<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WOoUVeyaY_8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For a CCW you’re looking at a magazine. I don’t know many pistols that use stripper clips.

In short, it’s all about capacity. Stripper clip capacity are restricted to the guns internal magazine capacity. Typically 6 to 10 rounds on most mil-surplus rifles. An external magazine is unrestricted to the capacity. I have an RPK that has a 75 round drum!

As for the speed of reloading a magazine verses a stripper clip, well there are a lot of debates on this that I won’t get into. You can read about these arguments on various gun forums.

However in California we can “legally” only have 10 rounds max within any gun. On my AR’s and AK’s I need a bullet button (The magazine release button needs a tool to function). So carrying around a bunch of 10 round stripper clips is more efficient than carrying around bulky magazines that only hold 10 round. In California I think stripper clips have the advantage. That’s the beauty of an SKS.

I'd say around 1910. ;) :D

Garand
 

Jyl,

No, Garand did not use stripper clips in the traditional sense, it was a 8 rnd clip, but served more like a box magazine, ejecting after the 8th round was fired, and then you would simply insert another 8 rnd clip/mag. Hope that makes sense, very different from traditional stripper clips or even box mags.

What a great war rifle the Garand was. Powerful an accurate.

^^^ The Germans used to listen for the ping knowing the GI had to reload. So the GIs used to keep an empty clip handy so they could toss it in an attempt to fool the Germans.

That story is a popular one, but probably without much merit.

i have a broomhandle. the stripper clips are a pain in the ass.

Yes it could be a myth but offten myths have some basis in fact.

I recall a veteran talking about his time in Europe and using this little trick to get the upper hand on a couple of Germans (documentary).

Edit: Interesting article in the link. Thanks.

Meh... never have had a failure to feed or eject, or a stovepipe with the old thumbuster. :D

Truth be told, a guy can't go wrong with either. Between the two, they have, however, rendered every other handgun pretty much superfluous. ;)

It is mankind's nature to forge ahead and make better. JMB, were he never-dying, would not have rested until he produced the phaser (Mk 2). He would never have said that his M1911 was the final word in personal lethality.

You're right; he went on to design the Hi Power, which he considered an improvement over his 1911. Funny, though, in that some of his later designs that he considered improvements over his earlier designs were never accepted as such by the shooting community. Weird how that works sometimes, be it guns, cars, or whatever.

While me may not have seen much change or improvement in firearms design in the last century, we have seen marked improvement in manufacturing techniques and precision. I think that is the great "unseen" improvement of our lifetime. We now see a level of precision in arms that was formerly reserved for the best of the best match rifles or handguns in the off the shelf wares from virtually all manufacturers. Any cheap hunting rifle on the rack at WalMart will out-shoot a National Match Springfield 03-A3 from the '30's. Any well made 1911 clone will out-shoot the best Pachmayer custom tuned and fitted bullseye gun from the '50's. That's progress. Incremental, granted, but progress nonetheless.

Who know from where the next big leap will come. We have seen caseless ammunition. We have seen a bewildering array of new materials and protective finishes. But still no really radically new, course altering technologies on the level of, say, the black to smokeless revolution. We may not in our lifetimes. And hell, even if we do, I'm not giving up my Peacemakers...