Talk:Magazine (firearms)

Objection to closing

OwenX I think there are a few issues with this close. The extremely weak nature of HCM references outside of the political topic is an issue that shouldn't be dismissed as casually. I also don't think the lack of consensus about level means they should be at the same level. In the original 2025 merge request it was found that HCM was a sub topic of HCMB. I think that was the case in the recent closing but I would need to review it to be certain. Basically, I don't see why we would favor one vs the other. Restoring them to the same level does suggest favoring one option. I'm fine with conducting a new pole to try to establish if it should happen but again, I do not think we should treat anything as status quo. Several editors were concerned about the trivial nature of the material in the HCM section. As before, we shouldn't assume any consensus exists. Rather, ONUS should apply to the material since much of it was added after the mergers were reversed. Springee (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking back at the state of the articles before the mergers seems like the proper place to establish what is the long term content. The original sock merge was started 25 September 2025. Thus I would suggest we use those versions of the articles to establish what content was long standing. At the time of nomination this was the HCMB article and this was the HCM article An effort was made to add content to the HCM article prior to the merger but that is all content added within the last ~ 1 month. Material that was added recently, for example the 10/22 "high capacity" content should not be considered established and thus needs to get consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand your objections, Springee. You raise valid issues, some of which you brought up during the straw-poll. However, the views you present here did not garner consensus. Consensus was that the text of the HCM should, in one form or another, be in the article, as a separate section. As I mentioned in my close, the question of section levels should be determined in a separate poll. If both you and Lightbreather agree that HCMB should be a subsection within HCM, by all means, go ahead and revert my edit. If you believe HCM should be a subsection in HCMB, you'd need support for that view, as I don't see anyone else here opting for that.

Again, I have no opinion as to what are the "correct" contents or section levels for this article. I didn't even check the sources. My role was limited to reviewing the opinions expressed here vis-à-vis P&G, and determining consensus. Owen× ☎ 21:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

OwneX (please let me know if I should not ping you, not sure if you are watching this) It is my view that the material that was part of the HCM article when the original merge discussion was started is the only material that should be considered stable. The material that was added in the last month should be considered new content and subject to NOCON etc. Do you think that is reasonable? As for merging HCMB under HCM, I think that is the best option but I don't know that LB will agree. I think the consensus for that change was weak but I would still support it if others do as well. Springee (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I till feel very strongly that "High-capacity magazines" and "High capacity magazine bans" should be two separate sections, for the reasons that I stated here, here, here, and here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Springee, I think you made your view very clear, both in your comments now and in the poll. But I can't accommodate you without effectively giving you a supervote. The question of "stable content" is irrelevant. The poll was about specific text to be added to the article. There was consensus to add that text, so NOCON does not apply here.

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the result of the poll, but unless you can show me that I misread consensus, rather than just claim that the other participants were wrong, there is nothing I can do without violating my duty as an uninvolved closer. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait, the pole was to add the section with that as suggested text. Also, we have rough parity of editors for and against. I don't think it is at all right to call this newly generated content "consensus". First, we have two editors who favor inclusion of basically the proposed text. Mudwater was in the middle. They support two sections but they aren't claiming the specific proposed text is correct. Qwirkle seems to be in the opposed camp and certainly felt LB's arguments were not on solid ground and Tioaeu8943 is clearly in the opposed camp. We are basically a 50/50 split, how can that be viewed as a consensus? Especially when issues like the UNDUE nature of the 10/22 material were never addressed. If this is going to be treated as an actual RfC to include content then it should be a RfC. If the idea is this is just a starting point but we don't treat any of the new material as "consensus" that seems better. Springee (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No, Springee, we are not basically a 50/50 split. Consensus is not a nose-count. I explained in my closing statement, at great length, which and why certain !votes were down-weighted or discarded. For example, an argument such as, "we don't have a clear definition so we can't write about it" carries zero weight. Mudwater was not "in the middle". Mudwater said very clearly he supports having an HCM section. What he opposed is having the HCMB underneath HCM. And indeed, that decision was closed as no-consensus.

Are you seriously rejecting the results because the discussion was called "straw-poll" instead of "RfC"? You had a week to speak up about this, but you only realized it now, when the result isn't what you wanted? How convenient. Owen× ☎ 07:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we are going to treat this as a RfC I suggest the opening it and actually advertising it. Alternatively, we can start a proper RfC and not treat this as a consensus. And it was a 50/50 split regarding replies. I'm less concerned that the section exists vs that you are saying the content, even trivia like the 10/22 material, is due. Additionally, this suggests that the scope of the section is fixed. For example, I think that the second should make it clear that their isn't an agreement on the definition of "high capacity" should be included since several RS have stated as much. Some of the content in that second should be trimmed.

As for not speaking up, the discussion was getting flooded with LB and I going back and forth. It seemed best just to let others talk.

I would ask if we are going to treat this as a RfC we either reopen it and advertise as such or run a proper RFC that asks two questions, should the section exist and if so what of that content should be included. Springee (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with others' opinion that the 10/22 material is trivia. Perhaps it could be pared down, but it clearly shows (along with the sources on drum magazines) that there was a market for HCMs well before the FAWB. To delete it outright would NOT be NPOV.

I believe there are some editors here who want to trivialize all the sources... except where they support the NRA/NSSF position that high-capacity magazines only exist in the context of laws. The old article was just that--old. Most of the sources were dated. The article was in sad shape. I found more current sources and developed the article while the (third) merge discussion was open. That is what the AfD notice on that page encouraged: improving the article while the discussion was open.

If this goes to an RfC a much wider audience must be notified. These topics--Magazines, HCM and HCMB--also fall under trade/markets and social/societal topics. If this is only advertised at WP:GUNS, the outcome is almost certainly predetermined, just as the results of the (three) merge discussions, which were also advertised only at WP:GUNS and Gun politics. Lightbreather (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know the motives of others. I ask that you strike the accusation. Springee (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Your argument has been and still seems to be to merge a small amount of info from an old, undeveloped article into the HCMB section of this article, no? Based on what you've said previously, you think most of the sources I've used are weak, so I imagine there will be a lot of pushback to use any of them, ensuring that any merged material stays small and only meaningful in the context of bans. I have not seen you make any move to accept anything more than that. That seems like trivializing. It's no PA, it's a fact, and it's not NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Please review WP:FOC. Yes, I think the content is trivial within the scope of the article topic. It's clear we will have to address that as a separate topic. As for accepting more, are you willing to accept the broader HCM topic in that section? So long as the section exists it should cover the politics associated with the term since that was part of the merged article. Springee (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It already has a hatnote directing readers to HCM as related to bans/laws. And the second paragraph says there are legal definitions. If you want to add a info about disputes re the term, move the NRA/NSSF opinion back to the HCM section from HCMB. To add more in the HCM section would only duplicate what is already in the article in the very next section.

I'm going to be offline a few hours. I'll check back later. Lightbreather (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

OwenX, Edit: in further reviewing the poll and resulting discussion, I also believe that we should have more involvement for the poll and keep it open. We really should have a formal RFC. I am in agreement with Springee. HCM is not a term that is clearly defined or merits having its own section. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943, I fully agree with your assessment of consensus at the straw-poll. There was consensus to add the HCM section, and no consensus about nesting one within the other. When LB added the section at 21:50, 4 June 2026, she also demoted the HCMB section. The addition was premature, as the poll hasn't closed yet, but ultimately vindicated when the poll closed. But since there was no consensus to demote the HCMB section, I undid that demotion. In the absence of a consensus about what level the HCMB section should be, the status quo is what level it was when the poll started.

As for the 10/22 material, a separate discussion may be in order. We are making progress, but there's always room for more work to be done. Owen× ☎ 07:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Is that being treated as new or consensus content. Springee (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Gotta love how you only realize the discussion needed more time, and should have been a "formal RfC" anyway, only after it closed against you. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Having been pinged, I had been looking for a while at this straw poll, which was presented as merely an opportunity to garner opinions, and no more than that. I'm not sure how one can say that a straw poll can be "closed against you", as by definition a straw poll is an ad hoc or unofficial vote. It is used to show the popular opinion on a certain matter. While I regret having spent too long thinking about my position on the choices presented, it does not appear that the solicitation of opinions at a straw poll on the matter constitutes the formation of a definitive consensus nor that it slams the door shut to proper consideration of how the wording should be handled. It would seem that an RfC would be the proper approach here. Alansohn (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No door has been "slammed shut". The straw-poll has advanced us one step forward; nothing more. It reflects the rough consensus among those who participated during the week it was open. You are more than welcome to start an RfC, the results of which can build on what we have today, or even reverse the results of the straw-poll, if that's what a newly established consensus shows. The only limitation is CT/AP, which stipulates that changes to the relevant sections must gain consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That means you have, in effect, supervoted in material such as the 10/22 material. I objected to that material since it was first added and I don't think anyone other than LB supported it's inclusion. Normally that would mean the material doesn't have consensus for inclusion but you are now saying otherwise. The same is true of the concerns regarding definitions. Springee (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC) edit to make it clear this wasn't intended to be a accusation Springee (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about the 10/22 material, so I'm not quite sure how I "supervoted". In fact, the only comment I ever made about it was to question its relevance (point #4), echoing your own comments. So I find it rather disingenuous that you are now accusing me of supervoting in favour of the other side. But hey, if you're grasping at straws, including the claim that the results should be discarded since the poll wasn't labelled as "RfC", I guess anything goes, right?

Either way, I cannot adjudicate on whether or not I supervoted. If your contention is that I did, the correct forum to appeal would be WP:XRV. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

When you said the content of the straw pole is too be added as the consensus of the group that effectively was a supervote for all content in the proposed text. We now have to show consensus to remove even newly added material. I get saying the pole established that the section should exist. My concern is you appear to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the content within the section in question should be treated as added with consensus. I would understand if you said, material from the old article has a presumption of consensus for inclusion but your closing suggests that the specific straw text and sources have that presumption. Springee (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. Once the accusation of supervoting has been levelled, you need a different admin to adjudicate the matter. Good luck. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are seeing the same 10/22 concerns that I had but it's not part of the closing and my read is you have said that material is now presumed to have consensus. If I remove it, regardless of the due concerns I raised, then it can be restored per NOCON to remove.

When I say supervote please don't take that as I think that was your intent. Rather, earlier you said I would be given a supervote if we established consensus for inclusion based on content that was in the merged articles rather than in the straw pole. I'm suggesting the reverse is true when saying the straw material is now considered to be consensus material despite a 50/50 editor split. (Edit note: this reply was drafted before reading the reply above) Springee (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but as long as the supervote accusation is up there, I'm not going to touch this. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, you say doing what I was asking about is a supervote for me. How is the reverse not a supervote in the other direction? I will adjust the wording to make it clear I do not think you are trying to supervote. Springee (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Be careful about trying to climb straw poles. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Close review opened

I've opened a close review at AN []. Ping involved editors:@OwenX, Lightbreather, Mudwater, Katzrockso, Tioaeu8943, Qwirkle, and Alansohn: Springee (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

The various Ruger magazines aren't notable in any technical capacity nor do they contribute to the larger history of magazine technology or even controversy. The capacities in question are not out of the ordinary for the various types of magazines (box, rotary etc). ~ Springee

They are notable in the history of the civilian market, as the sources make quite clear. The capacities are not out of the ordinary now, but at the time they were quite extraordinary.

The content reads more like 10/22 enthusiast content and probably would have a decent home on the Ruger 10/22 article. ~ Springee

Yes, some of the content might belong in the Ruger 10/22 article, but for reasons given in previous paragraph, some belongs here too. Lightbreather (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What is so special about the Ruger 10/22 and its history with having a magazine larger than 10-rounds? Guz13 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources explain it quite well. In a nutshell the Ruger 10/22 was and is, over 50 years now, one of the best-selling rifles ever made. There was a demand for HCMs and manufacturers scrambled to meet that demand. Some might call it the beginning of the large-scale production of civilian HCMs. Again, the sources go into more detail, including some related discussions. Lightbreather (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at the source and I do not see what you are saying: https://smallarmsreview.com/ruger-1022-hi-capacity-magazine-evaluation-forty-years-of-rimfire-firepower-innovation/

Guz13 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph are about demand for HCMs before (and after) the FAWB, and it's not about the 10/22. Lightbreather (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

My concern is one of WP:UNDUE. Even assuming the historical connection, I'm not seeing why this particular firearm article warrants this level of detail in a general section on HCM. This seems closer to material that would naturally belong in the Ruger 10/22 article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the 10/22 material. Also, while looking at that material I noted that https://www.americanconcealandcarry.com, a source for the CCW2024 and CCW2026 citations, appears to be a commercial company with no clear editorial standard. It is effectively self published. If we are going to go for self published I'm sure we can find better sites. I've removed the citations. They seem to have been redundant so the removal doesn't change the article text. Springee (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think removing the 10/22 material was the right call, Springee. It doesn’t seem like something readers need to understand the broader topic. I also looked at the ACC website and it appears to be a commercial firearms training business without a clearly identified editorial process, so I agree with removing those citations as well. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please engage with the talk page before removing WP:V tags. Also, American Conceal and Carry has been challenged as a source. Please justify why you think it is reliable. It is not even a firearms media site. It's effectively a self published source with a "staff" of two people. Finally, the edits you reverted are supported by others here.

Since you reverted the WP:V fail tag let me explain why the source doesn't say what is claimed. The article claim is, "Some semi-automatic handguns, such as AR-15-style pistols, have been engineered to use high-capacity magazines." but the source says AR-15 style pistols use magazine that are standard for AR-15s. From the article, "The title for the semi-automatic handgun with the largest magazine capacity often goes to firearms specifically designed for that purpose, such as the AR-15 pistol variants that accept standard AR-15 magazines," (emphasis from source). So the source says they are engineered to use standard AR magazines which are high capacity compared to typical pistol magazines but not compared to AR-15s. Basically the AR-15 has been engineered to use AR-15 magazines and those happen to have higher capacities than typical pistols. It's probably better to simply remove this sentence which I would also support. Springee (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The source also says, "AR-15 pistols, by virtue of accepting standard AR-15 magazines, immediately jump to the top of the list [of high-capacity handguns]. Magazines holding 30 rounds are commonplace, and drum magazines can push capacity much higher, even exceeding 100 rounds." So yes, 20 to 30 round magazines may be standard for AR-15 rifles, but magazines that hold more than that are considered high-capacity. Ergo, AR-15 pistols were engineered to accept HCMs. The sentence could be edited, but it should not be deleted as it passes verification. Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Survey

Please just reply to RfC questions here. If you want to respond to someone's reply, please use the Discussion section. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No and No. I argue that the sources provided are not sufficient to justify these moves and somewhat constitute selective fact-picking. The overwhelming majority of documentation about magazines, firearm design, and firearms in general has no concept of a high-capacity magazine. The exceptions are drum magazines and quad-stack magazines, which already have their own respective subsections. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes. The first source provided in the "source" section (the Strah Migliaccio piece) is sufficient to show that the topic, outside of the context of political/legal usage of the term, is WP:DUE for inclusion. It is an encyclopedia and just about all topics covered in reliable encyclopedias should be covered by Wikipedia. 2. Yes. The fact that the term has its own section in an encyclopedia on guns means we should match that depth of coverage and cover the term independently of the legal/political usage. For what it's worth, one can find a number of patents for "large capacity magazine" in US and Canada patent records. See , . It is also a commonly used term to describe ( ) and advertise ( ) guns. Katzrockso (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The question is whether reliable sources cover the technical aspects of high-capacity magazines, not whether we (as individual editors/readers) personally believe that the technical meaning of "high-capacity magazine" has a consistent or specific meaning that makes sense to us (as individuals).

Comments like HCM is not a defined term outside of the legal and political context, and But, if someone says that car is small (or large) are they referring to the EPA definition or just a relative definition and Who sets the par for "high capacity all miss this point. Whether or not we find the definition useful, sources manifestly do provide a definition. Mudwater clarified that above in the section titled "There are others who say...", but there is also a definition provided in the very first sentence @Lightbreather added to the "Sources" section; High-capacity (or large-capacity) magazines, sometimes also known as "extended ammunition clips", are ammunition storage and feeding devices for firearms... What makes these high-capacity magazines different from standard-issue ones provided by the gun manufacturer is their capability to hold more bullets, or rounds. [ellipses added] Katzrockso (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

At the technical level there really isn't any difference Springee (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Katzrockso (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, what is the mechanical significant difference between a box magazine with say 12 rounds vs 15? Why is a given pistol offers two sizes would we designated one as "high capacity" and treat it as a significant topic of both are box magazines of conventional construction? Springee (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You are once again substituting your personal opinion for what the NPOV states. Refer to my previous comment:

The question is whether reliable sources cover the technical aspects of high-capacity magazines, not whether we (as individual editors/readers) personally believe that the technical meaning of "high-capacity magazine" has a consistent or specific meaning that makes sense to us (as individuals).

Note that NPOV nowhere states that we personally have to find a distinction reliable sources make to be significant or even make sense. I personally think the sex/gender distinction is incoherent, as concisely argued by Christine Delphy , but I'm not going around arguing we should remove such distinctions from Wikipedia articles when they are described by reliable sources. We reflect what the sources say, we don't omit information because we personally don't agree with it or think it doesn't make sense or think the distinctions a source makes are arbitrary. Katzrockso (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The claim that there is a distinct, difference outside of politics etc is a minority view. Finding a few examples out of so many misses doesn't establish weight for inclusion as a topic. What we need to show is that sources about guns and magazines that aren't about the politics consistently use the term. A keyword search didn't do that. When we look at books on the history of firearms and they don't mention "high capacity magazines" but do discuss magazines that's a strike against weight. Clearly those sources don't make a distinction. I'll provide expressions next week when I'm back at a computer. Springee (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

When we look at books on the history of firearms and they don't mention "high capacity magazines" but do discuss magazines that's a strike against weight I don't think you understand how the WP:WEIGHT policy works, since that is not true. We shouldn't expect a broad-level overview of the history of firearms (which contains vastly more information than the minutiae contained in an article like this one) to cover something like that. I would recommend searching for the term "extended magazines", they are everywhere on gun sales websites. . Do you reject the idea that there are magazines that are standard for a given firearm and those that are considered extended? Do you deny that manufacturers and sellers advertise these differences? Katzrockso (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I do understand weight. If there are lots of sources on a subject but only a few mention X, then we give X little or even no weight. As for your link, that's an extended magazine, not "high capacity" magazine. In that case extended refers to a magazine that sticks out of the magazine well. Here is a 9 round extended magazine . Often these extended magazines do exceed the capacity of the magazines that stay fully within the magazine well of the gun. But their actual capacity isn't always "high capacity". Springee (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The source Katzrockso shared starts with this:

When shooters require a magazine capacity greater than that provided by the manufacturer, an extended magazine may be required.

That's the primary definition of high capacity: more than the standard capacity provided by the manufacturer. Another example is when the manufacturer says it's high capacity, like Beta Company said about its C-Mag when they applied for a patent, and later in its marketing. There does not have to be one single definition. The sources show this. Lightbreather (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended magazine is another term for high-capacity magazine.

If there are lots of sources on a subject but only a few mention X, then we give X little or even no weight This is a different question than the one you proposed, which is sources about the history of firearms that might mention magazines, but don't mention the different types of magazines. Please don't change the subject - it's hard to pin down a moving target. Katzrockso (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

At the technical level there really isn't any difference ~ Springee

That's not true. This article has sections on Tubular, Box, Rotary, Drum, Pan, Helical, and Hopper magazines. They are all technically, mechanically different. But more than that, what Katzrockso said: It doesn't matter what you or I or any other editor thinks. What do the sources say? Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the difference between a 12 round vs 15 round box magazine other than capacity? What makes the 18 round tube magazine (a prohibited number some states) technically different than the more recent 14 round tube magazines in a Marlin 60? Other than a change in capacity what makes them technically different? You are saying they are different at some level beyond regulatory/political so what makes them different? They work the same way, they have functionally equivalent parts. What's the diff? Springee (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps “two” is a number, but if someone claims there are ”a number of so-and-sos” the reader is very seldom expecting “two” to be that number. Utility patents for “high capacity magazines” are vanishingly rare before the gun control legislation discussed here.

You should, perhaps, strike or reword your claim above. Qwirkle (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I only provided links to two, that doesn't mean there weren't more. I will not strike or reword my factual statement. Katzrockso (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The connotation of “a number of” ranges from “several” to “many.”. Using it to mean “two, and the many other ones the dog ate” borders on mendacity. Qwirkle (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There are more than what I linked to. I didn't use it to mean 2. Katzrockso (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a few U.S. patent records. I didn't look for other countries.

• U.S. patent 3204361A Large capacity magazine for firearms
• U.S. patent 3345771A High capacity magazine and cooperating firearm structure
• U.S. patent 3672089A Large capacity magazine
• U.S. patent 4,658,700 It is a still further object of this invention to provide a large capacity magazine which is simple in design, economical in construction, lightweight and compact.
• U.S. patent 8,061,071 The present invention is a high capacity, non-drum magazine.
• U.S. patent 8739446B2 High capacity magazine with multiple springs

Lightbreather (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand how patents are written? You aren't highlighting examples of a compound noun, "large capacity magazine". Instead you are showing examples of a noun, "magazine" that is modified. Also, your list highlights the fact that there isn't one way to describe these magazines. Springee (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

First, your question is only an attempt to disparage. As for the rest of your reply, the whole POINT of these magazines, per the INVENTORS is that they are high (or large) capacity. Four of the patents given have these terms in their titles. If modifiers were trifling in the topic area, Wikipedia would just have one massive "Firearm" article. But we have articles for Assault rifle and Battle rifle and Automatic rifle and Semi-automatic rifle and so on. Lightbreather (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No and No on both questions on the RFC. HCM is not a defined term outside of the legal and political context. When NY bans magazines over 10 rounds and Virginia 15, Columbus, OH 30, and other places none at all how can we say there's a definite definition? It's changing all the time with each new law that's pass or development in technology. Some of the sources provided here are weak and again solely because the words large capacity or high capacity is are used do not by default create definite definitions. This has been mentioned before but these sources are weak. Even with them the point whether this coverage gives the term the ability to be covered in its own section on every single magazine related article, which has what's been attempted here. The sourcing shows widespread descriptive use rather than strong secondary treatment as a defined term. Any primary source provided like an advertisement isn't great for settling this question of WP:DUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AadamentAardvark (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes. The reason I have listed so many sources is because Springee kept asking for more sources. (See "Sources" subsection with 18 citations below.) He may discount the sellers' websites, but WP:VENDOR tells us that such sites are reliable for some things. Regardless of how the various sellers define high capacity magazines, the fact is that they sell them. The fact that they sell them shows that there are shooters who look for them. There is a market for high-capacity magazines. Both sellers and buyers discuss them. 2. Yes. For the same reasons that Katzrockso gives. A gun-related encyclopedia has separate entries for high-capacity magazine and high-capacity magazine ban. Patents actually describe their inventions as high capacity. And secondary sources discuss high-capacity magazines outside the legal and political sphere. Lightbreather (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add this discovery: The NRA's American Rifleman uses the term "high-capacity magazine" frequently when reviewing firearms. I think that alone is sufficient to show that the term is significant outside the legal/political sphere.

• Search - An Offical Journal of the NRA

Lightbreather (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That creates a bit of a catch 22 for you. They are talking about guns/magazines with higher capacity than what was common at the time (see your recent add to the article). However, those are the standard capacity magazines for the guns in question. That conflicts with the definition we offer (exceeds the capacity intended by the mfr). Basically we get back to the earlier question, how big does a hot dog have to be before it's a "jumbo" dog? What makes a "jumbo" dog different than a hot dog? Springee (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That creates a bit of a catch 22 for you. They are talking about guns/magazines with higher capacity than what was common at the time...

Yes, higher than was standard at the time, so they were considered high-capacity at the time. Standards do change. Your insistence that there has to be one single, immutable definition for high-capacity is REHASHing. Lightbreather (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, the standard of 20-30 rounds for AR-15 rifle magazines has remained unchanged, judging from the NRA sources I shared and others. Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

how big does a hot dog have to be before it's a "jumbo" dog

See Open texture ;

Using a modern example, the concept of money seemed clear, until suddenly challenged by the existence of digital, decentralised currency such as BitCoin. Whether it is money or not, whether it is currency or not, and why it should or should not be called such, is all part of a newer debate. One may observe that it is used as a currency with no other value than as a currency to buy or sell things with, and decide it is money. On the other hand, one could observe that there is nothing backing up the claim of value, such as a government, gold, or central bank, or that the value of BitCoin fluctuates too much for it to function as a reliable measure of price in the way that money typically does. On those grounds, one might feel that it is not money after all. Perhaps there is an appealing answer to the question, and we will collectively decide one way or the other. That is all fine. The point is that the concept of money itself turned out not to be fully delimited. There turned out to be a question on both the extension and intension of the concept money, no matter how clear we thought it was in both ordinary and professional speech.

I hope you don't suppose we can't write an article about Money.

See some more analytic philosophy literature with the concept of relative gradable adjectives; . Or perhaps a more basic paper on context-sensitivity might help . Katzrockso (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, high capacity magazines in a functional sense are significant enough to have their own section in this article (as are high-capacity magazines in a legal sense, though that's not the current question). That's supported by the sources, and by the numerous lengthy discussions on this talk page. Note also that there was a recent discussion, the result of which was to merge the "High-capacity magazine" article into this article -- not to delete the article entirely. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No Outside of the political/legal context this isn't a widely used term. In a number of the laws in question terms like "ammunition feeding device" are used instead of "high capacity magazine". Outside of the political the term is generally not used when discussing magazines. In a number of examples we have discussed we see either alternative terms or terms that are just modifiers. For example, a "small car" has a specific EPA definition. But, if someone says that car is small (or large) are they referring to the EPA definition or just a relative definition? Taking that a step further, what is the technical difference between a "small car" and a normal sized car (not using the EPA definitions). Do small cars not have brakes or seats? What is the difference between a 10 round legally standard capacity magazine and a 12 round "high capacity" magazine? It's this a difference that would even be noted were it not for the legal discussion? The merged "HCM" article was basically about the legal/political topic. Finally, a number of sources have been provided by Lightbreather. The same editor suggested this small business marketing site was a RS . The Trace, a pro gun control advocacy site is listed. Are they really going to be "outside of politics and law"? I will do a survey of the sources when I get back to a computer after the holiday weekend. Springee (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes to both per Lightbreather. (Solicited via bot, so I won't be watching this. Ping me if needed.) --BDD (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No Who sets the par for "high capacity"? The Browning Hi-Power was designed with and a for a 13 round magazine. Is that high capacity? One could also posit that any magazine with a capacity higher than the original design, which would make an eight round magazine for some 1911A1s "high capacity" (the pistol was originally designed with a seven round magazine). The only clear bar in my mind is aftermarket magazines manufactured with a higher capacity than the pistol's original magazine. Those used to be called extended magazines (and in many circles still are), but to me that's the only non-political bar. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: Actually, that's what we're talking about. Any magazine that has a capacity higher than the original design, sometimes called an extended magazine. So the number of rounds varies widely, depending on the model of firearm. (A longer post about this is here.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's also very clearly delineated in the very first source Lightbreather added to the "Sources" section. I would recommend reading a few of the sources provided to get an understanding of what it means, @Intothatdarkness. Katzrockso (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Coming from someone who thinks .mil is an "obscure domain" I'll take that advice with a large grain of salt. Intothatdarkness 00:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong NO and Lightbreather should probably consider his own advice and step back from a topic he was once banned from for years, and with very good cause. "High-capacity" magazines do not even exist according to WP:BESTSOURCES and any singular definition, unless you are here to POV push, the only material which is WP:DUE is "High-capacity magazine ban", maybe. ~2026-38128-76 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)— ~2026-38128-76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• A vague No, mainly because I'm unhappy with the way that the way that the section is organized. Firstly, going off of N-grams , the section should really be retitled as 'Extended magazine', as even if the two terms are not wholly synonomous, there's enough overlap that it would be hard to justify differentiating them. A "high-capacity magazine" as compared to an "extended magazine" is really a neologism, one created by the U.S. civvie market so that you can count rounds rather relying on the mag's shape. Regarding the sourcing, to point out one flaw, in 48, Lake writes To not wax political, there will be little mention here of any magazine that holds fewer than 11 rounds., at which point he is quite explicitly engaging with high-capacity magazines purely within under their HCMB definition. Stikkyy (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Modified, to be clear, I think that the standalone section is being buttressed by the HCMB, and should be merged. Stikkyy (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The ngrams data is fallacious/erroneous here. Check Google Scholar, and you see 278 hits for "extended magazine" , 396 for "large-capacity magazine" and 437 for "high-capacity magazine" , so "extended magazine" is in a distant third. Checking Google Books for "extended magazine" finds a bunch of unrelated hits, so it's picking up something unrelated . Katzrockso (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe, but neither is referred to very much by the military. Stikkyy (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why is that relevant? .mil is an obscure domain Katzrockso (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Since when is .mil an obscure domain? Explain. Intothatdarkness 00:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's used solely by the US military, which is largely not a reliable source, and only one miniscule section of sources at large. Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not a reliable source? I see. Aside from that rather interesting observation, what is it that makes .mil obscure? Aside from your own personal opinion, of course. If you really believe .mil is both obscure and inherently unreliable I see no point in continuing this discussion. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have never encountered a .mil domain while searching for information about anything. Katzrockso (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  No need to get angry. I think Katzrockso could have worded his observation better. .Mil is certainly a reliable source for military stuff. As for obscure, that can mean "requiring knowledge that is restricted to a limited group", which is how I read it. That's all I'll say on that. Lightbreather (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  The military can a reliable source for some things about itself, but I wouldn't say they're particularly reliable. The US military has a long history of publishing intentional disinformation. Katzrockso (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

1. No. 2. No. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

1. No. While some uses are meaningful, it is mostly used as a comparative, a pejorative, and as marketing slop. As a comparative it is trivial, as a pejorative it belongs in discussion of gun control, and as marketing it does not belong here at all. The legitimate exceptions are blatantly obvious, except perhaps here. 2. No, unless you mean a sentence or two mostly of disambiguation. Qwirkle (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No and No. Outside of law there remains no useful definition of "High Capacity Magazine", and the state of the section as written reflects the fumbling around for DUEness or purpose. It contradicts itself and offers nothing of value to a lay reader.

• Some of the cited sources themselves give rise to the vague sense of all this "The 30-round rifle magazine has been the standard high-capacity magazine for more than three decades." "Standard high-capacity"?!? The section states "The standard capacity ...; for AR-15s it is 20 to 30 rounds." So is 30rd high cap or standard? Or standard high-cap? We're in this circular argument over nothing - people can find a source to "prove" anything, because it's meaningless marketing cruft that is redefined in a highly contextualised manner each time it's used. A journo writes a quick article about some aftermarket magazines and uses a throwaway phrase which Lightbreather is now citing as definitive. Yes, Wikipedia follows the sources. Editors are also required to assess sources for reliability and meaning. We don't just cite anything as a source because it happens to contain a keyword in it's body. There is a fine line between this and Original Research, but the line exists and we are allowed/required to make these judgements (otherwise we might as well just redirect people to google to figure it out themselves).
• As a trivial exemplar, the 17-round box magazine for a Glock 17 is simultaneously standard and also high capacity (in some US states). Outside of law, a 17rd box mag would be "high capacity" for some firearms, but is standard for others. We could perhaps call this "Lightbreather's Paradox".
• Any attempt to define "high capacity magazines" is futile, and as Lightbreather has proven with previous comments about "high capacity 1911s", their performative naivety and insistence on "the source contains the keyword therefore..." is clearly WP:Flogging from a point of inadequate domain knowledge or some personal POV. HCMs outside of the formal, citable, legal definitions do not exist any more than "high capacity hard drives" or "high capacity filing cabinets". YES, the phrase exists in marketing - that doesn't make it notable or DUE. It may also be used in a paper (with a specific definition) but that will not be relevant to marketing cruft. HCM means a slightly different thing in every article and advert. The current section as written is confusing and meaningless - "some magazines have higher capacities than others. Some are marketed as high capacity." Yeah, so what? Hemmers (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

We could perhaps call this "Lightbreather's Paradox".~ Hemmers

We could call this remark of yours a PA, or at the very least, grasping.

[Lightbreather's] performative naivety and insistence on "the source contains the keyword therefore..." ~ Hemmers

This is a lie. Find "keyword" on this talk page. Search for it in the archives. Only you and Springee use it. As for "performance naivety" and your other accusations and insults, take your complaints about me to the appropriate forum. Lightbreather (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No to #1 and #2 depends on interpretation of the question/answer At best it's a vague term which has no specific meaning and doesn't identify / specify any topic or item. At worst it's a political assertion disguised as a term. On question #2 my answer is "NO" if the section is putatively about magazines. And "YES" if it is only about the TERM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, the term is frequently used in high-quality sources. See eg. ^[1][2][3] Most of the arguments people are presenting above are arguments that have been made by people opposed to gun control; but those arguments have not shifted high-quality coverage, which continues to treat high-capacity magazines as a meaningful category worth studying in a wide variety of contexts. I also somewhat disagree with the efforts to separate out "legal and political usage"; broad usage in high-quality legal journals obviously establishes that it is a neutral and broadly-accepted term in academia with a clearly-accepted meaning, contra to the arguments people are making against it. But even if we accepted that distinction, it is also used widely in medical journals; the arguments people are making above are simply not compatible with the fact that the distinction is widely-accepted in academia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  That’s begging the question. The essential problem here is that we have a subject that overlaps into four separate areas, each of them having slightly to widely different vocabulary.

  (Four? Hell, might be more. Shooters, politicians of one stripe, politicians of another, public safety wonks, public health wallahs, commercial interests, generic hoplophiles, generic hoplophobes. (We will pass over the hoplerasts as infra dig.) Now, these groups overlap, but not always in the ways you’d think. Qwirkle (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think Aquillion's comment is a good argument for inclusion of the expanded/renamed HCM ban section. Springee (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  [1] – Use of HCM weaponry banned during the 1994 to 2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) increased fatality counts on average by 1.9 times...

  [2] – I cannot access the full text, but I would be interested in what definition they use for high-capacity magazines.

  [3] – Two of the firearm proposals concerned a ban on possession of high-capacity (>10 rounds) ammunition magazines, which was approved by voters in California in 2016 but since has been challenged in federal court.

  Stikkyy (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The weapons ban is outdated and that with california's law is politically debated and almost solely in that context is it used. That's part of what so much this debate is about AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes and Yes per Lightbreather . Maybe address the definitional issue by prepending the first sentence with the word "Generally." JerryGraf (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

1. No. Even if reliable sources use the term outside legal and political discussions, I don't think the evidence presented here shows that it is a distinct enough topic to warrant separate treatment outside those contexts. Much of the sourcing seems descriptive or contextual rather than sustained secondary coverage of "high-capacity magazines" as an independent subject. 2. No. I don't think the discussions have shown that this topic warrants its own standalone section in an article whose primary subject is firearm magazines generally. Any material about it could be incorporated into broader coverage of magazines or related legal issues without giving it more weight than it deserves. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943 I'm interested in understanding why one would say that secondary coverage as an "independent subject" is the test that should apply here. HCM is often a component of a larger topic in RS, just as it would be in this article. I also don't understand the suggestion that a scopier article would not include relevant detail. Thx JerryGraf (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Alternative Suggestion

Have a section about extended magazines since that is actually what a number of the sources are about. Perhaps "HCM' can be mentioned as a similar term with that section. It doesn't appear that HCM as a designation vs as a descriptive modifier is that common in the non-political space. Springee (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Did you not see Qwirkle's objection to the use of "a number of" in arguments? But more than that, "high capacity magazine" is the WP:COMMONNAME. The editors of Guns in American Society know this. And most of the sources in this article--not just "a number of"--use that term. Lightbreather (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to the honest use of “A number of” in discussion, merely to the dishonest use of it as a substitute for “a few,” “a couple,” “a vanishingly small number,” and so forth. Qwirkle (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

"A number of" was never used as a substitute for “a few,” “a couple,” “a vanishingly small number. Please strike this erroneous statement and your characterization of my usage as "dishonest". Katzrockso (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Your words have already spoken for themselves. Qwirkle (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really care what the section is titled, so long as the information contained within remains. Is this you finally acceding to the fact that there is a coherent topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage here? Katzrockso (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Most sources we've cited use "high capacity". It is the common name that the vast majority of readers will use to search. To use "extended" is just humoring conceding to the NRA and the NSSF. They shouldn't dictate what Wikipedia says. Lightbreather (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. An “extended magazine” is a particular thing, and many of the sources from…what, 30 years ago?…used it in a narrow particular sense, a pistol magazine of clownish length used for drive-by shootings…possibly more in theory than fact, but that is another story. Qwirkle (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

No, however, extended magazines seem to be a more common term outside of the political sphere. Also, they are often a specific designation while many of the uses of large capacity, high capacity etc are simply modifiers. To be clear, there is no reason why we need to use "High Capacity Magazines" vs any other term (large capacity magazine, extended capacity magazine etc). We should use the term that is most common outside of there area of politics/policy if this part of the article is meant to avoid the politics/policy discussion. Springee (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with Springee and still have not received an explanation as to why there can't be some shared use of both the terms if individuals feel so passionate about using HCM. But HCM is clearly a political term or I doubt the fight over it would be so strenuous. If you called it an extended magazine would people not understand what someone is talking about? AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course they would. But extended magazine isn't (for whatever reason) as charged a term. It's also pretty easy to define. That seems to make it a less attractive term for some reason. Intothatdarkness 18:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I would support renaming the title of the section currently titled Magazine (firearms)#High-capacity magazine to "Extended magazines". We already state

A high-capacity magazine or large-capacity magazine or extended magazine is a magazine capable of holding more rounds of ammunition than the standard magazine for a particular firearm.

And clarify that these are all different names for the same thing. If changing the header means we won't remove important content that ought to be included in the article, I'm all for that. I don't really care as much what it's titled, since no matter what we call it in the header, the first sentence will clarify that these are all synonymous terms. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Except, of course, that is complete bullshit. An extended magazine is a particular thing, a lengthened version. It is not drum shaped or snail-like…except, of course for examples where the original is. Conflating this is like using “schooner” as a direct synonym for “ship.”

Doubtless someone will point out sources that do equate the two terms. What does that say about the sources? Qwirkle (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. An extended magazine is a clearly defined thing in the firearms community (users and designers alike). Whereas HCM can be applied to something like the original magazine in the Browning Hi Power (depending on where you happen to reside). It has nothing to do with the magazine or the firearm design. It's a legal/political term. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't see things like OEM "pre-ban magazines" showing up on the used market and manufacturers wouldn't be modifying their original designs by reducing magazine capacity to be able to sell them in some jurisdictions. If HCM is included, it should be defined as a legal/political term with various definitions. Intothatdarkness 21:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Whereas HCM can be applied to something like the original magazine in the Browning Hi Power That is the definition used in the High-capacity magazine bans section. The definition used in the High-capacity magazine section is precisely the same as the "extended magazine". Did you even read the sources in question or the section in question? Katzrockso (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the definition is correct. Simply because you assume it is doesn't make it so. "High Capacity" and "Extended Magazine" are simply NOT the same thing. If you can't grasp that, I don't see this going very far. Intothatdarkness 23:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Our reliable sources say they are. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, we don't follow our personal beliefs. Katzrockso (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Go to the WP:RSN if you want to question the sources. You don't get to decide the sources are unreliable because you disagree with what they say and we definitely do not exclude things because you personally disagree with what the sources say. It is becoming increasingly clear that some editors don't like what the content says and are arguing to remove it on the behalf. Katzrockso (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

We do get to make the case that a source is/isn't good based on the arguments made in the source. RSN is a good place to get additional input but a typical question regarding sourcing starts with discussions related to the source and claims at on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

We do get to make the case that a source is/isn't good based on the arguments made in the source That is Wikipedia:Original research. Source reliability is not based on what the source says. Katzrockso (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No, if that was OR then we would never be allowed to argue a source is/isn't good for a particular claim at say RSN. WP:OR specifically says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.". Springee (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the WP:RSN. Please see WP:RSN#Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law. Katzrockso (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it either, but I think that narrowing the scope down from counting rounds would be a positive development. Without an Energy Star around, how many rounds it takes to make a magazine "high-capacity" for any particular firearm is completely subjective, and as I noted above, some of the sources currently within the section already throw their hands up and resort to the HCMB's arbitrary 10-round definition. Universally labeling drum magazines as "high-capacity" when they were the intended standard magazine for some firearms is an example of that. On the other hand, there certainly are extended magazines that pass the Stewart test (mainly through noticeably compromising use), and while I'm not sure whether they're DUE, they would certainly be under the umbrella of this article. Stikkyy (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

how many rounds it takes to make a magazine "high-capacity" for any particular firearm is completely subjective How is it subjective? The definition is based on whether or not the magazine is larger than the standard magazine for a firearm. The manufacturer is the one who evaluates what is standard and what is high-capacity/extended for any particular firearm. That is not subjective - it is perfectly objective.

Do you see people disagreeing online as to whether a particular magazine for their firearm is extended or not? Katzrockso (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

There are very many companies manufacturing AR clones in the U.S., even in the status quo text, there is variability provided. Stikkyy (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what this has to do with my question. Katzrockso (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't care what the section is titled your dismissing half of the discussion especially from Lightbreather and Springee's perspective. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is an idea, rather than having a section titled High Capacity Magazine and or High Capacity Magazine ban, how about a section titled regulation? I suggest this as different governments regulate the topic (magazines) differently, and different governments (national or sub-national) have different definitions of what is and isn't regulated, and sometimes that differs depending on the type of firearm. Rather than using the term HCM, one can say government X regulates Y as it defines Z (cite source(s)); and so on and so forth.
It can be argued that High Capacity Magazine, could be considered a scare term (see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL)--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that we need to have a section that documents the technical differences between standard magazines and whatever you want to call the larger sizes (high-capacity, extended, etc). That is a purely functional/technical difference that doesn't rely on laws. Katzrockso (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a need to have a section that documents the technical differences between standard magazines and other magazines.

What is standard? That is relative to the firearm and what its usage is? Is there even a standard? Different types of firearms have different magazine sized; that's like saying X vehicle has a standard engine size of Y (when the vehicle producer has options of engine size A B C ...) and just because vehicle X has Y engine size doesn't mean that vehicle J has the same engine size. There are too many magazine sizes because there are many firearm types and models.

My understanding is the article magazine is about the general subject, and as such saying something is "High Capacity" or what ever term one decides to use, as a general concept is so subjective it should be left to articles about specific firearm models.

Thus why a section about magazine regulation can be seen as so general that it could be included without getting so deep into the minutia.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This is just repeating the erroneous assertion that a context-sensitive definition means that the topic can't be covered. That has 0, zero, zilch, nada, precisely NO founding in Wikipedia policies and guidelines and just reeks of WP:IDL.

Reliable sources discuss extended magazines/high capacity magazines, which is why Wikipedia needs to cover them too. Katzrockso (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are making the same point many of us have made. There isn't really any more technical difference than the delta between a standard hotdog and a jumbo dog. I think this is why N8000 says a discussion of the term itself makes sense as a possible topic separate from the capacity based regulations. Springee (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

First, re your last post suggesting "high-capacity magazine" might be a scare term, absolutely not. It is the WP:COMMONNAME when discussing functional/practical aspects and when discussing laws.

As for this post, we really don't need another discussion about standard vs high capacity. We've had several in the past 2-3 months. Here is one: Talk:Magazine_(firearms)/Archives/2026/June#Recap_and_reset

The reason HCM needs to be here is because if the reader searches "high capacity magazine" they should be able to find a section or article on the subject. Ditto for HCMB. And the sources unequivocally show they are separate topics. Some will argue the topic of HCM has no weight because searches mostly show the term in the legal/political sense, but there are plenty of sources discussing the practical aspects, based on the application. The HCM section is only a small fraction of the whole article, and the section is down deep in the article, so there is no weight problem. Lightbreather (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just did "high capacity magazine" search on duckduckgo vs. google. There was a marked difference, with the DDG first-page results being mostly functional/practical articles, and google being mostly legal/political articles. Yahoo and Bing results similar to DDG: mostly functional/practical articles. Interesting. Lightbreather (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Lightbreather, I'd suggest pruning the source list. No one is going to be impressed by a blog, for instance. You want people to read the sources, and you want them focused on the best sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Washington Post is the source that said the term doesn't have an accepted definition. I believe we discussed it previously. Your "gun related encyclopedia" is specifically approaching this from the policy/legal pov so it doesn't support the claim this term is widely (or even sufficiently) used outside of legal/political context. Springee (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is your WaPo comment about the "There are others who say" discussion? Could you answer there and give the link please?

  Guns in American Society (encyclopedia) doesn't touch upon policy/legal concepts until a couple paragraphs in. It starts with a discussion of what "High-capacity magazine" means outside the political/legal. And it has a separate entry for the "High-capacity magazine ban". Lightbreather (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Guns in America article is clearly in context of politics. The author isn't a firearms expert, instead she is a grad student/post doc in the field of criminology. . The topic just before that one is High Capacity Magazine Bans. The opening of the book states:

  Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law is a three volume set that can help anyone - where a member of the public or a policy maker - tackle the broad array of topics that surround the gun debate.

  The entire work is clearly about politics and policy. Springee (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  What does it mean to be in "the context of politics". In reality, nothing is decontextualized from politics. If you are suggesting that they write an article that focuses solely/exclusively on the technical aspects and mentions none of the political/legal aspects, that's an unrealistic bar that is not required for it to be about the technical definition.

  The first five paragraphs provide no mention of bans, politics or laws. The question that you have presented by creating this asinine and ultimately irrelevant test of "technical meaning" is aimed at deciding whether we should cover the content only under a header that says "high-capacity magazine bans". The five paragraphs in the the Gun Encyclopedia article would not fit and should not go under a section that is titled "High-capacity magazine bans", but under one that says "High-capacity magazines". Katzrockso (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I quoted from the second paragraph of the preface where the book describes itself. Springee (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I don't know how that's relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Guns in America article is clearly in context of politics - Springee

  Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, covers, among other things, the firearms industry; gun subcultures (for example, hunters and collectors); technological innovations in firearm manufacturing; and various types of firearms, from handguns to assault weapons. The "High-Capacity Magazines" article gives non-policy definitions. It explains why shooters like them. It gives some early history of high-capacity magazines. It discusses shootings that involved HCMs. (Which shooters bought because they were HCMs.) It includes estimates of how many millions of HCMs there are. It touches laws, but that is not the thrust of the article. The "High-Capacity Magazine Ban" article is clearly about politics/policy.

  The author isn't a firearms expert, instead she is a grad student/post doc in the field of criminology ~ Springee

  The author of the "High-Capacity Magazines" article in GIAS, Jessica Trapassi Migliaccio, has a PhD in Criminology and Justice Policy. This isn't a middle-school book report. You're making assumptions about her expertise. Do you think she didn't study firearms and magazines extensively to write the article? Do you think the editors--Schildkraut (PhD, Criminal Justice) and Carter (PhD, Sociolology)-- would have included her article if she hadn't? Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The entire work is clearly about politics and policy ~ Springee

  Springee selected a snippet from the Guns In American Society preface. Here is another:

  Guns In American Society has been written from many perspectives with many others in mind. This encyclopedia [third edition] will benefit teachers, students, policy makers, criminal justice professionals, journalists, researchers, and the broader public who have an interest in firearms and their role in our nation's past, present, and future.

  We should also remember the subtitle of GIAS: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. The encyclopedia is not purely about policy and politics. Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Springee, I have searched the archives and not found your Washington Post source. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Springee (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's a lengthy article, but I think this is the part you referred to in your "There are others who say" argument:

  "Gun rights advocates and organizations have mounted a number of challenges to the bans in court. In addition to the self-defense and constitutional arguments, some say that the term 'high-capacity magazines' is itself a misnomer. Those devices holding more than 10 rounds are 'common to the point of ubiquity among law-abiding gun owners,' a group of Republican attorneys general said in a court filing last year."

  "'The 10-round magazine is the exception, not the rule,' said Brown, of the National Association for Gun Rights. 'It’s like saying the car with five gears is a high gear, high-capacity transmission. No, it’s not, it’s the standard capacity, the standard number of gears.'"

  So, yes, there are gun rights advocates who say "high-capacity magazine" is a misnomer. But they seem to be talking about the legal definitions, not those used by manufacturers, sellers, and buyers. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is the source Springee gave, with its authors, date, and title:

  • Berman, Mark; Frankel, Todd C. (March 27, 2023). "High-capacity-magazine bans could save lives. Will they hold up in court?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 31, 2023.

  Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• I've moved the sources after the discussion so editors can comment on them in context.

Issues with sources The Gun Encyclopedia, The Trace and the WSJ article are all discussing the topic in context of laws and policy so they don't support the term as a designation used outside of that context. Also, all the references to 1911 style "high capacity" pistols are referring to a pistol that is not a 1911 and is the standard capacity for the pistol in question (a double stack pistol based on the 1911). None that I've seen are sources outside of politics providing a common definition for the term. Springee (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Since this comment was moved away from the source discussion I've flagged the topic within the comment. Springee (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Springee has started commenting in the survey section. He has also posted new questions there. Are they meant to modify the RfC? He's also moved the sources. Is everyone cool with these edits? Lightbreather (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm moving the sources back. They're meant to be perused before the survey. If you want to comment on the individual sources, just start a discussion in the Discussion section and name the source. Lightbreather (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've moved it back. The question and survey should be adjacent. The sources typically come at the end of the RfC and should have a space following where editors can comment on the sources. Putting sources above and away from comments on the source make discussions hard to follow. Springee (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please give the policy or guideline that says this. With the way you want it, it will break up the sources so anyone invited here won't easily find them. They are part of the RfC.

  Can anyone chime in here? @Sirfurboy, Katzrockso, AadamentAardvark, and Mudwater:? I feel like Springee is hijacking this RfC, in which case I'd rather close it and let someone else start it. Lightbreather (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would suggest pinging Redrose64 if you want a view on RfC propriety. I would note, however, that keeping the question neutral is vital to an RfC so moving the sources out of the question section may be better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  My concern is three fold. First, the RfC question should be short and to the point. The list of sources isn't a question, it's part of an argument for a given outcome. Second, the list, where is was placed, is acting as an appeal to authority. Comments/questions about a given source should be near to the source in question, ideally as a reply to the specific source, not buried at the end of the discussion. Really, as a source list anyone should able to edit (add or comment) to the list. Treating it as sacrosanct violate the neutrality of the RfC. Third, when a source list is part of a RfC, it's a case where we are asking about say a specific sentence with a list of the sources used by that sentence. Some of the JK Rowling RFCs might be good examples of how to do it. Springee (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sacrosanct? No! I'm trying to keep this discussion less chaotic than previous ones, where you split up sources and then repeatedly claimed there weren't enough sources and asked for more. At the same time, you ignored requests for sources yourself. See discussion, "There are others who say". Lightbreather (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have repeatedly noted the Washington Post which said the term doesn't have a clear definition. Moved it somewhere Springee (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe they're supposed to go next to the discussion section. I agree with Sirfurboy that the question and survey are supposed to be adjacent. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think it may be good to let someone else take it if you're getting too frustrated or can't work this out with Springee (I don't want to take it myself btw) but that may help reduce tensions. It's just my opinion but we can take our time here AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Question. Do we have sources, outside of legal/political that provide definitions of HCM? This is the difference between a modifier applied to wood and an actual destination. The EPA definition vs people's relative/subjective terms. Springee (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Additional question: For the yes votes, what content should go in such a section? If we remove politics and policy, what sources and discussion do we have? So far just sources that use the term but none that discuss the term. This makes for a very poor quality section. Hence it's better to figure out the content then define the primary topics. Springee (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• I missed some of the background to this RfC. Is there a reason we can't make the high-capacity magazine bans a subsection under the section "High-capacity magazine"? Is the idea that we need to delete all of the sourced content under "High-capacity magazine"? I guess I just don't understand why question 1 is relevant to question 2. Katzrockso (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think combining the sections makes sense as the technical differences between standard and "high" basically don't exist beyond the mechanical types. For example drums typically having more than box but less than belt. Springee (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The technical differences is precisely what the political/legal context is based on. I.e. because large-capacity magazines can hold more rounds than a standard magazine, some jurisdictions have banned or otherwise restricted them. It is only natural to first introduce what the different understandings of "high-capacity magazine" are then introduce the legal restrictions.

  I would oppose removing any of the content in the section currently titled "High-capacity magazine" and I would be opposed to titling the combined section "High-capacity magazine bans" as misleading and inaccurate. Katzrockso (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso: The two sections should be kept separate, otherwise the article will cause additional confusion. Again referring to this earlier post, the "High-capacity magazine" section is about the functional definition, and the "High-capacity magazine bans" section is about the legal definition. The current RfC is about whether or not we should keep the "High-capacity magazine" (i.e. functional) section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I guess I don't agree that they need to be kept separate to prevent confusion, but I'm definitely opposed to removing any of the content that is in the current section or otherwise implying that there is no technical meaning of the term. Katzrockso (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  My issue with "functional difference" is what is the functional difference between two box magazines, one at say 15 rounds and one, ab extended capacity magazine for a given pistol at 19? The mechanical operation of both would be the same. Springee (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then think of the practical difference. Sellers and buyers discuss HCMs as "more than standard" and in terms of which kind of magazine and what capacity is best for target practice, plinking, hunting, competition, home/personal defense, LE, and the military. Most sellers don't mention bans except as disclaimers for buyers who live in the dozen or so states that have bans. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  So what you are staying is I would expect basically all sellers to use your descriptors. It shouldn't be just a few but basically all should if you are correct. Springee (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  He and I haven't always agreed on things, but I agree with Mudwater on this. Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK Lightbreather and find a topic you can edit on without inflamed passion and emotional distress. You have been incessantly WP:BLUDGEONING this article's talk page for a while now. Time to take the dog for a WP:WALK. ~2026-38128-76 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-38128-76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  This is something to consider for all of us I don't want anyone getting in trouble unnecessarily AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  You may easily have more insight then me. How would combining the sections cause confusion? AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@AadamentAardvark: There are two different meanings to "high capacity magazine" -- one functional and one legal. Some of the magazines that are legally high-capacity are not functionally high-capacity, and vice-versa. This potentially confusing situation should be made clear to our readers. Here is another post about this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok I understand, thanks for that explanation AadamentAardvark (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) I do not have time to get too involved. I would just like someone to address some points. Any attempt to define a High-capacity magazine is somewhat hamstrung. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) ran into a sunset law and expired. For 10 years the law defined a high capacity magazine as any capable of holding "more" than 10 rounds. Before the law expired, as far as I know, only California had a law already enacted, the 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. Since the sunset of the federal law, various states have enacted various laws to basically muddy the definition. There were nine states then, according to the article, 14 states. It states, "As of 2024, fourteen U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity". If we (Wikipedia editors) are going to state that, for NPOV reasons, it would seem that Virginia would be excluded, at least in part. There are currently two preliminary injunctions and a DOJ lawsuit. Grant it, this only covers certain areas but the state (Attorney General) is not going to prosecute until a court resolution. This seems to indicate there is a state-wide hold on the law. The Virginia law, signed in may 2026, includes magazines with more than 15 rounds. California, Connecticut, Hawaii (handguns only), Illinois (rifles only), Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and Washington, D.C. set the number at 10 rounds. Colorado and Vermont (handguns only), along with Virginia, at 15 rounds. Delaware is set at 17 rounds. How can we have a section, "High-capacity magazine bans" that has a note This section is about the legal definitions of high-capacity magazine, and about laws regulating their use. As defined by manufacturers, sellers, and shooters? How can manufacturers, sellers, and shooters give credible and reliable sourcing on "legal definitions" and "laws regulating their use"? Anyway, I think that over-thinking an issue can have negative results for an encyclopedia. By-the-way, my wife owns a Ruger 10-22 with a 25 round (BX-25) magazine. This is legal in Louisiana and it is registered. It would be considered illegal in, as far as I know, all 14 of the state bans. It seems that this would be appropriate to mention somewhere. My SKS (Yugoslavian Model 59/66), has two of the three items needed to be classified as an assault weapon. It does, however, require a "stripper clip" to load it so was exempt in most (if not nearly all) of the states. Certainly not California though. It is worth far more than that now. What? I buy what I can afford. It looks new and I paid 150 for a deer rifle that works in the woods. Considering years ago I was paying $99.00 for Russian or Chinese models that seems like a great deal. What does all this mean? I still can't be biased one way or the other. Both guns are illegal "somewhere", just not in the "majority of U.S. states" including where I live. With all the verbiage above the two sections, I think, could be improved, a lot. If an article touches on a subject that can, and should be, better covered in another article, that is when we should provide summary material and link (or that was the idea) to the target article for more detail. Everyone take a deep breath, now fix it. --LOL. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Otr500: Yeah, the wording of that hatnote was a bit confusing. I've updated it, here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Otr500 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to step back and consider the context of the post-merge article. After the merge, some material on HCMs and HCMBs became part of this general article about firearm magazines. This seems to have resulted in the article spending a substantial amount of space on two closely related topics that are narrower than the article's overall subject.

Out of curiosity, I ran the article through a word counter and found it contains ~7,903 readable words, of which about 2,066 are devoted to the HCM and HCMB sections alone. So then, roughly one-quarter of the article is focused on those two sections, while the remaining ~ 5,837 words cover every other aspect of firearm magazines, including their design, function, history, and technical characteristics. For me, this raises a due-weight question. Regardless of how the HCM material is organized or defined, how much of an article about firearm magazines should be devoted to political and legal issues? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I did a similar calculation on June 1 and OwenX did one on June 8, except we only looked at the words in the HCM section (not combined with the ban section) compared to the whole article. We both came up with barely 5%. Five percent hardly seems undue. Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Due and undue are not determined by word counts or sentence counts. A single sentence can be undue, as well as a single word. Consider "Some studies suggest the earth is flat" added to Earth will not stand very long in the public encyclopedia, and for good reason. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved) - I feel Mudwater has made some salient and enlightening points, and per Katz's mention of the 437 results on Google scholar, I lean heavily towards the existence of merit for inclusion, though I am openly not "in the loop" on this. Wasn't this recently merged from a standalone? Were there prior AFD discussions that failed WP:DEL-REASON? Not to overreact, and not pointing any fingers at anyone, it's just the optics on this may be concerning since the RfC questions basically seem to infer discussion or request for what could amount to essentially a form of DELETION via MERGER, even if unintentional, but possibly circumventing the WP:AFD "PROD" process. If I'm misreading this whole thing I apologize and welcome corrections and clarifications, preferably with diffs if possible. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  After reading up on the past Merger and Deletion discussions, I am disheartened to see that this is all in part due to the disruptive POV pushing by the WP:SOCK known as User:Iljhgtn...I am already tired of trying to mitigate the damage they have caused elsewhere on Wikipedia. Why their agenda continues to to be carried out seems beyond my comprehension. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you look at the content of the HCM and HCMB articles prior to the 2025 merge you will see the content was largely the same. That is why the merge wasn't controversial, in fact it was just about universally supported. The content of the article prior to the merger was basically about their legal status/regulation. Basically, prior to all this we didn't have a stand alone article about HCM outside the topic of regulations and politics. So when the original merge happened it was basically taking identical content from two articles and putting it in one space. I think the stronger argument has always been keeping the HCM topic out of this article since, prior to the merge this one was largely technical and the HCM is largely gun politics and laws. In the recent merger I mentioned both a single merge with just HCM/HCMB as a topic or the double merge. I said as much in the double merge discussion. Ultimately, this was a case where the sock did something that the broader community felt was an improvement. Springee (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm confused about the edit history of High-capacity magazine. It was merged into this article, but that title seems to just have an edit history of being a redirect. Was there something that happened along the way? Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso: Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-capacity_magazine&action=history — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Here are a few links to refer to:

• This is the "High-capacity magazine" article that was merged into this article (i.e. merged into "Magazine (firearms)").
• This is the "High-capacity magazine ban" article that was merged into this article.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-capacity magazine is the merge dissussion.

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources

• Migliaccio, Jessica Trapassi (2022). Schildkraut, Jaclyn; Carter, Greg Lee (eds.). Guns In American Society: An Ecyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. pp. 426–29. Retrieved May 5, 2026. High-capacity (or large-capacity) magazines, sometimes known as "extended ammunition clips, are ammunition storage and feeding devices for firearms. ... What makes these high-capacity magazines different from standard-issue ones provided by the gun manufacturer is their capability to hold more bullets, or rounds.
• Stephens, Alain (June 12, 2019). "The Gun Industry Is Betting on Bigger High-Capacity Magazines". The Trace. Retrieved May 5, 2026. The 30-round rifle magazine has been the standard high-capacity magazine for more than three decades.
• Hoober, Sam (April 10, 2024). "Why Drum Magazines Couldn't Keep The Beat". GunDigest.com. Archived from the original on December 7, 2025. their [drum magazines] existence helps to ensure that 30 rounds is the definition of standard capacity.
• Kesling, Ben; Elinson, Zusha (August 16, 2019). "Mass Shootings Draw Attention to 'Drum Magazines'". Wall Street Journal. 'High-capacity magazines make it easier for shooters to kill large numbers of people in short periods of time,' Ms. Titus said in a statement.
• "How to Choose the Right Magazine for Your Rifle". State of Guns. July 30, 2024. Archived from the original on September 16, 2024. Retrieved May 11, 2026. When selecting a magazine for a hunting rifle, the capacity of the magazine plays a crucial role in both legal compliance and practical use in the field ... Generally, these [high-capacity magazines] are not used in hunting due to their size and weight, which can hinder mobility.
• Lee, Jerry (15 July 2013). Gun Digest 2014. Gun Digest Books. p. 275. ISBN 978-1-4402-3550-4. New for 2013 is a compact hi-capacity version of Armscor's 22 TCM (Tauson Craig Micromag), a variant of the 1911 pistol...
• Lee, Jerry (15 July 2013). Gun Digest 2014. Gun Digest Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-1-4402-3550-4. Dan Wesson Havoc... 21-shot magazine capacity... Features: The Havoc is based on an "All Steel" Hi-capacity version of the 1911 frame.
• Lee, Jerry (15 July 2013). Gun Digest 2014. Gun Digest Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-1-4402-3550-4. Dan Wesson Mayhem... 18-shot magazine capacity... Features: The Mayhem is based on an "All Steel" Hi-capacity version of the 1911 frame.
• Lee, Jerry (15 July 2013). Gun Digest 2014. Gun Digest Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-1-4402-3550-4. Dan Wesson Titan... 21-shot magazine capacity... Features: The Titan is based on an "All Steel" Hi-capacity version of the 1911 frame.
• Dockery, Kevin (2007). Future Weapons. New York: Berkley Trade. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-425-21750-4. The double-column magazine for the VP70 is a large-capacity model that holds 18 rounds.
• Dockery, Kevin (2007). Future Weapons. New York: Berkley Trade. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-425-21750-4. The primary modification to the P225 to meet the XM9 demands was for the magazine capacity to be nearly doubled... In spite of the large magazine capacity....
• Dockery, Kevin (2007). Future Weapons. New York: Berkley Trade. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-425-21750-4. The Joint Combat Pistol System proposal was enough to have the handgun industry salivating at the thought of receiving the contract... Other specifications for the weapon were that it would have a standard magazine capacity of not less than eight rounds, and a high capacity magazine holding not less than ten and preferably 15 rounds.
• Crane, David (December 3, 2010). "DR Exclusive!: SureFire MAG5-60 and MAG5-100 High Capacity Magazine (HCM) "Quad-Stack" AR Rifle Magazines: 60-Round/Shot and 100-Round/Shot AR (AR-15/M16) 5.56mm NATO Box Magazines for Significantly-Increased Firepower during Infantry Combat and Tactical Engagements of All Sorts". DefenseReview.com. Archived from the original on January 4, 2011.
• Crane, David (June 21, 2009). "MWG 90-Rounder Snail Drum Magazine: 90 Rounds of Immediate 5.56mm Firepower for Your M4/M4A1 Carbine (or AR-15 Carbine)". DefenseReview.com. DefenseReview has received a lot of positive feedback from professional contacts of ours on the MWG 90 Rounder high-capacity snail drum magazine for AR-15/M16/M4/M4A1-type rifles and carbines.
• "Magpul Invents New Quad-Stack Magazine for ARs". Accurate Shooter. June 9, 2010. In Multi-Gun matches, ultra-high-capacity magazines can provide a competitive edge in high-round-count stages.
• Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (28 August 2019). "Chinese CS/LS06 'Chang Feng' sub-machine gun". Armament Research Services. Prior to working on the CF05, he had already secured a patent for a high-capacity quad-stack, double-feed magazine for the Type 56-2.
• Oryx Blog Team (4 February 2014). "North Korean Helical AK Magazines". Armament Research Services. This new magazine uses a staggered helix design, which allows for a high number of 5.45 x 39 mm cartridges to be carried without the notable increases in size and unwieldiness that characterise many other high capacity magazines.
• "SAW-MAG – Armatac Industries". Armatac.com. September 13, 2016. Archived from the original on March 12, 2026. Since our Incorporation in 2005 we have been dedicated to high capacity magazine design.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)