt need the laws they advocate,
    they fear the authority of the individual that makes everyone equal.
    you cant be ‘the elite’ if you are only equal.

  13. To Chuck: Your comment, “should have been 10” says you believe a 10 round limit must be a good thing. Oh really? That also means that when those 3 gang bangers each armed with 19 shot Glocks (Gang bangers don’t use ARs), you will have your SKS with a 10 rounds to protect yourself. You don’t have to worry about changing that 10 round mag because at that point you are dead. Get it?

  14. I agree that the convinient placement of the mags takes some credence away from the study, but I disagree about those arguing for going to empty/slide-lock. Even Adam Lanza did not go to empty. He reloaded before he ran out. As for tackling the shooter- on the receiving end of the shooting, taking cover, you’re not going to know if he ran out or just stopped pulling the trigger. Your ONLY chance is to be able to fire back- which brings up the next point… Having been an infantryman, I know the value of suppressive fire; shooting at your opponent less accurately to force him to take cover, while allowing you to move into a more advantagious position. With low-capacity mags, you would lose this option. You better hit the attacker and hope he doesn’t get to cover to really turn it into a protracted fight, because if you can’t hold him down with shots of your own, you’ll run out… he won’t.
    Still, the “New York Reload” demo was EXCELLENT at making a point.

  15. Gun enthusiasts all speak of the “what if” scenarios, and construct tests like this to show “it makes no difference”. The REAL WORLD facts are someone has already taken down a shooter trying to reload, and by God it DID make difference. Not for the people shot with the first 30 rounds (which should have been 10) but for all the ones which would have been next. Did any of these rounds in this test hit a target? Were they even aiming at one? How can someone possibly shoot 3 clips faster than 2, ACCURATELY? At the hearings 2 weeks ago the only example of home defense by a housewife protecting her home and children involved a shotgun; even us wild eyed liberals keep shotguns at home, Joe Biden says “Go buy a shotgun”.
    Lets face it, the real driver here is money. The AR-15 with its huge assortment of accessories is a “money pit” for owners: gotta have those high cap mags, that .22 long conversion kit, the short “bush” barrel, the long accurate barrel,the camo stock, folding-extending stock, optics of all kinds, etc. When they sell an AR-15 for $600, they know that that owner WILL be buying more accessories, usually adding up to $1500-$2000 for that single sale. A shotgun is $300 and out. Which would you rather sell?
    I also own an SKS with a couple of 30 rd mags. It is a mean looking gun with an extending stock. A very dangerous weapon, and not one I would feel comfortable seeing anyone carrying around except at the range. I love my guns and won’t give them up under any circumstance. Thats not what the current debate is about. Its about background checks and lower capacity mags. And if the experts can shoot more bullets with lower capacity mags than high, why the hell do you have high cap mags for???? This article is actually an advertisement that high cap mags aren’t necessary, you can shoot MORE with lower cap mags.
    Thank you for making it clear high cap mags are totally unnecessary for high throughput and need not be sold.

  16. I try to read most of the comments and I found a couple were it mentioned of having a person shooting back. If you add a good guy (using a paint ball weapon)shooting back at the bad guy from cover will prevent the bad guy to shoot at will, this will show that one person with a weapon will prevent the bad guy from shooting at will. My self, I’m a person that pack anything from a little .380 to a 1911 .45 depending what i’m goint to wear, but I also have a couple of spare magazines ( I’m also a Nam a Desert Storm Vet and I never wanted to run out of ammo in a fire fight)so on occations I also cary a PMR30 (this is a pistol on .22 Mag that uses a 30 round Mag)so with a spare mag I have 60 rounds at my disposal. My point is, to have a good test,include a couple of guys shooting back with less than lethal ammo and see how many times they hit the bad guy before he have a chance to reload.

  17. I think most of you are missing the point of the demonstration. It is a comparison not intended to be perfection. A demonstration of the relative differences between an evil person using various methods. That is the point.

    That said the anti gun crowd won’t listen and this is not what is important anyway. limiting rounds is just part of taking away your guns a little at a time. Don’t give them an in inch or you will lose them all. When the right to bear arms is gone the rest of your rights will follow.

    The right to keep and bear arms is inherit the the god given right to protect ones self from others and most of all from a tyrannical government. The founders put it in the constitution because they had just experienced that kind of government and they knew this was the only way it could be stopped from happening again.

    As for JonnyDeath’s comments. The writing doesn’t show the intelligence claimed. My uncle always said foul language and name calling was a small mind trying to express a big idea it didn’t understand.

  18. Am I the only one who sees what is going on here? We are basically tripping over ourselves trying to prove that not having high cap mags would not change the situation of a nut kob shooting up anywhere that the nut jobs knows that people will not shoot back – (gun free zones). This whole discussion is worthless. The anti-gun a holes will see this and will say: “that’s what we have been saying all along – it’s those evil semi-automatics that need to go!” If we try to appease these idiots they will end up walking all over our rights.

    Proving that a nut job shooter cannot be so easily overcome because he is (or isn’t)loading a mag is beyond nonsense. Just listen to what a lot of the comments are saying here: They are talking about subdoing an armed individual by unarmed people during the mag change! WHAT?! Are you people as nuts as the nut job at Sandy Hook? I’m sorry – but it sounds like it. The correct way of subdoing an armed individual is by blowning the brains out of that individual.

    No disrepect to the people that made this video because they had good intentions but good intentions alone can cost you your freedoms. This has as much to do with the need for high cap magazines as the price of rice in China. What this “test” says is: “We proved that a guy with 4 10 round mags can put out almost as much lead as one guy with a 40 rounder in the same amount of time”. Yeah? So what? That and $5.50 will get you a cup of coffee at starbucks. The libs will say semi autos are the real problem.

    I agree with J. Rizzo above – we are pissing up a rope.

  19. Interesting test. You reduce your creditability by NOT maintaining the same rate of fire with all magazines

  20. I totally agree that this magazine limit deal has only served to make some people alot of money. By tripling the price for them. Banning these magazines will have not effect on the problem at hand.
    I appreciate the demo, but am afraid it could add fuel to the fire.

    The “anti-gun” groups may just go one step further and say, “Well, then, we just ban all semi-automatics, or limit to single shot bolt action, or better yet ban them all!!”
    That is exagerated, but you get the point.

    To me, it is like arguing with a 2 year old that is afraid of the dark.
    It makes no sense to an informed adult whatsoever…but to the 2 yr old, they are literally scared to death…of nothing.

    Same goes for the “anti-gun” groups, they don’t get guns, they don’t like guns, they want them gone…no amount of logic will change that.
    Thanks for listening…

  21. Ok folks… what’s important to see in this video is the time spent after the discharge of the last cartridge fired and the first cartridge fired in the next magazine. Doesn’t really matter how many cartridges that are in the magazine, you will never have enough time to tackle the person before the next round is fired. If a person had a backpack is full of 7 round 45 ACP magazines… do you think you can tackle them?

  22. I don’t think the test was valid @ all. These two were TRAINED shooters and not in a stress situation. They each counted their shots and stopped before the last rd. in ea. mag. was fired. I guarantee you in a stress situation a normal citizen is not going to be counting rounds and the reload times will be longer IF they have a spare mag. handy and it won’t be on top of a barrel in front of them.

  23. This is no where near a real life demonstration. Real life perpetrators won’t have their magazines sitting on a drum right in front of them for easy and quick access. In real life a criminal with have a much longer reload time, thus giving rescuers a far greator opportunity to stop or shoot the perp. With large capacity magazines there is simply no opportuntiy for someone to even try to stop the perp. Lets get real.

  24. To Herbie: Your queation is a valid one. The larger magazine cap works both ways. It provides a bad guy with more firepower also. Firepower is king. The more the better. It is as simple as that.

    When I was in Vietnam. I was always envious of the NVA and the VC with their 30 round magazines and that did give them some firepower superiority – there is no doubt about that. T

    The saving grace for us for the most part was the inherent inaccuracy of the AK. It ALWAYS shoots high at any range over about 75 meters. If they caught us in an ambush at up close and personal ranges – we were “f”ed. We only had 20 rounders and loaded them to a Max of 19 with one in the chamber.

    Since the M16 in that iteration was super accurate and had a fair amount of killing power (campared to the M4s of today)if we stayed calm and took some kind of bead at what we shooting at – we usually won a firefight. We practiced shooting 2 and 3 round bursts in Training and that really paid off in the real deal. That’s where full auto came in to real value.

    You could spray and pray but if all the ammo you have is on your back you tend to treat it like it was gold. I carried 25 20 round mags and another 7 worth of loose ammo in bandoliers. Even if you were shooting in semi-auto (which was most of the time) you never shot at anything without aiming through those iron sights first.

    I can honestly say that 30 rounders would have been better for some things but the 20 rounders gave the rifle more balance for offhand shooting and at ranges greater than 75 meters or so quick changes were not that big of an issue. On the other hand if you were unlucky enough to get ambushed (and this is more closely related to defending yourself at home in a gang banger attack sort of senario) the bigger mags would most definately be an advantage.

    In that case you would be using a “quick kill” method of firing your rifle like a shotgun and just quickly sighting down the barrel. I used to try to aim low for the first few shots, watch the ground for where I was, and walk it up. The more rounds you have in that case, the better off you are.

    So there you have it. It’s just common sense as I said before. We can try to “negotiate” with the people that want to control us but they don’t care about facts of any kind, we should all be aware of that fact by now. They just want to disarm us. Period. Attempting to somehow “show” these people that large magazines are not the problem won’t work any more than pointing out that guns save more lives every year than are ever lost.

    Our point should be to the government: Yes, large magazines are an advantage, that’s why we need them. To protect ourselves from you!

  25. this is not to show the time diff between mags, they wanted to point out that a so-called “crazy gunman” can fire the same amount into a crowd, aiming and dispatching people at-will, because nobody else will be armed, and no cops will make it there within a minute. either shooter could have killed numerous people within 30 seconds, and even if you did shoot/stop them, they already did what they wanted to, they won the game. now all civilians get punished for one wrongdoer, by imposing a nonsensical, proprietary 10 or less shot count per magazine.
    “cutting off the nose just to spite the face” – the 10 round limit just means that:
    the magazine threatens me, because it is CAPABLE of a high volume of fire. VS
    the gun threatens me, because it has been IMPLEMENTED for evil uses.
    open your eyes and try to think for yourselves

  26. Great job sheriff.Maybe it wasnt the most scientific,but it got the point across.I am very happy to see that some law enforcement is reenforcing the fact that they are here to protect and serve the people not the government!

  27. The fact that they were showing total times for the shooting and the reload implies they were trying to be “scientific” to make a point. They failed for many reasons. The general point of the video was that “yes” you can still get a lot of rounds down range even with mag changes but… with everything else equal it does take a few seconds longer to swap mags.. that is obvious. If the rate of fire would have been the same for all regardless of the mag size it would not have been “tainted” as much. If I had fewer rounds in my mags I would probably actually slow down the rate of fire a bit and concentrate on accuracy rather than increase the rate of fire. So many opinions … regardless of this video – I will continue to use my 15 round mags in my M&P 40 and 30 in my AR.

  28. The only problem with all of this is that those of ultra liberal left who are leading these attacks on the 2nd Amendment are not in the least interested in FACTS. They are at the lower levels operating on pure emotion and propaganda and at the upper levels they are operating from a plan of changing the political station and operation of this country and it behooves them to render organized opposition weaponless.

  29. Good video. Everyone that is complaining that this is a bad video cause the shooter counts his rounds, no one is shooting back and in the real word a shooter would not have his mags in front of him are just idiots that think they found some major flaws in video. Of course you can change your speed when you are shooting the shooter is not going to be a robot. It’s not likely but the shooter could becounting his rounds. I know when I am training I count my rounds. And as far as the shooter not having mags in front of him, its not any mass shooter has posted up somewhere say a school bell tower and started opening fire. People that complaint about this video but say they are pro gun should go make there own video instead of bashing this one. Fortunately most shooters are mentally ill, the guns are stolen and they do not have the proper training or skills need to run the weapon properly.

  30. In re to the person saying it wasn’t scientific.

    I think that would miss the point. I’m not sure what you think is “tainted,” since only to an extent the goal is to show reload times, while the main point seems to be to show that magazine size would not effect the amount of rounds a person would be able to put down range in a certain amount of time. With an Active Shooting in progress, a perpetrator would change his/her tactics to reflect changes in equipment or situation in order to try and get the same number of rounds out in the same amount of time with a low capacity magazine as they would with standard ones.

    The video never struck me as trying to be a scientific experiment trying to isolate reload times as much as a demonstration that shooting style adapts with the equipment on hand. People will change their behavior to negate what capacity-cap advocates say the benefits are.

    Also, if measuring reload time the ROF doesn’t matter. It takes the same amount of time to reload regardless of how fast you shoot. The way you have devised would be guaranteed through math, to show reloading takes longer because you simply added it in instead of accounting for human behavior, e.g. people will actively try to mitigate inconveniences (for instance, low capacity) by reloading or shooting faster.

  31. No opinion, no agenda. The gun issue is much too complicated for a dunce like me.

    I am not trying to get controversial here. Just asking a question. It has been 45 years since I had to carry a M16 and I hope I never have to carry one again. Thank God, I never had to change a magazine in a hurry. I know an experienced combat troop could do that in a nano second. I do not believe Jaded Lee Laughner, Gabby Gifford’s shooter, was ex military, so his magazine replacement speed may not have been great. He was taken down while trying to replace the magazine in his handgun. A nearby woman knocked his replacement magazine from his hand as he was being wrestled to the ground by bystanders. Does it not follow that if he had a larger magazine, he would have been able to get off more rounds and subsequently hurt or killed more people before having to reload? Just asking.

  32. The overall purpose of the video is accomplished, and the message is “on the money”. But if you’re going to go to the trouble of demonstrating the point, you might as well make it realistic. The magazine change wasn’t realistic. In all cases both shooters (including the “inexperienced woman”) were counting their shots and stopped firing before the pulling the trigger on the last round, thus “saving time” by not having to release the slide after the loaded a fresh mag. In a real world situation, no criminal (or LE for that matter) is going to be counting his shots to make sure he changes mags before the slide locks back. And the mags shouldn’t be on a drum in front of them — they should be worn on the body or in pocket. Once again, it’s the right message to send about full capacity mags vs. smaller capacity mags, but if you’re going to do it….do it right the first time!

  33. Magazine limits are useless
    As are most gun control laws.
    The simple fact is if someone is bent on death, destruction, and chaos, they will succeed in doing so
    Studies have shown that more gun laws inacted will not decrees crime, if anything, burglary and home invasion crimes increes over night.
    Last thing we need is more laws

  34. I really, really appreciate all of the effort in trying to prove our logic to the opposition, but we’re not fighting against flesh and blood. We’re fighting against principalities and powers in high dark places. The ONLY way this can be explained is that the fight (the GOOD fight ) has become supernatural: ‘S…n Unchained’… he’s been unleashed!… There’s no other explanation for it. The EXTENT of the oppositions blindness, lack of research, and plain stupidity is SO unexplainable, that it’s OTHERWORLDLY. I’m really surprised I haven’t heard this opinion expressed more often. maybe it’s politically incorrect, but you have to admit, it’s very insightful. Does anyone else out there agree with me? So far, Ted Nugent is the only spokesperson who’s come close to expressing this view ( especially on Cam and Company. ) and the way he schooled Pierce(sp.-I know.) Morgan was epic. God bless Ted! God bless everyone else for fighting the GOOD fight, and God bless America!! btw, it took me more than an hour composing this in such a way that I wouldn’t offend anyone… I had to edit myself a great deal …hopefully I succeeded…(no offense).

  35. None of this matters really. They won’t care. Their mind is all ready made up long ago.
    The anti-gun crowd wants the magazine capacity of all firearms to be ZERO!

  36. You’re all right. It’s not perfect, but the point still stands. The representative that sponsored the magazine capacity bill here in Colorado, Rhonda Fields(D)based all of her arguments on just this issue. Chop it up all you want, but the fact is, in the vast majority of cases, a reload can occur faster than the shooter can be physically subdued. That’s why sheepdogs carry guns. I can’t run 25 feet in 2 seconds, but a .40 bullet can travel 2100 f.p.s. We’re preaching to the choir. Rhonda wouldn’t be swayed.

  37. What this video shows very effectively is there isn’t a big difference in how many rounds can be sent downrange in a period of time with mag restrictions.

    But, there are flaws in the presentation that open the door for stupid questions.

  38. Like most everyone else commenting I’m a firm supporter in the second amendment and gun rights. I do think the government knows damn good and well that these little bites they’re taking out of guns rights will make absolutely no difference and that its just a way to get to there ultimate goal of complete outlawing and confiscation.

    That out of the way, this is a horrible video for all the reasons stated above. I love what they’re trying to prove here but this was very poorly done. Another thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the reason for the obvious faster firing rate of the 3 10 round mags and the 3 6’s. The small window in the bottom right showed the shooter during the first shooting cycle and how far away he was from the target. In both the second and third series you can not see the shooter which makes me think he’s significantly closer to the target and can therefor shoot quicker with the same accuracy.

    Ultimately, even a novice with little to no practice could still push a button then slide in a new magazine in only two to three seconds. Here in 2 years when some nut walks into a school with 6 ten round mags its only going to take him or her 10 to 20 seconds longer to go through the 60 rounds than it would if he only had to change once. 99.9% of people cowering behind a desk are not going to A) be counting the shots and watching for a reload and B) get up and bum rush the guy with the big scary black gun in his hand.

  39. Actually they should have solicited VP Biden’s wife with her double barrel shotgun to see how effective that is.

  40. @Wayne Rouse:

    Are you blind or do you just not know what a locked back slide looks like? Count the rounds being fired from each mag then come back and tell us how they’re shooting each mag until it’s empty. “Nice try though.”

  41. My opinion for what it’s worth, is that this test does not really address the issue of why we “need” high capacity magazines. We “need” them, that’s all. We don’t have to prove to anyone, including the government, why we need and want 30 round mags in our ARs and 15 and bigger round mags in our pistols. The cops and military want and need them and so do we. The fact that some people are able to put out the nearly the same relative firepower with smaller mags has nothing what so ever to do with anything. This test does not address the issue of what it’s like to try to load a mag while someone is trying to kill you. They don’t call it “the heat of battle” for no reason. It is only common sense. Firearms main purpose as far as the SA is concerned is for protection. If I am tasked with the job of protecting myself, family and maybe others, I want to insure that I have the best possible advantage for doing that and that means big magazines with lots of firepower. Case closed.

  42. As to those who comment on the rate of fire, most people will psychologically compensate for the fact that they need to reload. In actuality they are probably more acurate as well, especially if they are an experienced shooter.

  43. hNick C actually they were emptying the pistol completely they were shooting Glocks which locks the slide back when empty and all the shooter has to do is discharge the empty mag and insert the loaded one and it automatically chambers a round. Nice try though.

  44. Very interesting in several ways, but not close in today’s world, I think over all most people who using a weapon in today’s world who chooses to use it to kill another human has mental problems, or are forced to use weapon in self defense, therefore the weapon could be a knife, club, car, Saying Weapons, in a bad persons hands,or mental disturbed persons kill, Not the weapon of choice, may it be a 30 round clip or a single shot weapon or weapon of Choice. I know when our forefathers signed our Rights, We didn’t have automatic weapons, but this is 2013.

  45. These sorts of videos engage in a fruitless endeavor which is predicated on the fallacy that “facts are important.” The anti-gun Left does not care about objective facts, and they do not care about rational or analytical thought processes.

    The “gun control” debate is exclusively a face-off between two incongruous factions – the anti-gun Left (populated by those who are driven exclusively by emotion and narcissism) and who will believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts, knowledge, intellectual process, or reality and the Civil Rights minded citizens who reject the Left. These citizen, falsely believe they can hold an intelligent argument with the Left by citing facts, figures, objective realities and logic – the basis for the argument is foundationless and the Left is not interested in facts.

    As a police officer, a certified active shooter team member, and a skilled gun fighter, I can say with some authority this video was nice, but useless in the argument with the political Left.

    Caoimhin P Connell

  46. Oh, and one other thing, it has been proven time and time again. The best way to stop an armed bad guy is with an armed good guy.

  47. The point of the video was to show how little time it takes to reload. Running the pistol to slide lock would not add more than a few tenths of a second to the reload because to recharge the pistol all you have to do is press the slide release with your thumb. I shoot in competition and that is how I do every reload. Unless you have a crappy pistol you are not going to experience any difference in the chance of a misfeed or jam by running the pistol to slide lock. This is how they are designed to work. With a Glock or a Springfield or Smith and Wesson, or choose you own brand of choice and they are going to work. Besides clearing a stove pipe or jam is nothing more than a pull on the slide to clear. Having the magazines on the drum is no different than if you had the magazine in a mag holder on your belt. It would be the same reach and same reload time. If a person were planning a mass shooting that would involve multiple reloads they certainly would plan to have their magazines readily available. When you take all the comments about why this is not a valid video in account you still come down to the same result. A reload takes a couple of seconds tops and then it is game on again. Fewer rounds in the magazine is a very minor inconvience to over come.

    The only thing limiting the magazine does is make it harder for the law abiding gun owner. Even then, it wont really matter because most of us already have the hi capacity mags……

  48. I was so annoyed by this because it is in favor of both sides.

    Someone with intent can reload and shoot a lot of rounds accurately.

    Someone who needs to protect oneself from an intruder grabs a gun, calls the police if possible and prepares for the possibility of altercation.
    The piece of mind to grab extra magazines is going to be low with most individuals.

    If I am in a shoot out, the less I need to reload the better as long as I do not have so many rounds it hinders my maximum performance.

    The reality is, we are facing a future of domestic storm troopers and drone strikes. I see a drone flying even near my house or pick it up on air craft detector and spot it with a scope, I will be building a microwave cannon and burning it right out of the sky.
    Never been happier I enrolled in college for my electronic engineering degree!

  49. For those who don’t think shooters count their rounds need to only look at ct shooter few months ago where he left behind half loaded magazines after eject all over that school. He did that because he trained to do that as most police officers would do as we’ll. it is the combination of sick mind, pure evil and proper training that allowed this sicko to inflict this damage. To think to anyone would be able to disarm this sicko in between his reloads is just stupid. Only an armed citizen with proper cover would be able to terminate this attack from safe distance in between his quick reload.

  50. Thank you so much for making this video.
    I’ve been telling people this for so long, but they really need to see it.
    There are many valid comments above about problems with the test, but even if you modified the test to address all the issues, it still would be an, essentially, insignificant difference in reload times… even with the revolvers (even if they weren’t throw away). And none of the 6-year olds at Sandy Hook would have been tackling the shooter anyway.

    There are two other videos I would love you to make:
    1. They keep talking about the *size* of the rounds used and the damage they did to the kids… how *lethal* the rounds are. I guess they are proposing to have guns that are non-lethal. In any case, I’d love you to do a video comparing the lethality of .22cal ammunition vs. .223 (like using gel, or dummies, or whatever). People will die just as easily from .22cal bullets as they will from .50BMG bullets!

    2. A video (maybe animated) that takes a regular rifle.. .the kind that Feinstein *doesn’t want to ban* and add in the features that she claims make it an “assault rifle” whose only purpose is to “kill as many people as possible”. All people need to see is that assault rifles are just regular rifles with pistol grips, flash suppressors, and adjustable stocks (and detachable mags with a tool, but that’s the same as other rifles).
    Maybe even do a range timing/accuracy test here to show that there really aren’t going to be more people dying from AR’s vs. other rifles.

    Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the anti-AR-15 statement people make that, “Well, but look at all these mass shootings… they are all done with an AR-15, we need to ban them!” is a completely illogical statement. These are some of the most popular rifles in America, so naturally they will be used more by madmen as well. When we examine pedestrian traffic fatalities, we don’t ban Toyota Corollas, even if it was shown that most pedestrian accidents involved them… if we did, the next-most-popular car would be responsible for the most accidents. The same thing would happen with AR-15s. Even if they could be banned *and* magically removed from existence, the crazies would just use a different type of rifle (that didn’t look so scary) or a shotgun, or a lever-action, or a revolver to go on their rampage.

  51. This is the most intellectually dishonest video demonstration I have ever seen. There are many reasons why:
    1) Both shooters fired at an increased rate of fire with the smaller cap mags.
    2) Both shooters left one round hot during the mag change. In a real situation this would only be done by the most experienced gun fighter (e.g. special ops with 1000′s of hours of combat training).
    3) The spare mags were left within easy grasp right in front of the shooter. In a real life situation they would have to reach into a pocket or spare mag pouch of some kind, then charge the gun.
    4) The female shooter was obviously not a beginner and changed mags with a fair degree of ease (although it did appear that her fire was inaccurate).
    I agree with another poster who said this test would be made much easier by controlling for rate of fire to determine total time spend firing, measuring the average time to change mags, simply multiplying the time it takes to do so by the number of mag changes required and adding this back to the predetermined time spent firing.
    Before I hear any rebuttals by people with their brains turned off I will say that I’m a firm defender of the second amendment and owner of many firearms including an AR. If we are going to make valid arguments in defense of our constitutional rights we have to be honest with ourselves and those against whom we are arguing. This video does not help our cause.

  52. What everyone is forgetting is that an assailant is going to have a few things to his advantage. First, he/she will be firing into a crowd that will most likely not be armed. When anyone hears gunshots, they will instinctively duck, find cover and stay out of line of sight with the shooter, about 99.9% of the time, because lets be honest, who wants to get shot. Second, 99.9% of these victims will NOT BE FIRING BACK, so that disproves that theory. Third, any assailant will have some foreknowledge of firearms use, however slight, that will give them a tactical advantage. It literally takes and extra half second to pull the charging handle, so that also disproves that theory. Not to mention, by the way, that an AR-15 will lock the bolt back after the last round has been expended (mine does, an extremely handy feature.) The really deranged ones will act their plan out many times before actually going through with it. Whether a reload time is 2 or 10 seconds, it doesn’t matter, because everyone is still going to be scattering. We are talking about civilians, not trained military personnel. That .1% is the one that’s going to be shooting back, or flanking or whatever. The intent of this video, as far as I can see, is to show that reloading doesn’t take a long time, as everyone is inclined to think. Even shotguns can be loaded quickly by someone who practices enough.

  53. I agree with this demonstration. I don’t feel restriction on the magazines will not make a difference if someone wants to kill you. I am sure most of the shooters have practiced many hours before they go out and start shooting people. It wouldn’t matter to them if they have a 30 round clip or 3 10 round clips. One or two seconds will not make the difference in your getting away or tackling the intruder. Take the video at face value. It is just showing the law to restrict larger magazines won’t make a difference.

  54. i read all comments and watch the video again. for the betterment of our cause, please delete this video!

  55. I have to say this is a good video for those that do not understand a thing about guns, like the legislators in our government. Yet, lets put this on a whole different level. I was deployed 6 times and in Iraq, many of the insurgents had an array of fully automatic weapons and other types of anti-tank or anti-personnel weapons as the: AK-47’s, machine guns, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG’s), etc. I had a M-16A4 and/or a bolt action M40A5 rifle. I killed more insurgents with a bolt action rifle when they were shooting at me with a machine gun or AK-47 (Fully automatic). I was able to kill more insurgents with headshots at pretty close distances with the M-16A4 when they were shooting at me or my platoon. It does depend on your experience and training. I have to admit, police will hide like scared little girls when they are being shot at with a small revolver because it is a gun. They are afraid of amny things, yet the regular civilian just sprays and prays like the average insurgent in either Iraq or Afghanistan when they have a shootout with the police. It’s just how it is. I otherwise with my personal training can admit that with 5 30 round magazines with only 3-5 bullets in each, I can shoot targets out to 500 yards standing with precision fire. The average policeman will fire over 50 rounds at a target shooting at them at a distance of 100 yards and maybe hit the target once (yes this is a fact). Its the same for the average shmoe on the street. Making magazine capacity smaller doesn’t do S—t. Just makes people learn to reload quicker, these politicians need some ideology like a Lance Corporal.

  56. this article and video combo does more harm than good to our cause.

    it unfortunately emphasizes that people (even highly trained ones) are inaccurate with guns. this gift wraps an argument for anti-gun constituents.

    also, the video depicts a highly controlled situation. as a result, it is easy for the shooters to maintain a count of rounds fired. this exorbitantly increases the rate of fire by keeping single action firing engaged. the shooters fire 1 less shot than mag capacity, leaving a round in the chamber during mag changes (ex: 10 round mags are only shot 9 times before mag drops). this makes reloading a magazine systematic, quick and easy. in a real world situation, the shooter is less able to focus on how many shots have been fired making it very common to completely empty a magazine. an empty gun in a combat situation leads to multiple dry fires, confusion and significant reload hassle. this is the main reason for the mag limitations.

    if you want real suggestions that satisfy both anti- and pro-gun individuals while increasing gun safety, i cordially invite the powers that be to use the contact information i was required to give before making my comment.

  57. This is an interestingand bunch of comments! I think they are all valid, though conflicted. Aside from this specific video, Your PERSONAL SURVIVAL is Your bottom line. This is a LAW OF NATURE. It is in the nature of every living creature to defend against harm when escape is impossible. If we were to include survival education in Chicago’s classrooms, it would be more beneficial than the sex ed. classes there. Limiting your magazine count or the style of your firearm will never enhance your ability to defend against an attack. Let’s not infringe upon any person’s right of Survival.

  58. If you watch closely, the male shooter on the 2-10 round mags pulled the trigger alot faster than he did with the 2-20 rounders. What’s the point?

  59. In Viet Nam we would go on patrol and come back tired and wet. The first thing we had to do was clean all ammo and our M16 (AR15). Most of us carried 400 rounds in 20 round magazines (because of jamming problems we only put 18 rounds). As a medic I only carried 200 rounds. The captain would give us one minute and and anything we could shoot we did not have to clean. I never cleaned any ammo under his command. I do not recall if anyone could fire 400 rounds in one minute.

  60. There are two points to be made from this video. One is that you can shoot very quickly whether its 10 rounds or 20 or 30. Accuracy is always in question but lets face it, after the first couple of shots everyone will be hiding (since they are UNARMED). I don’t have to shoot 30 rounds all at once, I can take my time.
    As to someone jumping up and “grabbing” the shooter, you must be kidding. How many people do you know are going to be sitting there counting rounds in that situation (teachers for instance?).
    This demo was realistic enough to show that the current govt isn’t trying to solve the problem, they are merely trying to take away our right to defend ourselves. They will not be satisfied until “they” have the guns and we don’t.

  61. I have been saying all along to friends that putting a limit on magazines will not solve the problem and explained to them exactly what you just showed in this video that you reload very fast or carry multiple guns and it will be a fraction of a second difference in time. It all comes down to just making people think that something has been done to protect them but when it comes down to the fact it does not fix the problem. Anyone that knows anything about guns knows its the person behind the gun that is causing the harm and they will do it no matter what you try to place the band on. You can take guns away from people and the bad guy will go to knifes axes or get guns from other countries. You will never stop killings by putting less ammo in a magizine. Your video has proven a very good point and people need to really take to heart what you have just showed. The true hard fact that limiting magazines will solve nothing.

  62. A very interesting and insightful video. Thanks.

    There is one significant point I thought they failed to mention when showing hit/shot stats in the beginning. That being: What about situations where there are more than one perp that needs to be dealt with? Considering the low shot/hit ratio, it seems only logical to me that a high cap magazine could only help a person defend themselves against multiple offenders. This would be especially true in situations where the person was only mildly prepared (no previous threat warning) and the gun they grabbed in response to a threat is ALL they have available to them.

  63. One of the things, it demonstrated, for all intent and purposes, is
    that a novice shooter, and an accomplished shooter, both could issue a
    hail of rounds….and enough speed of loading, that it is unlikely, anyone
    could make that mad dash, and be certain of success.. Just not enough time
    to do it, even with the novice…
    That there are a dozen or so,”Arm chair quarterbacks” ready and willing
    to try to tear it apart, as opposed to absorbing what is useful, and what
    is not…………

  64. I like the premise of the test. It takes less than a second to do a reload even for someone who hasn’t been shooting for a couple decades. It shows that magazine capacity has little to do with how many rounds you can get on target. The reload and charging time is negligible, fractions of a second at best.

    This video will be ignored or chastised by the gun grabbers in the long run. hanks to Sheriff Ken Campbell.

  65. I agree with some of the opinions of this blog but… Isn’t this just more info given to those that want to eliminate all guns or anything that is more than a single shot gun? Take a look what is happening in Austrailia, they’re down to taking even the single shot type of guns. These political hacks don’t care about the facts. The news people and politicians are soooo out of touch with all reality it’s discusting.

    Ever watch a live broad cast from a car dealership by a TV station? They will say,” boy, we have a great crowd here today”. If you look at the “crowd” it’s only about 5 to 12 people crowded together. The point is it’s the “shot of the audiance”. The politicians use figures that are their “shot of the crowd” too. They don’t listen to the will of the people. They do what they are told to do and by whom, who gives them the most money.
    How does the leap from Sandy Hook killer that was mentally ill using “4 hand guns” leap to wanting to limit the long gun magazines? (By the way why wasn’t all of the .22 bullet casings on the floor mentioned? .22 LR do alot of damage and you can carry alot of ammo too.) It’s all about the “camera view”. It’s about what they want to show us. What does the “public” want? “Suryey says”, we asked the right crowd the right questions. It’s their agenda.
    Don’t show them the rate of fire of 3 – 10 round mags compared to a 30 round magazine. Next they will want the 10 round magazines and now they have the videos to show why………..
    Why doesn’t any one show the statistics of what the Chicago gangbangers are using? Oh they don’t kill childen? If you want to stop killing children Mr. o’bama, STOP ABORTIONS and DRONE STRIKES. How many die from illegal aliens comming into this country and drive drunk with no licience and insurance? Let some more go did ya?
    This is all stupidity and this country has been hijacked.

  66. I believe that the idea of someone tackling an assailant between reloads is ridiculous. The person that would instinctively do this is the same type of individual that would win the Congressional Medal of Honor. There are not many of those types of heroic people around.
    Having said that, I believe your demonstration is tainted because the demonstrators are not emptying their guns between magazine changes. They are counting rounds to make the magazine change faster. In combat, you cannot count rounds. Police Officers can rarely accurately tell investigators how many rounds they fired in a shooting. A more realistic demonstration would have the demonstrators completely emptying their weapons between magazine changes.

  67. This is an excellent format for educating non-shooters about changing magazines; however, it does not effectively dispel the phobia about large magazines. What if such a video could present several different scenarios? Especially including actors to play the part of intended victims of a shooter, whith (a) an attempt to charge the shooter during a reload, and (b) one actor with concealed a weapon which is used to return fire? Some of the actors should be defenseless children, too. Other variations could demonstrate (1) the changing of magazines which come from the shooter’s pockets, and even the type of magazines which are clamped together on the weapon. Beyond this, a video could demonstrate how easily a shooter can empty and simply discard tee first weapon and begin firing a second weapon without any reloading. This could be much more educational and persuasive.

  68. Tackle an armed assailant? Somebody watching too many action movies ! What needs to happen to an armed assailant is three or more legally armed citizens opening fire on him with carefully aimed shots !

  69. In the effort to make a point, unfortunately, they are giving the anti-gun proponents “ammunition” here to dispute the validity of the test and possibly make an arguement to support their ideas.

    First of all, an active shooter will not have his spare magazines stacked neatly in front of him on a barrel 12 inches from the gun to facilitate such a fast reload. They will be in pockets, or on a belt or pouch which will surely slow things down as a fresh magazine must be retrieved from a more realistic position.

    Second, the guns are not being shot empty locking the slide back as they would in a real shooting situation. The additional motion of the slide release to bring the gun back into battery adds time and would be more realistic.

    The written commentary showing the actual effectiveness of rounds fired vs hits in actual police gunfights is realistic and helpful toward the arguement they are trying to make but live fire demos, so obviously staged and slanted to make the point, only support the other sides arguement. I can hear them now, ” Well, since you’ve proven that you can reload so fast, clearly you don’t need large capacity magazines.”

    Just thinkin’ out loud. If I can see it, so can they.

  70. If the trigger control was improved by the female shooter her times would be a lot better; so would her gun control. Goes to show practise makes perfect. How many deranged shooters committing multiple mass murder have such conginsance or control? If there was good educational programmes introduced at an early age (in school) I believe there would be less of a problem and no need for the knee jerk reactions that you in the USA are facing as we did here in Australia. keep up the good fight.

  71. I’m a gun owner, and supporter of the Bill of Rights and what this country was founded on. That being said, this video is more detrimental than beneficial for the support of the 2nd Amendment. It shows nothing about magazine capacity, other than you can try, in a very poor fashion, to trick people into believing their results.

    The issues with it have been mentioned in the other comments:
    – No charging of the weapon
    – No running the mag dry
    – No stress variable (firing back at the shooter, which obviously can’t be done for testing – but you could put each 30 rounds into a time frame that must be met).
    – Completely unscientific
    – Not a real world scenario whatsoever (no movement of targets, no movement of shooter, no cover, no barriers, no obstructions, etc, etc, etc).
    – Unrealistic placement of spare mags
    – Changes in rate of fire

    The list can go on.

    The suggestion of adding the time for the reload is a sound suggestion, and would be more accurate than the outcome of this test, and since the rate of fire can’t be exact, then a stressed time scenario (i.e. all 30 rounds, regardless of mag capacity, in 15 seconds or less), would at least help demonstrate the minimal additional time reloads can take based on the shooter’s skill and ability to cope with stress.

    Even completely ignorant anti-gun advocates can pick up on most of these points, and then throw this ‘evidence’ back into our faces as inconclusive, and in itself, ignorant, which makes things WORSE for us. It shouldn’t be to show that mag changes don’t make any difference, it should be to show that mag changes add minimal additional time to a committed bad guy’s intent, and at the same time, force law abiding civilians that want to protect themselves, into having to carry tons of extra magazines, adding that same amount of time to the one defending themselves, who, mind you, are reacting to a sudden threat, which adds even more time – toss in moral decision making around using a lethal weapon, and you’re crippling the good guy. This doesn’t show that. This shows gun owners trying to fudge something in an unintelligible way.

  72. Sorry, but this video is meaningless. First, Jim is intentional decreasing his split time (increasing rate of fire) when he is shooting lower capacity magazines. They are not providing the split time between last shot from one magazine to first shot from next. They also intentionally count their shots and change magazines while a round is still chambered to make the reloading process faster. That is not realistic as you will not be counting your shots during a critical dynamic life-threatening incident. You will not reload until the slide is locked back. Few people are going to be walking around with 4-5 extra magazines so readily available anyway.
    If you want to support gun rights, make the earlier points about actual hit rates for defensive use of firearms by police during a critical dynamic incident. Make the point that police are moving to higher capacity magazines to try to save their own lives as well as ours.
    This charade of a gun demonstration is something I would expect from deceitful anti-gun liberals. In fact, they will probably quote this at some point to say that with training we should be able to defend ourselves just fine with the magazine limitations; therefore, our rights will not be affected by these “reasonable” restrictions that might save “even just one life.”
    Google “FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” for scientific information on why the FBI and others want larger capacity magazines for their greater effectiveness in a defensive situation.

  73. To D Holmes – When most people fire a 20 round mag the rate of fire is slower than the rate from a smaller mag. The reason is that your trigger finger and abilities slow after firing many rounds.

  74. A couple of points that never get mentioned. One is that the larger the magazine the greater the possibility of malfunction. Better to have 10 good ones and reload than try to unjam a 30+ mag. Second, larger mags are just easier to load. Putting 10-20 rounds in a 30 round mag is a whole lot easier than putting 10 in a 10 or 20 in a 20. Old worn out hands typing this post. My arthritis loves big mags partially loaded.

  75. Very nicely done. Sheriff Ken Campbell for US Attorney General.

    I understand the arguments presented here in the comments and have this to say. I believe that the problem with the anti-gun people is that they don’t trust THEMSELVES with a firearm, therefore, no one else should be allowed to have one. It’s no wonder then why we can equate the increase in permissive liberal attitudes with the erosion in social mores, religious faith and the secularization of our culture. Liberalism should be classified as a disease.

    As for the test, I would have liked to see how much more rapidly the test might have taken place if the shooter had done a 2 or 3 shot vertical spread on the same target instead of always seeking center mass on a new target, where Jim and Christy were always having to reacquire their target.

  76. I have to throw this out there even though I am 100% against any new bans or restriction. This video is not accurate, no stress, no charging on empty, mags at easy reach, obvious faster rate of fire with more mags, obvious experienced shooter (both), they did not show the hits on target (except the 1911) -none of this is reflective of a real world situation… HOWEVER, the 2nd Amendment was written so that the people would have the SAME capabilities as the government – period, end of discussion. The reasons why it was written, believe it or not still apply today, even in the Great USA. “Uphold and Defend the Constitution” is the oath EVERY politician has sworn. They are all violating their oaths of office by trying to restrict the 2nd Amendment. I urge you to watch this video… youtube com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI – if they kill the link go to youtube and type in “Guns(Virtual State of the Union) PLEASE!

  77. Scientific or not, what I just witnessed was a ‘novice’ shooter reload a semi-auto pistol in under 2 seconds. None of the proposed restrictions are designed to protect law abiding citizens from an attack…the are designed to strip is of our ability to defend against government tyranny. If you don’t think so, you haven’t studied history. Don’t register, don’t let anyone know what you have in your personal collection.

  78. 2 flaws I see with this. 1) magazines were not on the person during the excersise which is a flaw as someone would not have a barrel to work off of. 2) They were counting the rounds and not going to slide lock. It is doubtful somone would be that calm firing on people to do that. All this considered it would not add more than 10 seconds to the overall time.

  79. Informative – The revolver demo proved that you can skin a cat more ways then one ! You can Make a Revolver almost as fast as a Semiauto by using Speed Loaders such as those made by HKS – Magazine bans/ Restrictions are not about safety or saving lives or any of the feel good let’s all munch tofu hold hands and sing kumbaya crap that leftist liberals , and other misguided morons want you to believe It’s just Gun Control in a incremental Dose ! it’s the lefts version of how do you eat an entire elephant ? answer one spoonful at a time ! think about it ! If thy came and said we want all your Guns NOW !!! People would Refuse ,Rebel & revolt { The three R’s } but if they say just give up your high capacity magazines or you really don’t need a rifle if it looks mean or non -traditional / somw would put up with it !!! if yoy stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything ! the second amendment is a right and rights come to man from god not OBama , not judges , and not liberals ! the founders put it in the Constitution for a reason ! And P.S.#1 Linatrds it’s not Huntimg

  80. Reply to D Holmes: While you make an interesting point lets face it – When a mentally ill individual decides to start shooting they more than likely have already figured out that they may need to fire quicker with fewer rounds loaded to have the effect they “desire”. The missing “scientific” in this equation is the fact that ALL mass murder events in recent memory have been committed by persons on various anti-depressants that have side effects that make them worse. Its a failure of another great government concept that individuals with bipolar and other mental illnesses are no threat to society….and of course they aren’t…..until they are…..

  81. Go to youtube and THUMBS DOWN this propaganda.

    Nobody is shooting back at him.

    He is not taking cover.

    He clearly shoots all the time anytime as much as he wants.

    He also shot the first 2 magazines SLOW.

    I stopped watching when they went to Kristy.

    This is fake.
    Kiss my ass you uneducated stuffed suit.
    I have a far superior education and for that matter, BRAIN.

    I’m so done with these robotic assholes that combined with that, pass themselves off as very intelligent and trustworthy when they are anything but!!

  82. Nice demo but the bad guy isn’t going to count shots so he’ll shoot all rounds..Then he’ll load but he’ll have to recock the hand gun..

  83. While I’m completely against almost any form of firearms restrictions on civilians, I will say that I noticed that neither shooter charged the firearms after the reload. A round was left in the chamber allowing them to possibly get better times. I understand that this is something someone might do on purpose to save reload time by not having to charge the weapon after reloading it but, not everyone would do that in a situation where they are not as easily able to count each round fired to keep track of when exactly to put a new magazine in the weapon. Plus, during a reload including charging the weapon, I believe there is a fairly higher chance of a misfeed/malfunction needing to be cleared that would itself add extra time to a reload. It also seemed as if the guy wasn’t running as fast and hard towards the girl as he was the guy. I think he could have actually made it had he ran as hard towards her.

    None of that really even matters to begin with. Just the idea that this kind of thing needs to be proven to someone at all is annoying to me. A law-abiding, responsible citizen should be able to own any weapon with whatever capacity they choose as long as it is used responsibly. I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s crimes. Taking firearms out of the hands of responsible people willing to use them in defense of innocent life will in itself create more violent crime and put more people in danger.

  84. This just enforces what I’ve said all along, that the difference in firing 30 rounds from a single 30 round magazine and (3) 10 round magazines is approximately 2 – 4 seconds, during which time absolutely could be done. It would take that long or longer for anyone to realize that the shooter was reloading and by the time they come to that conclusion, he’s already reloaded and shooting again.

  85. The bystander rushing the shooter assumes he is staring intently at the shooter looking for an opportunity. A trained combatant migfht be able to do this but the average person is going to be hiding or frozen or running.

  86. I understand this is not a “scientific” study, however, what I do see, and would like the anti-gun advocates to understand is that; in a live/active fire situation, regardless of magazine capacity, the whole proposal that if there are less rounds, an innocent bystander can “tackle” the shooter during reload. I believe, that if a scientist were to show the average time it takes the brain to respond that the shooting has stopped momentarly, the innocent bystander gets up from their covered or on the ground place of hiding, the time to reload any magazine by the shooter with a minimal amount of expeience would be take much longer for most people to “react” and then “tackle” the shooter. But, then again, I’m not a scientist, just a law abididng gun owner/armomer/etc for as long as I can remember. Good video, and it does prove a point, that regardless of reload, most (I say most) bystanders, are not going to have the instictive reaction time to the “tackle” the bad guy. This has been proven in stessful situations such as reaction time to suddenly stopping a vehicle being driven when an instant problem appears in directly in front of them. Most people overreact in that situation causing it to be worse, rather than take an evasive action..

  87. This was an interesting demonstration of changing magazines under optimal conditions. Having the magazines resting on a surface in front of the shooter is what we do at the range but hardly a real-world demo. I think it would be very valuable to see someone having to reach for the magazines in a pocket or some other clothing compartment to change them out. Depending on the amount of practice and motor memory, this could only add a few extra seconds between changes; perhaps more seconds for someone with adrenaline pumping and a loss of fine motor control.

    However, if you are already convinced guns are bad then this video won’t sway your mind. It’s like Bill said above: it’s not the mag capacity, it’s the person.

  88. Thank you for presenting facts and not emotions on the subject of magazine capacity. The “New York Reload” was especially telling, and clearly demonstrates that you should worry about the person firing the gun, and not the gun’s capacity.

  89. Duh…. big shock there.. now he needs to show reloads with revolver an single shot shotgun.. I’m fairly sure that the numbers won’t be far off. The people in power are the most ignorant I’ve seen and they won’t see clearly ever. Time to take off the blinders

  90. I’ve been asked at the range how many round magazines I’ve had. Back when I carried the old 1911 with 7 round magazines, someone asked my range partner if my 45 had a 30 round magazine. It did not, I had six magazines. And as a run out test, I didn’t know how many rounds where in each magazine. They had between 5-7 rounds each. Magazine limits are worthless.

  91. I think it is great that someone put out a video like this…..maybe it will help anti gun people understand that it is not the mag capacity that allows bad people to kill you,it is their evil ways that will drive them to do so with what ever mag capacity they have or for that matter what other weapon they can find to do so.

  92. I get the point of the video/demonstration but it is not very scientific. You will notice in the video that each of the shooters shot at a higher rate of fire (more rapidly) when shooting the smaller magazines than they did when shooting the larger mags. To make this whole thing more scientific the rate of fire needs to be the same for each shooter regardless of the size of the mag. A better way would be to just to measure the time of the reload and add it in for each mag change added to a standard rate of fire time. For example – 2 seconds to reload each time – times the number of reloads plus a standard rate of fire would give you a more accurate comparison. If the rate of fire is the same regardless of mag size then the total time is obviously going to be 2 seconds longer for example for each magazine. If you are doing lets say 5 mag changes then you need to add 10 seconds. This would be a more realistic comparison and less tainted. The speeded up rate of fire for the smaller mags was obvious and it shows an attempt to get the times similar to the bigger mags.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading