MovieChat Forums > Platoon (1987) Discussion > The rifle magazines

The rifle magazines

posted 3 years ago by MovieChatUser497 (18943)
13 replies | jump to latest

Forgive me if this is a dumb question but from what I can tell the magazines they are using probably only hold about 20 rounds or so? Why would they use those? I mean I have a 40 round magazine for my AR-18 and I know they make 60 round magazines. It would seem they would want the largest magazine possible so they don't have to reload as often. If they hadn't really been invented at that point then that completely answers my question and again forgive me if this is a dumb question.

[–] mav100000 (340) 3 years ago

30 round magazines for the AR-15 (and M-16, ect.) were invented during the Vietnam war, but they were not seen in large numbers in Vietnam. I believe I read somewhere that some special forces troops actually ordered their own and had them shipped to firebases. They were not standard issue by the military until after Vietnam ended.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Got it, it just seems like if it's possible to give the soldiers a high capacity magazine they would. But then again Vietnam was so poorly run I'm actually not surprised.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Because:
1: weight of magazine. A 60 round magazine will make the rifle heavy and cumbersome.

2: lose a 20 round magazine, you lose 20 rounds.
Lose a 60 round magazine, you lose 60 rounds.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

Ummm considering the weight ratio between the magazine and the rifle an additional 40 rounds isn’t going to make a huge difference, also was it common for soldiers to lose their magazines? I’m just saying both of those reasons seem like an acceptable risk if it means they have 2-3 times the number of rounds before they have to change mags.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yes, it is going to make a huge difference. 30 rounds though would seem like an ideal middle ground. Losing 60 rounds does not at all seem like an acceptable risk to me. Also; how do you store/stack 60 round magazines on your body in a way that doesnt impede your movement and dexterity? And yes; losing magazines in the heat of battle was, is and will also be a thing in the future.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

Ummm no it isn’t, I own several rifles and the weight is not that different from when the magazine is in or whether it is out. The weight is a total non issue.

As for your second point I can see that, but at the same time making sure you don’t run out of ammo when you need it seems like a higher priority.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

For plinking at the shooting range, sure it doesnt make much difference. For a weapon you carry all day and for swift aiming on live target after live target that is trying to kill you; the 1/10 of a second extra that it takes to spin the rifle around for the next aim might be 1/10 of a second that you dont have. Also: a 60 round magazine would also stretch so far down under your rifle that it would make aiming whilst laying flat on the ground way more difficult than with a shorter mag. And if you're going to reply with "drum magazine" forget it. Bulky, less reliable, slower and costlier to manufacture. Having more than 20-30 shots available pr.mag isnt the only priority is what im saying. There are pros and cons. If you prefer spray and pray, a machinegun might be better suited to your preference than a combat rifle.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

OK then that’s a reasonable answer, but don’t tell me the weight is the issue because the difference is beyond negligible. I still think having more rounds outweighs the awkwardness one would experience while having to lie on the ground. Also you would spend far more than 1/10 of a second changing magazines.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20445) a year ago

The service rifle in use during the beginning of the US involvement in Vietnam was the M14 chambered in 7.62x51 because it was thought that our next conflict would be against the Soviet Union in Europe. This rifle used a 20 round box mag. The M16A1 replaced it with its smaller cartridge, again with a 20 round mag. The military’s stance was 20 round mags operate more efficiently, but troops on the ground going against a foe armed with AKs using 30 round mags soon wanted the same. Special ops got them first and I don’t think they were standard until 1980. The only drawback I can think of is prone position but that’s addressed with training.

It’s funny because the M1 carbine’s evolution seems to be a change from 15 round to 30 round when full auto was offered on the M2 platform.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

And that seems to be the answer I’m getting the most , the 30-40 round magazine just hadn’t become popular at the time the film takes place. I’m going with that.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20445) a year ago

If I remember correctly Barnes and Elias had 30 rounders.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

Eh they both looked like 20 rounders but I could be mistaken.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20445) a year ago

Ohh, your probably right. They had the shorter carbine version of the M16A1, the CAR-15, I think. I just remembered their rifles were different in some way.