Talk:Clip (firearms)

Re the fact that many people call magazines "clips", and how Wikipedia presents both the de facto usage and the preferred distinction

The current article opener sums it up succinctly:

A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine of a repeating firearm. This speeds up the process of loading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used.

The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, generally a specific type of magazine known as a detachable box magazine, or even a firearm belt. These uses of the term are incorrect; a clip is used to load a magazine, while a magazine or a belt is used to load a firearm.

However The highest selling dictionary in the US, Merriam-Webster which holds the top five spots in an Amazon search for dictionary defines a clip as "a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip?show=1&t=1343034248 Why is this still a debate? There are still people arguing the earth is flat, times change, a clip and a magazine are interchangeable terms now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montourage (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only does the dictionary say that, but the National Rifle Association even agrees.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110718225409/http://www.nraila.org/issues/FirearmsGlossary/

“CLIP: A device for holding a group of cartridges. Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for “detachable magazine.” For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military. There is no argument that it can also mean a separate device for holding and transferring a group of cartridges to a fixed or detachable magazine or as a device inserted with cartridges into the mechanism of a firearm becoming, in effect, part of that mechanism.”

Furthermore, the link supporting the distinction is apparently to a blog, which isn't a WP:RS. So it should come out. --Nbauman (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Merriam-Webster's main problem is they've messed up their word origins. They give this:

1: any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook

2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm

The thing is 2 isn't actually distinct from 1: an ammunition clip is a device for gripping ammunition, just like a paper clip is a device for gripping paper. The main issue caused by refusing to distinguish the two is that you don't have a precise word to use when you're talking about one but not the other; for example, it's hard to describe what's different about the box-magazine fed Italian Garands and the en-bloc clip US ones if your reader takes the words to be interchangeable.

The fact that magazines are sometimes called clips is undeniable, the fact that the two things are not the same thing and you sometimes need different words for them is equally so. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If a writer was concerned that a reader might not know what they are talking about they could just do what you did and write out the entire name. After all we wouldn't want them to think you are talking about a hair clip either or perhaps a periodical magazine. In addition, Merriam-Webster didn't "mess up their word origins", they don't decide what words mean as much as they are historians of what people use words to mean. As you mentioned it is undeniable that people call magazines clips, as such that is also the new definition. You or I may not like it but it is undeniably a new definition for it.Montourage (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Montourage (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because you're already talking about firearms, please stop being deliberately disingenuous. They did indeed mess up the origins, because there shouldn't be a separate entry for an ammunition clip; when used in that sense it has the same meaning as meaning 1, a device that grips, clasps or hooks. "Ammunition clip" and "paper clip" use the word in exactly the same way to mean exactly the same thing.

Dictionaries are usually compiled by laymen rather than technical experts and therefore are of only passing use in determining correct use of terms related to technology; what tends to matter regarding such is the opinions of technical experts. This does not include people who simply use the technology, who are free to call it whatever they like. For such people having two separate terms is important, which is why these people are the ones who make such a big deal about a clip and a magazine not being the same thing. The average layman doesn't need to know an atom and a molecule aren't the same thing either, and people often get that wrong too, it wouldn't be hard to find sources talking about atoms of water or carbon dioxide.

A case in point would be Merriam's-Webster's definition of "Magazine:"

"5: a supply chamber: as a : a holder in or on a gun for cartridges to be fed into the gun chamber"

This is such a vague definition that the bolt of most guns could be called a magazine according to it.

Having looked at your edit history it consists entirely of attempts to claim here and on the page for magazines that the two have the same meaning, either by exaggerating Merriam-Webster's worth as a source of technical definitions, or now by using your interpretation of a sales term used by a couple of websites which most people speculate is either a search engine optimisation or a way to make people who don't know the difference feel better. I suggest you find another battle to fight. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If Merriam-Webster messed up, then so did the Oxford English Dictionary. What this boils down to is that the English language changes and evolves and just because they USED to mean something completely different doesn’t mean they do now. Lloydsargent (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Remington also currently sells "Magazine clips". These are magazines or you could call them clips. They are covering their bases. http://www.remington.com/product-families/accessories/gun-parts-families/magazine-clips.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montourage (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Marlin Firearms makes many references to "Clip Magazine" on both its website and in owners manuals. Again they are magazines or clips depending on whom you ask. Montourage (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither site provides any context for what these terms are supposed to mean or why they chose them, please keep your original research out of these articles. You have no proof of why Marlin or Remington chose to use those terms and neither this or the article on magazines require your best guess. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

2006-07-26

I think someone is grumpy over non-gun fanatics and their sloppy unproffesional regard for things he hold for sacred, what with 30% of the article being a preventive correction.

A clip can be defined as "a mechanical device for holding something and supplying it as needed", by the way. A fine description of a magazine I think. [unsigned]

It can be, but it isn't. Clip and magazine are two terms with very clear definitions that are not the same thing. A fork and a spoon are both implements designed to facilitate the consumption of food, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. Deleuze 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

2007-01-16

Thanks for the recent revert, Squalla. The edit summary had the ring of good faith, but wow, those edits … that would require some defense here on the talk page. Lumbercutter 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

New name for the article

With the huge rise of clip culture on the internet during 2006 the magazine word can no longer be considered the most notable use of the word clip, hence my creating the new title and redirecting clip to the disambiguation page. TV Genius 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Origin of Stripper and En Bloc Clips

According to Ian Hogg's Military Small Arms of the 20th Century (7th Ed., p.180), the French 1890 Berthier Calvary Carbine utilized a clip containing 3 rounds which was loaded into the magazine along with the ammunition. It was then ejected from the bottom of rifle after all rounds were expended. This is an en-bloc clip, not a stripper clip, and should be noted as such in this article.

The stripper clip or charger was apparently introduced on the 1889 Belgian Mauser. This is noted on page 174 of the same publication referenced above, as well as this link, which I referenced on the clip page itself. Incidentally, the 1889 Belgian Mauser was designed in Germany by Mauser (ostensibly under the supervision of Paul Mauser himself, though I have not yet been able to verify this), the Belgian government purchased a production license from Mauser, and the first rifle manufactured by Fabrique Nationale was in fact the 1889 Belgian Mauser.

It should also be noted that the French 1890 Bethier Calvary Carbine was introduced in the same year as the 1890 Mannlicher Calvary Carbine (upon which the M1895 Steyr-Mannlicher [sic] was based), thus it is difficult to tell which rifle was the origin of the en-bloc clip. If anyone has any more information, it would be appreciated. Until this can be confirmed, the line "The first rifle to use an en bloc design was the M1895 Steyr-Mannlicher." should be omitted from the article. Raygun 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking into the en-bloc clip further, it appears that neither the French 1890 Bethier Calvary Carbine nor the 1890 Mannlicher Calvary Carbine were the first to use it. The earliest rifle I have yet found to use the en-bloc clip is the Mannlicher M1885. Raygun 07:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Which was preceded by the Italian 1884 Vetterli-Vitali charger clip (inserted en bloc, pulled out manually after last shot). Carcano, 11th February 2008

Article when I read today says without references "The en bloc clip was invented by Ferdinand Mannlicher for use in his Model 1885 and Model 1888 rifle."[1] So who is right? Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggest making "Moon clip" its own article

The "Moon clip" section seems to have enough info for its own stand-alone article. Recommend we divide out that info, make a new article, and summarize it within the section here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. They were combined for good reason. The moon-clip article as written is just check full of information that's just fluff. It's a chunk of metal with holes or notches in it. Wartime expedient with minor advantages for competition shooters, major disadvantages for police and self-defense in general. You say, "Moon clips were designed to allow rimless cartridges to eject in revolver. The M1917 was the most used example, though there are a few more. You make it from steel and it's faster than speedloaders", and that's all the unique information there is, really. Everything else is fluff. Please, fluff up this article instead. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to counter by pointing out that it does have three references (not amazing, but better than a lot of articles) including the original patent. Plus the list of moon clip revos really doesn't belong in the main article, though it's not too bad if it's just in a Moon clip article. Didn't mean to be difficult by making it a fait accompli, I just figured it seemed pretty self-evident to move the content. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not for the list at all. I'm pretty sure WP guidelines dicourage such lists. At any rate, the article was redirected to this article before and I believe there was a consensus there. I'd say that you'd have to build a stronger consensus to resplit it and, perhaps, tag this article for a while first? I recognize you were being bold and it really doesn't hurt anything, but there were surely valid reasons to include an ammunition clip in an ammunition clip article, don't you think? Sounds logical to me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Read up on WP:LISTS, and the particular kind in Moon clip doesn't seem to be the "to be avoided" kind, like the "Trivia" or "In popular culture" sections WP hates. I think it it somewhat pertinent, in that those revolvers are pretty much defined by their usage of moonclips. I.e. using moonclips is what makes the S&W 940 distinct from many other S&W J-frame snubs. I did check Discussion, etc. and there didn't seem to me any real debate on it here. What with the utility of having good pics of Moon clip, a list of firearms that are basically defined by mc usage, and the fact that there is actually some interesting historical content about how moonclips came to be, I figured it article-worthy. It is indeed still covered in the ammo clip article, but now (like the other subjects in that article) has a blurb in the parent article, and a "see main article Moon clip" for more info. I'm feeling reasonably good about it overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your feeling good about it does not constitute a consensus. I'd like to hear what others have to say as this is obviously not something we agree on. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?

If "Most weapons that use clips, such as the M1 Garand as seen above, utilize the clip by loading it directly into the firearm." was rewritten to "Some weapons that use clips, such as the M1 Garand as seen above, utilize the clip by loading it directly into the firearm." resolve the debate? This statement is correct.

If no one objects I'll make the switch but am really interested in opposing views because I believe there is better version. Thanks 66.189.84.45 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia strikes again

Just as an amusing note, US Rep. Dianne DeGette (D, Colorado) got caught out in some ignorance about magazines wearing out (link). Her spokeswoman tried to backtrack by claiming that she had misspoken about clips instead. The spokeswoman's excuse is basically misreading the first paragraph of this article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clip (firearms). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409022859/http://www.saami.org:80/Glossary/display.cfm?letter=C to http://saami.org/Glossary/display.cfm?letter=C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)