Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2008/August

History of magazines
Tube:
 * Volcanic Rifle, used caseless ammunition and a tubular magzine
 * Spencer rifle, first widely used military magazine fed firearm; though it used rimfire cartridges, still had occasional ignitions in the magazine
 * Jarmann M1884, one of the first bolt action, magazine fed military rifles, used tubular magazine
 * Mauser Model 1871/84, 1884, used a tube feed magazine
 * Lebel Model 1886 rifle, tube fed, originally used a wadcutter style bullet, later switched to pointed bullet; lots of tricks to get pointy bullets not to ignite in magazine

Rotary:
 * Krag-Jørgensen, 1886, used fixed rotary magazine--cartridges held side by side, and could be topped off, but expensive to produce.

Fixed box, fed by stripper clips:
 * Gewehr 1888
 * M1895 Lee Navy
 * Mosin-Nagant, 1891
 * M1903 Springfield rifle
 * Gewehr 98

Transitional design, direct feed from en-bloc clip:
 * M1 Garand rifle, 1936

Detachable box:
 * Lee-Metford, 1888, detachable box magazine
 * Borchardt C-93, 1893 detachable magazine pistol

Anyone got any early notable examples I missed? scot (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * M1 Garand is fed by en-bloc clips, not stripper clips. The most prolific example of a rotary magazine is the Ruger 10/22. The Detatchable box magazine is best exemplified by the AK-47 and M16 magazines. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While all of what you say is true, I believe Fluzwup's point was that these were early/key historical appearances. I can't think of any rotary magazine I've actually seen in a current firearm other than the 10/22, but it's certainly not the original instance of such. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about the Garand, it doesn't really fit the heading I've got it under right now. I wanted to include it as a transition from the fixed magazine, bolt action rifle to the detachable magazine, automatic rifle design.  As for detachable magazine automatic rifles, the M-14 is a better example than the AK-47; the magazines are nearly identical funtionally (cam in, lock at rear) and the M-14 is a clear evolution of the Garand action from fixed to detachable magazine.  The M-16 is not particularly notable as far as magazines go; while it is a more user-friendly system than the cam-in types, is not functionally different than the typical handgun magazine.  Mention should also be made of the right-angle box magazines, such as the G-ll and FN P90, and how they deal with the right angle turn the bullet needs to make before firing.  scot (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

First draft added
Need to add refs and Garand info, but I'm out of time right now. scot (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scot, I realize you wrote this and are kinda proud of yourself, but I read through and there are NUMEROUS gross errors such as listing the Mosin Nagant as a double-column magazine and the fact that the MN and Krag are listed under the WWI section. First draft, yes, and it needs some serious attention.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Side by side" was an wording error, not a factual error; the rounds ARE side by side in a vertical manner; I have reworded that. The Nagant is the first major rifle I can find that used a box magazine, rather than a tubular magazine; if you can provide an earlier counterexample, please do.  I agree that the World War I title was misleading, I was intending it to mean the period leading up to WWI, and the evolution of the fixed box magazine + stripper clip combination that dominated the war.  I have retitled.  And the Nagant was a WWI rifle, in fact, it was a WWII rifle, meaning it was used in those conflicts--again, that's an issue of how you interpret the wording, and hopefully that's call clear now.  scot (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Lee-Metford predated it as a service rifle and shows a direct lineage to the Lee-Enfield. The Mosin-Nagant was a highly derivative rifle combining the bolt of the Mauser M1871 with an in-line magazine unremarkable design save one feature.  The one novel and notable feature of the Mosin Nagant is the cartridge cutoff that relieves tension on the top round.  Single-stack mags had been done, double stacks had been done, and large production runs had been accomplished long before the MN was adopted. I'll apologize for being bold, but the text is wrong.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "history of the magazine" reference I can use, I'm digging through century old encyclopedias and military manuals to dig this information up; it's quite possible I've missed things.
 * As for the Lee-Metford, it used a detachable box magazine, not an integral one, and nowhere can I find any reference to its use with stripper clips prior to the Lee-Enfield in 1895. The Lee-Metford was ahead of its time in its use of a detachable box magazine, and the fact that the Lee-Enfield did not use it just shows that the military wasn't ready for that.  While the 1891 MN design was a mish-mash of earlier stuff (part Mosin's, and part Nagant's), it was the first example I can find of a fixed box magazine, stripper clip loaded rifle.  As that was the standard military rifle for half a century--and the 1891 itself lasted for more than 50 years in service--I use that rifle as an example of the seminal early 20th century military magazine rifle.  I've gone over the wording, which was incorrect, and noted that the 1891 MN was the first fixed box magazine rifle.  scot (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just realized I left the SKS out of the next section--looking for sources on it. scot (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what? I think I just need to rewrite the whole section.  Give me a bit to mull it over and I'll put something together before I go to bed tonight.  I think what I have now was poorly organized, and nibbling at it isn't going to make it better.  (That and maybe I can avoid all these database locks I'm getting.)  scot (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've got it condensed, more or less chronological in order, and hopefully I've worked out all the contradictions that showed up as I was writing it in whatever order I found source information. Even found some new sources that helped me tie things together.  scot (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it and do some edits myself as needed. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)