Why did we switch to magazines which cannot be topped off without removing them from the rifle?

Because you can drop out and load a full 30 round magazine into a rifle faster than you can empty 6 5rnd or 3 10 rnd stripper clips.

Also, if you have an issue with a magazine not feeding correctly you can remove it and figure out whats wrong after combat. With an internal, you're weapon no longer functions properly.

Suppose there is a brief lull in the action and you want to top off your magazine without making yourself vulnerable by removing your magazine completely. Why not have the action open at the top so you could top off the magazine, as was the case in the past?

The real world is not call of duty.

then do it back at base when you are bullshitting with the guys and not under imminent threat of death

You wait til combat is over or insert loaded mag you fucking retard.

What does it matter when you can keep a full one in the rifle while reloading the partially empty one. It takes less than 2 seconds to take a mag out and put a new one in.

>Also, if you have an issue with a magazine not feeding correctly you can remove it and figure out whats wrong after combat. With an internal, you're weapon no longer functions properly.
There were rifles with both detachable magazines and the ability to top off by single loading loose cartridges or stripper clips. Why not have that? Why is the action of the AR-15 and most other modern actions such that it is impossible to top off the magazine without removing it from the rifle?

because an open top is not really comparable with any modern rifle design.

Suppose you wanted to top off your internal magazine without making yourself vulnerable by locking the bolt back and ejecting the round in the chamber

Because its a non-issue. Why arent you getting this?

What do you mean?

Because it's easier to top off the magazine while it's removed from the rifle. Seriously, you have not identified some great flaw in military doctrine here. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

Because semi auto

because it isnt necessary. with a modem rifle you are carrying as many loaded magazines as you can, would you really take space to carry some loose rounds to top off a magazine when you could potentially just fit another loaded mag in?

>Because its a non-issue
Says who? If my rifle were half empty, I'd like to be able to top it off without carrying a half empty magazine on me.

Says every modern military

Sorry, I meant to say "Compatible" and it auto corrected

Why isn't it compatible? Couldn't you design an assault rifle with an open top action, allowing the magazine to be topped off?

Just stop dude.

What is/was their reasoning?

you could, but a better question is my make that a focus of the design, it is not necessary.
See

*Why

take your shitty bait elsewhere, thot

Attached: strippersonmydick.jpg (620x400, 53K)

So every time you change the magazine, you're putting the partly empty magazine back in your pocket, right? If you have to top off your magazine several times during a fight, you'll end up carrying a lot of half empty magazines. Who wants to do that?

who wants to fumble around with small loose cartridges instead of a small box? If it's really an issue then when there's enough of a lul you can transfer rounds from one mag to another and drop all the ones that are now empty.

OP, why the fuck would you want to top off a magazine in the middle of combat. Did you not go prepared with several full magazines? And if you do run out, ask the guy next to you for a mag or fall back to reload or grab another from the cache that you and your boys prepared.

Because you have to open the fucking action and pick up the cartridge that ejected, put the stripper in, and then recharge the gun, the alternative is to leave the action alone, swap magazines, and you're good to go, and if you get caught while switching mags you have one round to fire, how is this even a question.

>OP, why the fuck would you want to top off a magazine in the middle of combat
Because I don't like the idea of carrying several half full magazines.
>transfer rounds from one mag to another
That sounds harder than just topping off the magazine that is conveniently already in your gun.

Thats its a non-issue.

Then use the mag til it's empty, tard. You will not see anyone, ever, topping off mags if they are caught in a fire fight. They will have several extra mags stashed in their pack.

I'd hate to get caught with an empty magazine.

You're not answering the question. You said it was a non issue. I asked why? You repeated that it was a non issue.

Try topping off a loaded SKS. You'd have to grab the ejected round, hold the bolt open, and insert cartridges one by one.

That's not something you're going to be doing in combat.

You're thinking of things in a civilian context. All the things you're advocating for are fine for a civilian who's out hunting or something, but impractical on a battlefield.

Theres at least 15 reasons in this thread on why it's a non-issue.

So put a full one in from your mag pouches

Where are you getting the cartridges to "Top off" magazines? are you carrying stripper clips or loose ammunition when you could be carrying more magazines? Do you not realize how inefficient it is to carry loose ammunition for ONE specific circumstance instead of carrying more magazines?

We used to carry a few loaded mags and a bag of loose ammo. Army too poor to provide more than 6 mags per boy

thats more about the (((Army))) being the (((Army))) than any real desire to "top off a magazine"

Yeah it wasn't meant to top off a mag anyway, the idea was "you won't need more than 6 mags for any given combat situation. the loose ammo is to refill your mags after said combat situation"

What you talkin' bout Willis?

Attached: HPIM1069.jpg (2289x1274, 424K)

/Thread

man the army loves to penny pinch where we need it and waste it somewhere else don't they

You'll see some early troops with stripper clips to top off their M14s.

>Early
As in they realized it wasn't necessary and stopped doing it?

Pretty much, early war years.

Isn't really a problem, besides, a lot of modern designs have stripper clip style designs for them. The AR-15 especially since AWB style laws allow a market for them. If you have an AR, there's plenty of stripper clip designs out there to refill magazines.

Its interesting that we can see that transition

Well they transitioned from a heavy, expensive weapon to a cheap, easily produced, lower caliber rifle. The m14 was objectively better for jungle combat since you hear stories of 5.56 trajectory being fucked up by the thick jungle brush, but I get why they made the change.
>Inb4 m60 support made up for it

Honestly some decent trolling and all the obvious stuff has been covered, but OP couldn't you just remove your one magazine you brought into combat from the gun before you load it from the loose rounds you keep in your tactical cargo shorts?
Why do you have to be able to load it while it is in the gun?
Does the gunfight take place in California?

>Living long enough to use 6 mags

as far as Im aware the5.56's easy deflection by foliage in Vietnam was more due to the early production of the M16's rifling being made for a different projectile weight than what was issued, so the bullets didn't stabilize correctly.

>all combat is cqb
>definitely not 4+ hour long firefights
whelp

Thats interesting, I haven't heard that. Perhaps the late war stories of that happening we're from guys still using early production rifles?

It was a joke :(

If you do a bit of suppressing fire I imagine 6 mags go quick

possibly, I think the A1s fixed it but I dont know for sure.

Thats why the rifleman doesn't do suppressing fire. Thats what the saw guy is for.

Uhh no. Basic riflemen also suppress usually with a shot every 8 seconds or so.

They seemed to do well enough though? Tons of jungle confirmed kills with the A1s.

There were some plans to make future memes real back then. It was glorious.

Attached: clipazine.jpg (1159x1500, 161K)

it probably was fixed by the A1 model then

Imagine if the US forces had been supplied with AKMs instead of M16s

uhh?...

Okay lemme explain, having a weapon right from the start that had better penetration power than the M16 and didn't require as much maintenance.

Opening the bolt makes yourself vulnerable too

>fukkin' 5.56 ice picks and penetrates too much because of its velocity
>'no it didn't penetrate enough!'
>ak doesnt require as much maintenance as ar
You what? Your life is a meme user.

This is like that meme about spaghetti in the pockets but for this guy it's loose ammunition

Explain yourself instead of green text memeing.

People complain that 5.56 ice-picks because of its high velocity and over-penetrates. You said the opposite.
The ak not needing just as much maintenance as any other rifle is also a meme.

Why didn't they just make the ejection port on the AR about a 1/4 inch bigger on the bottom so you can top off mags?

Are seriously saying an AK required as much babying as the snowflake M16A1?

M855/SS109 can ice pick, much higher envelope for it to fragment. Was the trade off for better barrier penetration.

M193 does some pretty gnarly shit in meat tho

>push down on bolt-hold
>action closes pinching your finger and round
Are you an idiot?

because that wouldn't make it easier and would let in more shit

Making no sense

Yes. After the ammo correction was made.

When placing a round into the magazine from the ejection port.

Bigger opening on the bottom gets you closer to the top of the mag when it's in the rifle. Of course make the dust cover bigger too

The M16A1 didn't need babying, the the earlier rifles coupled with shitty, our of spec ammo and no cleaning kits did; re early 601, 602, and 603 rifles.

Late XM16E1 and M16A1 proper had a redesigned buffer and firing pin to cycle properly with the wrong ammo Ordnance decided to use, chrome lined chambers, and chrome lined bores.

Initial issues early on were brought on by higher pressure loading with ball powder instead of stick that also happened to be recycled propellant that caused a shitload more fouling.

Ordnance pretends the gun is self cleaning, decides a chromed chamber is necessary, and gives you shitty ammo and people are going to die. There was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the M16 early on to keep the M14 and some brass was just about convicted of treason for it.

This is why the government doesn't manufacture its own guns anymore, McNamara fried ordnance because shitheels tying their careers to pet projects historically always ended up fucking things up.

This already exists, it’s called the Vz. 58. Now gtfo

OP, just move to California, and all your dreams can come true.

Attached: MA-loader.jpg (1920x800, 779K)

Is that a side-loading AR-15?

I kind of want one

Oh, wait. It’s just a stupid way to load the magazine.

I still want a side-fed AR for shits and gigs

how fast are these to load in general? I actually would love to have these loaded around instead of carrying tons of mags around - especially if you have to deal with "pre-ban" bags.

4u
youtube.com/watch?v=IQutj2wNaPc

fuck you

>just a stupid way to load the magazine
Sort of but it gets around CA laws so it's not stupid itself, it's a clever solution to an artificial problem. You probably think the law is stupid but you should respect the solution to it.

I kind of like all their products, they look pretty comfy if you're in CA or an otherwise restricted state.