At The Washington Post
Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon. A good read. I’m surprised it’s in the WaPo.
12 Responses to “At The Washington Post”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 7th, 2011 at 11:37 am
As to why it is in the Post, it may have to do with the fact that he won his Pulitzer Prize while writing for them. How could they turn down one of their retired prize-winning journalists?
February 7th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Stephen is definitely one of the good guys. He’s a gun guy and his Bob Lee Swagger novels show it beautifully
February 7th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I bet the editors just didn’t bother reading beyond the first paragraph before saying “Cool, and anti-gun piece! Let’s run it!”
February 7th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Ugh. “and”=”an”
Prufreeding is gud.
February 7th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
That should make the anti’s pee themselves a little.
February 7th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
33 rounds makes imminent sense to me.
Make a 34 round mag, I it will make sense to me as well.
I carry a revolver with 7 rounds (not counting the Glock I keep in each vehicle along with a few extra mags) and I feel a little underarmed.
I obviously need to invest in a speed loader for it, but they are bulky to carry.
I am posting this from a city with an incredibly high murder rate.
What I need to do to protect myself is my business.
February 7th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
chris says,
“I carry a revolver with 7 rounds (not counting the Glock I keep in each vehicle along with a few extra mags) and I feel a little underarmed.”
Well chris, if you get a copy of “Boston’s Gun Bible” (which I recommend to every serious gunner) the author Ken Royce says you should have a rifle dedicated to your vehicle. He does recommend that it be one that doesn’t needlessly provoke LEO types, i.e., the EBR.
February 7th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
I picked up a bunch of 30 round magazine for my Glock last year. Man, those f*ckers are a bitch to load!
February 7th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I just picked up two 29-rd Glock .40 mags, and one 33-rd Glock 9mm mag. I did it entirely because of the McCarthy et al.
I don’t even have a Glock 9mm.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
The only place I can see where the 33-round magazine is a must is in the Glock 18 schmeisser, which we can’t have, or in a carbine, such as the Mech-Tec or the Kel-Tec Sub 2000.
If you train well with your Glock 17 or 19 (or 22 and 23), using the standard 17-round (15 round) mags, then try to shoot with a full 33-rounder (29-rounder), your shooting WILL be affected, negatively. You will either lose accuracy or speed or both.
The IS such a thing as magazine failure, too. I’d MUCH rather have two 17-rounders for the G-17 than one 33-rounder. Besides, what do you do with that foot-long monstrosity when it isn’t in your gun? The only gear set up for carrying one is a tactical vest with Sten or tommy-gun mag pockets, or a slung mag-bag of some sort.
If gun-banning were a game, and I had to pick ONE thing to give up, it would be the long Glock maggys. Good thing I can keep all my chips so I don’t have to negotiate my civil rights away.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I have a couple of the evil 33rd 9’s, in fact for a Sub2000. Not at all hard to load with the Uplula, just takes a while. I love that thing.
February 8th, 2011 at 1:37 am
All I want for Christmas is a T.M.P…