Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2026/June

There have been three AfD discussions in the past three seven months proposing various merges of "High-capacity magazine" and "High-capacity magazine ban".

• No. 1, created Sept. 2025, proposed merging HCMB into HCM, which was the final result. Monkey wrench: This was done, but somewhere along the way it was decided to change the direction, which resulted in "swapping" the merged HCM article and the old HCMB article. (FWIW, this made a mess of those articles histories.)
• No. 2, created March 2026, proposed to merge HCMB into Magazine (firearms), which was the final result. Monkey wrench: The proposer, Iljhgtn, of this and previous AfD, was found to be a sockpuppet in April 2026. "High-capacity magazine ban" and "High-capacity magazine" were restored to their pre-sockpuppet state.
• No. 3, created May 2026, proposed to merge HCM and HCMB into Magazines, which was the final result.

The merges were performed May 16, with an eye toward editing to remove duplicated content. The problem is, the entire "High-capacity magazine" section was deleted unilaterally on May 18 with edit summary "This isn't value added content. Outside of laws related to magazines, "high-capacity" magazines really aren't a notable separate topic." I restored it and worked with another editor (who did the best work) to improve it. On May 20 the section was deleted again, by the same person as before with ES "Removed 'high-capacity magazine' section based on talk page discussions." There had been no discussion that resulted in consensus to delete the HCM section.

I am pinging here all the editors involved in these discussions to try and settle this once and for all. Should a section that was to decided to be merged three times in seven months simply be deleted?

Courtesy pings: Hemmers, Reywas92, Metallurgist, Very Polite Person, Mudwater, Kvinnen, Gjb0zWxOb, Marquardtika, Star Mississippi, Zackmann08, Doctorstrange617, Alansohn, Kelob2678, Guz13, Springee, Agnieszka653, Boutboul, North8000, AngelP8823, Tioaeu8943, Svartner, FaviFake, Drmies, Anastrophe, Qwirkle, TheFeds, MEN KISSING, OwenX Lightbreather (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Oops! I thought I pinged all editors involved in these discussions, but I missed at least one. Courtesy ping: Sirfurboy. My apologies. Lightbreather (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Should a section that was to decided to be merged three times in seven months simply be deleted?

Is this a trick question? Of course not. That's more freaking consensus than you get out of most national legislatures. Who is trying to overrule that much consensus if so?

(I am going with your interpretation here as I remember the parts I was involved in prior but no recent history.) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this article should have a "High-capacity magazines" section, talking about the non-legal meaning -- magazines capable of holding more rounds of ammunition than the standard magazine for a particular firearm. This is definitely a non-trivial technical aspect of magazines that will be of interest to many of our readers, and that can be reliably referenced. The exact contents and length of the section are a legitimate subject of discussion here, but the section should exist, as per the previous merge discussions. And there should also definitely be a separate section for the other merged-in article, "High-capacity magazine bans", about the laws (though that would not necessarily have to be the name of the section). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ummm, no. There is no single meaning of the term.

One usage is magazines above a manufacturer’s design., or in the case of M1911s, to a modified design.

Another is those above some legal limit.

Another is those above what is seen as the norm.

Another is marketing malarkey, AKA “mine’s bigger.”

Another is magazines seen as well above the norm.

…

Every damned one of them, save the second, is subjective. Qwirkle (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no single meaning of the term.

This applies to many Wikipedia topics. Take for instance Firearm. "High-capacity" in a legal sense has no single meaning. There is no reason "high-capacity magazine" in a firearm accessory sense has to have a single meaning. Lightbreather (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It applies to most topics in general. What gender means is literally the object of an entire field of study, yet we don't reduce it to a few sentences. Katzrockso (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

First, the consensus was to merge useful DUE content. Most of the content in the pre-merge HCM article was either content that was really DUE for the HCM-Ban article or is trivial mentions. I don't see any reason to have a specific "high capacity magazine" section any more than an article on electric cars should have a section on "extended range" versions of the same car. Does this mean all the content should be deleted? No, but most was either useless trivia or redundant. Looking at the content in question, what are the actual unique claims/facts that are worth including in a stand alone section? In historical context a number of guns had different magazine options. For example the Thompson_submachine_gun was available with both stick and drum magazines. They had different capacities. The capacity of each is notable in context of that article but not in context of a "high capacity magazine" topic. Are we also going to mention that some ammo belts were longer than others and the longer ones had more bullets?

The mentions that a particular pistol or rifle has both a standard X-round magazine and an high capacity X+ magazine is information about the gun. Is there any notable mechanical difference between a 12 and 15 round double stack magazine for a given pistol? Is there anything notably different between a 20 vs 30 round magazine for a given rifle?

The part about "high-capacity" defined by laws is notable and is a separate part of the overall article. Hence the paragraph talking about the assault weapons ban and laws should, if not already covered, be moved to that section. I moved some material for that reason.

The paragraph about the Ruger 10/22 is not DUE in this article. Again, it is notable in context of the 10/22 though the capacity and mechanism of the magazines, not the "high-capacity" label is the useful information.

Finally, the claim that "modern high capacity magazines" trace there origins to the military is not useful. That is true of almost any firearm magazine type. Springee (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the content in question
— User:Springee

Or look at the developed content in the discussion directly above this one. Lightbreather (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. I am following the discussion. The section above has the same problems I've been noting. I will reply above. Springee (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Lightbreather for the ping. My action was purely administrative in closing an AfD. I don't have anything further to add, but appreciate being aware should that change. Star Mississippi 02:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Not that we're voting here, but since others are saying Yay or Nay to including the section, plus proposing what to do with the material to be merged... I say, yes, there should be a "High-capacity magazines" section and it should cover the various capacities and ways they are used in the manufacturing, marketing (including to the military and law enforcement), competitive shooting, hunting, hobby shooting, home- and self-defense, and even when reporting on crimes committed in the majority of states that do not ban them. Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

We need reasonable content before just adding the section. Remember, premerge the HCM article (not the HCM Ban article) was almost entirely about laws regulating things designated as high capacity magazines. Springee (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Refer to the policies on imperfection and fixing problems. The AfD notice on the article itself said "Feel free to improve the article". A lot has been published on the topic since 2014. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but I wonder if "large capacity magazine" would make sense as the primary name for the topic. It gets more hits in Ngrams . To note, there is a usage from 1918 of "large capacity magazine" , which certainly predates any legislation on the topic. Katzrockso (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be okay by me, as long as "high capacity magazine" redirected there. Ditto for "high capacity magazine ban" and "large capacity magazine ban". But NO on the absolutely UN-COMMON "magazine capacity bans", which some have pressed on this article.

This all reminds me of back in 2018 when some editors renamed "AR15-style rifle" as the gun-industry preferred "Modern sporting rifle". How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page But I digress.

Yes, LCM and LCMB are suitable, if HCM and HCMB redirect to them. Lightbreather (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. No, there should not be content organized around vague or inconsistently defined labels. “High-capacity magazine” isn’t clearly defined, varies by jurisdiction, and isn’t used as a consistent technical category. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE, any coverage should reflect how reliable sources treat it. It’s a term that mostly shows up in legal or regulatory contexts where it’s explicitly defined for that purpose, and that kind of context-specific usage doesn’t support treating it as a standalone subject in a general, technical article on magazines. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Assault isn’t clearly defined, varies by jurisdiction, and isn’t used as a consistent technical category. Katzrockso (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Wholesale removal isn't warranted; on the other hand, much more than a few sentences is also unwarranted. The advertising copy for my clothes dryer said it was "high-capacity". Unsurprisingly, the article clothes dryer offers no counsel on what a "high-capacity" dryer would be. The wheelbarrow article provides no guidance on what would constitute a "high-capacity" wheel barrow. And there's a good reason for that, which should be self-evident, but apparently is not: "high-capacity" means nothing more and nothing less than "it's bigger". That's not compelling enough to warrant more than a brief mention. A brief intro to the HCM ban section pointing out that there's no distinct, widely-agreed definition for what "high-capacity" means, would suffice. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there are two questions here. 1. Is any of the content usable? 2. Should we have a section labeled "High capacity magazine". To the first, there is some usable content for this article and that material is being saved. For the second, not really. The term really only exists as a relative term (long wheel base vs standard wheel base truck) or in context of laws/regulations. In that case it goes in the next section (which should probably have it's name changed to be something like Magazine capacity laws and regulations. Springee (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I’d have to disagree slightly. “High capacity magazine” also exists as…well, it depends on point of view. One group might call it a public safety problem, and the other scarelore.

The magazine bans didn’t come out of nowhere, and there should be at least a paragraph or two about that. That’s all it should take.

What we had on the subject before, though, was WP:COAT-racking from one perspective. That all should go. Qwirkle (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. I would put the political term in with the "magazine capacity regulations". Perhaps "magazine capacity politics and regulations" as a section? Do keep in mind we have a long subsection on magazine bans, I would put any of the politics type material in that section since, as you note, the laws were born out of the view that these magazines were a public safety problem. Springee (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This would be a violation of WP:NPOV to minimize the content related to this notable topic, effectively endorsing one 'side' of the dispute by insinuating 'high-capacity magazines' don't exist. Katzrockso (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Are we taking about the term or the items designated as HCMs? If the former then we should be clear this is a term, not a clear technical description. If it's the designation then we should talk about the topic in terms of regulations. None of this is a NPOV violation. It's keeping things in reasonable context. The technical and the political should be separated. Springee (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The term really only exists as a relative term... or in context of laws/regulations.

See my reply (and Katzrockso's) to Qwirkle's "There is no single meaning of the term" argument above.

[the section] "should probably have it's name changed to be something like Magazine capacity laws and regulations".

You are saying we should ignore the WP:COMMONNAME Article title policy. Lightbreather (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a common name in context of the laws and regulations related to magazine capacity. Hence it makes sense to put it in that section vs being stand alone. If you think this is such a thing, can you find any sources from before "high capacity magazine" bans became a thing? Can you find sources that speak about HCM as a thing in and of themselves vs just a descriptor of a magazine? I mean the military has been using various magazine capacities for a while. Were they using the term? Springee (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I have provided many. The fact that you don't like them doesn't mean we toss them. Lightbreather (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Anastrophe, imagine if fourteen states passed a high-capacity washing machine ban tomorrow. Would that negate the fact that prior to those bans a high-capacity washing machine was a thing that could be defined? Would it negate the fact manufacturers still make and consumers still purchase them? That over time the "highness" of unregulated capacity might change? If a reader wanted to learn about HCWMs, should they only learn about the term in a legal sense from the fourteen states that ban them? Might they want to know what was considered a HCWM before the bans and in states that still allow them? Might readers want to learn that "high-capacity" differs between compact washers, "commonly used top-loader washers" (that's from our Washing machine article), and commercial washing machines? Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"Would that negate the fact that prior to those bans a high-capacity washing machine was a thing that could be defined?" (emphasis added) Say what now? Please - point me to where we can find this objective definition of a high-capacity washing machine. Please. This I'd love to see. Vernacular use, as in marketing copy, advertisements, promotional literature, etc. does not constitute a "definition", unless the overwhelming majority of vernacular uses are consistent with a widely held known metric - in this case, perhaps cubic feet/gallons of water/pounds of clothing/motor power X units higher than a 'standard' washer/etc. While we're at it, please, share the widely held definition of what a standard capacity washer is. The only 'standard' capacity is that which is smaller than what a given manufacturer does not call "high capacity". It's postmodern 'Department of recursion Department' stuff.

It's worth pointing out that "Might readers want to learn that "high-capacity" differs between compact washers, "commonly used top-loader washers" (that's from our Washing machine article), and commercial washing machines?" actually hurts your argument - the article makes no such distinction against "high-capacity" or even "large-capacity".

There is no widely agreed definition of what a high-capacity washing machine is. There is no widely agreed definition of what a high-capacity magazine is. Absent a widely held definition, you're trying to nail jello to the wall. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

point me to where we can find this objective definition of a high-capacity washing machine

No. Myself and others in this discussion have already pointed out, with examples, that there doesn't have to be a single "widely agreed" upon definition of a thing. And since this hypothetical ban starts tomorrow, check out this best washers of 2025 report from Popular Mechanics: Or find a copy of Consumer Reports with their ratings for 2025 models. These will give you examples of hypothetical, pre-ban high-capacity washers.

And who says you can't report how Maytag defines its high-cap washers? Or LG's? You? Wikipedia policy does not forbid the use of primary sources; it only says to use them with care.

the article makes no such distinction against "high-capacity"

No, but it could. There are sources with that info. Some readers would find that useful and, in the case of this hypothetical ban, enlightening.

Now, back to HCMs (or LCMs), provide your sources showing that there were no such things before 1994, and that HCMs since 2004 only exist as defined by law in the few places that have bans. Lightbreather (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

"No, but it could." Got it. John Cena handwave. Reality and facts are relative, and a distraction.

10 round "high-capacity magazine":.

17 round "standard magazine":

These two things that exist can't merely be waved away. There is no coherent definition that can arise when these two things exist. When no coherent definition exists, all that's left is Pixies and Fairy Dust.

While I do believe that Pixies exist, they aren't sufficient for a rigorous encyclopedia entry.

As to your closing demand (out of left field, since I tendered no such construct to begin with)...John Cena handwave.

Hope you can get back to your Wikipedia Retirement real soon. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

A "John Cena handwave" means nothing to me. I skipped whatever you wrote about the Pixies. And the first of your two links is about a high-capacity magazine made for a sub-compact pistol and the second is for a full-size pistol that comes with a standard magazine... As pointed out previously, "standard" and "high-capacity" don't have to have a single definition that covers every kind of pistol or rifle in every jurisdiction. As for my "demand", the answer is central to this discussion and you keep dodging it. Don't ask anything more of me, please, and I'll return the courtesy. Lightbreather (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

"jurisdiction". Irrelevant to vernacular characterizations, only relevant in a legal sense. Back and forth and back and forth. I can play tit for tat as well - you dodged my 'demand' for a definition of a high-capacity washing machine - merely reverting to handwaving and more arguments that do damage to your campaign. Whatever. My loathing is getting the best of me. Promises, promises. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

OMG.

Drop the stick on clothes dryers, wheelbarrows, and washing machines. If you don't like the frigging defs of washing machine capacities that I gave you, and if it makes you happier, consider yourself the winner of the washing machine debate.

We. Are. Discussing. Firearm. Magazines. Lightbreather (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You gave no definition, so there was nothing to like or dislike.

While we're here, here's another example, of something that apparently has no 'single, widely agreed upon definition' - a promise "to the community":

"[...]how I'm going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in being banned.[...]"

"I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor."

Yeah, I've heard the excuse. You had no option but to break the promise. Got it.

The problem with "We. Are. Discussing. Firearm. Magazines." is the "We".

I'm sure editor will scramble to assert sanctions are needed for absence of AGF and 'personal attacks'. The problem with that is that when bad faith is directly evident by their actions (per their own promise), the 'A' in AGF goes out the window - the 'assumption' is moot.

Obviously, 'I'm out' of the discussion going forward. I will of course yield the final words to editor, because why fight what's inevitable.

Signed, an editor who has never been site banned (not even for one day, let alone seven-plus years), and has only been blocked a couple of times, for a couple of days, for 3RR violations, in twenty-plus years here. And it was surprisingly low effort to accomplish. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Anastrophe, why are you airing your grievances with me (not content) on an article talk page? Is it some sort of gambit to win your argument? Or affect the outcome of this discussion? User conduct disputes are supposed to go on the naughty editor's talk page or a noticeboard. At least I had the decency to air your dirty laundry on your talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Does all that red text hurt anyone else's eyes? Anyway, since Anastrophe felt the need to put me down publicly, I'd like to explain that I have explained to him, and to others, why I'm working on this set of articles (related to magazines). If anyone else wants to know, go to my talk page and I'll discuss with you there. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Anastrophe, Wikipedia is not therapy. Please stop with these aggressive personal comments. They have no place on this article talk page, if they have any place on Wikipedia at all. Drmies (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• It seems pretty obvious to me that "There is no single meaning of the term" is severely reductionist, and given the number of reliable sources that use the term within a fairly limited semantic field it's more an attempt to just do away with the whole thing--and thus with that large amount of sourced content that was simply removed in an edit summary that briefly stated one single person's opinion. A merge discussion is no warrant for the complete removal of all content. The outcomes, if I'm not mistaken, all pointed to "merge", not wholesale deletion of the content, and thus WP:ATD-R suggests it should be a matter of talk page discussion, not blanking, and not in this way. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is the content just doesn't logically support being it's own topic/subtopic. We have a section on the legal aspects. Outside of the legal aspects it's like adding a section to the Pickup Truck article to discuss long bed vs standard bed. They are both beds and differ only by length. The difference should be mentioned when discussing the bed in general, not as a stand alone topic. The few examples that aren't legal related are either specific to a make and model of gun or are trivial mentions. Perhaps what we need to do is review each factoid one by one to decide if they have due weight. Springee (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds like an argument against merging, not an argument for why the content should be removed (since it is WP:NOTABLE, passes the WP:GNG and has a large body of secondary literature to draw from). Katzrockso (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Bingo! Lightbreather (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reductionist? Nonsense. I would argue that someone who equates numbers that vary by an order of magnitude appears either incompetent or dishonest, but perhaps you can suggest a third alternative? Qwirkle (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Here's a reality check: A ten round magazine can be called - and is called in practice - a "high-capacity magazine".

  A seventeen round magazine can be called - and is called in practice - a "standard magazine".

  Define "high-capacity" within that framework. Good luck. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Drmies, re the 10-round/17-round thing, I addressed that above last night. For us to define standard cap would, of course, be OR. We have RSs that define standard cap for semi-auto pistols (which by their definitions top out at 18 rounds), but because the lower end of their range doesn't match A's research, he claims their definitions are invalid. My guess is he'll go look for a higher standard upper end on a manufacturer's or seller's website so as to prolong this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Nice gatekeeping. I'm surprised that you feel that editor Drmies isn't capable of addressing this absent your careful tending and narrative management. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've not followed / am not up on the the specific merge and content discussions. But "high capacity magazine" is a term like "big dogs" and "fast cars". Terms that have so many varying and fluid definitions that they have no specific meaning. Certainly there should be material on all types of cars (including fast ones) and dogs (including big ones) in Wikipedia, but these are not distinct topics. And inevitably anything so titled is going to become a coatrack. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not the same as big dogs, or long-bed pickup trucks. (1) About the technical meaning, here's an example. The Glock 19 pistol is designed to be used with a 15-round magazine, but it can also be used with a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds -- for example, a factory-made 24-round magazine. That'll protrude out of the bottom of the grip, and make the pistol more awkward to handle, but it works just fine. So for a Glock 19, a 15-round magazine is standard, and a 24-round magazine is high-capacity. (2) About the legal meaning, let's use the the 15-round magazine for the Glock 19 -- standard for the pistol -- as an example. Legally, in New York it's high-capacity, in Colorado it's *not* high-capacity, and in Florida the question is meaningless. In conclusion, I would say that both definitions of "high capacity" are clear and should be covered in the article. (It doesn't bother me that Glock makes 24-round magazines for the Glock 19 pistol, and I don't think that type of information needs to be omitted from the article.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that we are discussing two different things. To try to bring the two together, I think that you are saying that there is a lot of useful information relating to larger or putatively larger magazines that should be covered in Wikipedia. I would agree with you on this, stated that way. You gave several examples of this. And, to add another hypothetical one to help sort this out. If North Korea, said that any magazine that holds at least 1 bullet is "high capacity" and therefore banned from civilian ownership. This North Korean definition/assertion, as such should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia. But this would be coverage of a North Korean definition / assertion, not of an actual high capacity magazine. And we should not repeat the false assertion in the voice of Wikipedia by putting those 1 round magazines under the title "high capacity magazines". And I think that this and also the wide-ranging examples in your post reinforces my assertion that "high capacity magazine" is not a distinct topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

…to even give an impression of sympathy with Lightbreather, there is a real tie-in between this subject and gun control, and that needs to be either addressed here and mentioned there, or vice versa. It need not and should not be the bloated coatrack LB created, but it needs to be a little more than is on Wikipedia now. Qwirkle (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry that you find it distasteful, but I am also happy that you've changed your mind. I will reiterate here what I wrote before: “High-capacity magazine”, in jurisdictions that have bans, defines capacity restrictions. As defined elsewhere it explains 1) Their history, 2) How they differ from standard capacity, and 3) Where they are used. (Tactical, competitive, hunting/hobby, home/personal defense, and yes, crime. These are all where size matters.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I wish I could have used this source as he is a shooter who actually makes a reasoned explanation of what "high-capacity magazine" can mean. Sadly, only his first name is given as the author and that seemed insufficient to me. "What Makes A Magazine 'High Capacity?'". Ammotogo.com. August 25, 2022. Archived from the original on March 11, 2026. Lightbreather (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Your section below repeats the same issues from before. Again, I would support combining the "HCM" content with the HCMB material to make a section that talks about the politics, research etc associated with magazine capacity limits. It would be a far more logical breakdown of the topics/content. Springee (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this quote from your source summarizes the issue, "There is no clear definition of what a high capacity magazine is within the industry or regulators nationwide. However, many states are moving to restrict magazines to 10 rounds – considering anything with more capacity “high capacity.” Springee (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Those who like pulp or noir might recall Hammett’s Continental Op perusing a sign…well, let’s hear him say it:

“I was reading a sign high on the wall behind the bar: ONLY GENUINE PRE-WAR AMERICAN AND BRITISH WHISKEYS SERVED HERE I was trying to count how many lies could be found in those nine words, and had reached four, with promise of more...”

Now, obviously, Lightbreather could never confine herself to nine words, but the mise en scene should be kinda familiar. Qwirkle (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

So how do we proceed? @OwenX: are you still watching this discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not following this closely. If there is a violation of the temporary restrictions I imposed, I'm sure someone would ping me to enforce. That said, from a brief scan of the discussion here, I don't see any concrete text proposed to be added to the article (or changed), so there could be a straw-poll about it. Without such a specific incremental proposals, followed by "support/oppose" !votes from participants, this just reads like a rehashing of interpersonal gripes that is bound to go nowhere. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

How about one paragraph at a time? Qwirkle? Springee? Mudwater? Katzrockso? How about the first paragraph from the draft I wrote below with seven sources? Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: in the interest of moving things forward, I started a straw-poll for the new section below. All here are urged to voice their opinion during the next seven days. Owen× ☎ 15:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the proposed new HCM section was already added to the article. So to facilitate the close of the straw-poll, I promoted the level of the HCMB section to match that of HCM. If there's consensus to keep it as a subsection of HCM, please feel free to revert my edit. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

While we're waiting on the outcome of the HCM straw poll, I started some cleanup of source references. Some could be replaced and I'll save those here, with notes about why.

Also, does anyone have any feedback on the date format in this article? It looks like it started with a few references using yyyy-mm-dd (2026-06-01) format, but now uses also day month year (1 June 2026), and month day, year (June 6, 2026). When I'm done working on the source references, I might cleanup the dates. If no-one cares, then I'll use what appears to be the original format of yyyy-mm-dd. Lightbreather (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "NRA Firearms Glossary". National Rifle Association of America. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2008-06-26. - This was the first source referenced in the article, but it was incorrectly attributed to the NRA, not the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm of the NRA).
  • "NRA-ILA Firearms Glossary". National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2008-06-26. - I changed it to this, but then realized that NRA-ILA no longer has a glossary. The NRA glossary is on its NRA Museum website... but it is a link to the Blue Book glossary. So I replaced it with a link to that.
• Speir, Dean. "Gun Zone clips vs. magazines". The Gun Zone. Archived from the original on 2008-07-20. Retrieved 2008-06-26. - This was the second source reference in the article. This source was quite amateurish in 2008, but has better editorial standards now.
  • Taylor, William (December 4, 2024). "What are ammo clips?". The Gun Zone. Retrieved June 2, 2026. - I replaced it with this: same website, but much more recent
• Braga, Anthony A.; Cook, Philip J. (27 July 2018). "The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults". JAMA Network Open. 1 (3): e180833. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0833. PMC 6324289. PMID 30646040.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - This source doesn't discuss magazines.

Thanks for cleaning up a lot of those references. In article text I don't prefer year first but I generally use DD-Month-YYYY where the month is always text to avoid confusion. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I updated all dates to dd Month year. Lightbreather (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• The Braga source isn't discussing gun magazines but it is discussing number of shots fired during a homicide. I haven't read it in enough detail to be sure it does/doesn't support the claim in question but lacking a mention of "magazine" by itself isn't sufficient to not use it in the article. Springee (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I searched it pretty thoroughly. Maybe someone took some numbers from it and did some math? But you're welcome to put it back if you can find where it supports the strange sentence, "95% of gun murders involve three or fewer shots fired." Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Looking into it I think the source specifically refutes the article claim (see eTable3 in Braga). That was a good removal. Springee (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I did some additional cleanup to the HCM section. The text was clearly a throwback to when the material was a separate article. I've removed the hat note as the section already had legal material. I've also removed some of the piped links as they are redundant and were again remnants of when this was written as stand alone content. I've removed the 10/22 material per several prior comments about DUE and that it adds little to the broader topic. I've included a statement that there isn't a universal definition how many rounds constitutes "high". Hopefully these are universally acceptable changes. Springee (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I reverted Springee's changes and hit publish before I finished my detailed edit summary. There was no discussion of removing the hatnote or of adding material to the very top of the section about the much-debated political and legal definitions. If that goes anywhere in this section it should be the second paragraph which is meant to BRIEFLY describe the term in its political, legal, and contentious sense. Briefly, because the very next section gets into that. What was added would be better added to the HCMB section.

There is no contentiousness when shooters discuss which capacity magazines they want for hunting, competitive shooting, or plinking. Lightbreather (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, there was no consensus to completely remove the 10/22 material. Lightbreather (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the 10/22 material, a separate discussion may be in order.
— User:OwenX

Lightbreather (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

LB, this is getting a bit ridiculous. First, if we are going to have a section called "HCM" then it makes sense to follow the sources on the topic. That includes the WP saying there is no agreed number that defines HC. Second, there has never been a consensus to have the 10/22 content in that section. You are the only editor who has ever said that content is due. Springee (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition to restoring the 10/22 content which appear to have no support from other editors, you also reverted general house keeping and made a bigger mess of the HCMB section. If the HCMB section is supposed to be about more than just the law then the name should be changed. Also, if the HCM section is, per the hat note, only about what mfg etc say, then the crime material should be removed from the section. Springee (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What general housekeeping did I revert? That was not my intention. Your exit not only removed the hatnote, but the attribution for the section's origin. The section is not just about manufacturers. Per the hatnote, it is about "manufacturers, sellers, and shooters." Criminals are shooters too, and they're mentioned once at the very end of the section. Lightbreather (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There are a number of hyperlinks that are redundant as this section is no longer a stand alone article. Additionally, the bold term is something typically used for the article lead, not the body. Springee (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot conflate sources that talk about HCMs in the legal, debated sense (like the WaPo article) with those that talk about them in a functional, practical sense. The sources for the 10/22 content are rich with HCM history prior to 1994. The 10/22 has been one of the most popular firearms (probably top ten) since before 1994. It's not some trivial firearm. The demand for HCMs for it helped to build the HCM market. Lightbreather (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The section already conflates them. Either restrict the section to non-politics and then we rename the HCMB section to cover laws and politics or keep the current scope which includes discussion of law and crime. Springee (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about the legal definitions, here. That makes it clearer that the section is about the functional or technical aspects. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about changing the name of the HCMB section since not all the content is about bans? At least it wouldn't be if politics and effects are included there. Also, should the mass shooting comment be moved to the HCMB section as it's political in nature. Springee (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "High-capacity magazine bans" section could be renamed to "Laws restricting magazine capacity". How does that sound? We would want to let other editors weigh in on this first, I would think. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I started a section below on this. Depending on what goes into the section I think the name could be broader. The controversy over "standard capacity" vs "high capacity" needs a home. That would further expand the scope of that section. Perhaps just "Magazine Capacity Legislation"? That would allow coverage of the bans, the debate about the definitions and various legal challenges. Springee (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"Overview of magazine bans by nation"? (That would complement "Overview of gun laws by nation"). That could be an independent article, with a link to the HCM section here, which is not about bans, but about functional and practical definitions and usage by various groups. Lightbreather (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"Laws restricting magazine capacity" is a better term because I don't see any universal description of what a "high capacity magazine" is. Guz13 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There is contention over the term "High-capacity magazine". I'm not sure if there is a legal definition for what makes something "high capacity". Guz13 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The business website of American Conceal and Carry is used as a RS for claims regarding high capacity magazines. This is a two person business with no evidence of editorial control and do not have a listed author []. Is this a reasonable source for this article?

• Remove This is about the same as citing a gun store's website blog. Many of those people are very knowledgeable but I don't think it passes the Wp:RS test. Such sources might be useful for expert opinion but not for statement of fact in Wiki voice. As used this will have no article text level impact. Springee (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep This source is as good as or better than many of the sources used in this article (where there even are sources). Also, this RfC should be worded neutrally and opened to a wider audience. Here are the bios of the "two persons" responsible for the content:

- A Master Sergeant with 23 years in the Army Reserves https://www.americanconcealandcarry.com/acac-staff/jamie-kadavy/

- A shooter with two law degrees https://www.americanconcealandcarry.com/acac-staff/terri-hamelin/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of expertise from the two personnel above, nor traditional indicia of reliability. A Reservist in a transportation company is not an expert on high capacity magazines; the fact that they're trying to spin their status as a unit-level range safety officer (something that requires no training or qualifications -- it's a pat on the shoulder "here you go" designation assigned on the spot per range session) into something much greater than it actually is, indicates that the purpose of the bio is advertorial in nature rather than legitimate credentialism. The other is essentially a lawyer who shoots guns. And "well, it's no worse than other things" isn't a good argument. What specifically about this source, and the two bios in particular, gives you the belief that it's reliable?⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Remove When I look at the site, I can see evidence that this is a firearms training business. I can see information about the people involved. What I don’t see is a clearly identified editorial process. I’d be more comfortable relying on sources with some editorial oversight for general factual claims. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the source per consensus above. Springee (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The high capacity magazine section of the article includes a paragraph discussing extended magazines for the Ruger 10/22 rifle. It is not clear why this material is due in this article. 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). The content reads more like 10/22 enthusiast content and probably would have a decent home on the Ruger 10/22 article. Here it reads a bit like wp:Fancruft.

• Support removal Springee (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support removal cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support keep and rewrite. The sources cover the early development of the civilian HCM market (unsurprisingly, for a perennially popular firearm). And it doesn't cover just the 10/22. Deleting the sources and their info outright would be the opposite of NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support removal Qwirkle (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support removal This information can be added to Ruger 10/22 where it makes more sense. Guz13 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support removal Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The structure of the article isn't clear where politics and controversy associated with HCMs should be. Should it be in the named section with only discussions of bans in the HCM Ban section or should such material be removed from the HCM section and expand the scope of the HCMB section to include the controversy and politics? I would also suggest any crime related discussions in that section. What we have now is a mix with bits on both sections and a non-obvious naming structure. For example, where would content about the dispute over what constitutes a HCM go? If that is moved to the HCMB section should the name be changed to align with the scope? Springee (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This is crystal clear.

1. High-capacity magazines existed before there were ever bans and they still exist today in places without bans. They are defined among manufacturers, sellers, and shooters. When these people discuss HCMs, there is no controversy, only practical and functional questions. The sources show this. The sources also show that the only time controversy and debate comes into play is in the political arena when discussing laws re capacity. That is why there are and needs to be two sections, to keep this clear.

2. The section headers for HCM and HCMB are WP:COMMONNAME.

3. The order of this article is chronological, until it gets to the bans, where it becomes alphabetical.

4. Extensive criminal use is unnecessary in this article. It is enough to include criminals in the list of shooters who seek and use HCMs and to include some discussion in the bans section, because crime and public safety are the reasons the bans were created. Lightbreather (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Where are you suggesting the following content should live; disputes over the definition, discussions of use in crimes, legal challenges? HCMB isn't a common sense name if the section contains information about more than just bans. This is why I've suggested we either expand the scope of the HCM section or change the other name to better reflect the scope of content. Springee (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It is the common sense name because it is the locus of the political dispute, which include the definition, the laws and the crimes that are committed with them (regardless of whether or not one accepts the legal definition). See Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Lightbreather (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined "large-capacity ammunition feeding device" not "high-capacity magazine." If anything, that shows there isn't a single accepted definition of HCM, especially since current state laws use different terminology and different capacity thresholds. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

We have gone over this in great detail in the past month or two. Despite what the FAWB called them, the WP:COMMONNAME is "high-capacity magazine" (sometimes spelled with the dash, sometimes not). The majority of readers coming to Wikipedia will type in one of those or maybe "large-capacity magazine"... but not "large-capacity ammunition feeding device". This is analogous to "AR-15" and "assault weapon": there isn't a single definition, but we explain that to the readers. Lightbreather (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If "high-capacity magazine" is commonname then how many rounds is "high capacity"? Guz13 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is to my view of this conversation and looking at outside sources and laws there is no consensus on what a HCM even is. NY and Vermont allow 10 rounds, while Delaware allows 17 and Virginia and Colorado allow for 15. There can be no [[WP:COMMONNAME]] without a common definition. The assaults weapons bans is no longer on the books so this doesn't serve as a valid definition especially considering it's being rewritten on a state levelAadamentAardvark (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been one of the points of contention. There are limited sources that say HCM outside of the legal/political aspects should be converted. There are others who say that, again outside of the political/legal, it's not really a well defined topic. It's a bit like saying ultra-fast cars vs regular fast cars. I think it would make sense to merge the sections again and cover the limited examples of HCM outside of the political issues and the political stuff in the same overall section. Also, some of the content about things like drum magazines should probably just be part of the drum magazine section. Else you get repeating content. Springee (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There are others who say that, again outside of the political/legal, it's not really a well defined topic.

Again, we've gone over this in great detail the last two months, and once again, you're not providing sources backing up your claim. (No OR and no SYNTH, please.) We have been able to provide numerous RS uses of HCM outside of the political/legal.

Shootings and laws may get more press, because they're bloody and contentious, but nonetheless--as numerous RS show--hunters, LE, the military, competition shooters, plinkers, etc. all discuss HCMs outside of the political/legal arena. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

So we have what, 2 sources that aren't talking about it in context of law/politics? Springee (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to fool readers who come into this discussion without reading previous, related discussions? Dozens of sources have been given that have nothing to do with legal descriptions of HCMs. References 84 through 98 in the current version of the article are from the "High-capacity magazine section". That's 15 sources.

Please provide sources to back up your, "There are others who say" claim. Lightbreather (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Clearly we need to list them so they can be reviewed. Springee (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

They've already been reviewed several times by several editors, but if you feel it's necessary to do so again, please start a new discussion. This one is supposed to be about politics and few if any sources in the HCM section discuss politics. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I recommend inlcuding a section called "high capacity magazine controversies" Guz13 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Guz13, would you be OK with something like "Magazine Capacity Regulations". That would allow not just discussions of bans but also the political disputes around the regulations in general. We could then move the political material out of the HCM section. Springee (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that would work as well. Guz13 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had limited Internet so I've done anything with this yet. I think there is some content that can go in this section then the name change can follow. Springee (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I have started comparing the "Drum magazine" section of this article to the main article and there are some remarkable differences. The first being the first sentence of the section here, "Drum magazines are used primarily for light machine guns." Really? The main article only uses "light machine gun" once, deep in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)