Post by: cosine on November 16, 2006, 01:12:08 PM
I've a couple of questions: Is it even possible to put a magazine in place backwards? Also, a poster on another forum opined that the rifle is actually an AR-10 with a "reverse banana clip." Never heard of such a thing. Do magazines that curve the "wrong" way actually exist?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 16, 2006, 01:21:41 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 16, 2006, 01:30:23 PM
Quote
Dumb broad?
Uh oh! (ducks for cover...)
Brad
Post by: cosine on November 16, 2006, 01:37:26 PM
This thread was not intended to become nor will it become a target for rude, derogatory jokes about the event depicted and/or the individual in the picture. Just answer my questions, please, if you can do so.
Post by: wingnutx on November 16, 2006, 01:45:55 PM
Post by: SADShooter on November 16, 2006, 01:47:09 PM
Post by: Lee on November 16, 2006, 02:00:05 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 16, 2006, 02:00:35 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 16, 2006, 02:03:02 PM
Did some poking around on gunbroker and auctionarms.com. Didn't see any kind of reverse-curve magazine for the AR.
Brad
Post by: Marnoot on November 16, 2006, 02:06:41 PM
Since a round that's narrower at the rear than the front doesn't exist (rebated rims don't count), I doubt there would be any point to "reverse banana" magazines. Furthermore, it is impossible to insert a magazine backwards in an AR-15 (at least every one I've seen), they're keyed such that it just won't insert. Odd photograph, for sure.
Post by: 280plus on November 16, 2006, 02:07:22 PM
Post by: charby on November 16, 2006, 02:07:44 PM
I'm guessing that she has 2 mags taped together, with the lips on opposite ends.
I agree too
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 16, 2006, 02:12:05 PM
Quote
I'm guessing that she has 2 mags taped together, with the lips on opposite ends.
Quote
I agree too
Even if they were taped together, you would still have to insert them in the proper orientation (i.e. curved to the front).
Brad
Post by: cosine on November 16, 2006, 02:14:35 PM
Was this a real newspaper photo, a movie, or a likely internet photoshop gag?
I have no idea. I swiped the pic off of another forum.
Quote from: Brad Johnson
Either the officer got the mag shoved in backwards (which I didn't think was possible) or it's some kind of specialty mag. Maybe reverse-curved to make for a more compact profile?
Those were the two questions I had. I didn't think it was possible to "lock" a magazine in place backwards. The other option I thought of was that curving the mag backwards would give a more compact profile, but like Marnoot said that doesn't make sense.
She could have two magazines taped together, but it seems like you would at least see a corner of the other mag (the one in the gun) curving forward like it should (but, it is a low-resolution photo).
Edit: Brad beat me to it.
Post by: BozemanMT on November 16, 2006, 02:15:41 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 16, 2006, 02:15:52 PM
Post it over at THR under rifles and see what comes up.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2006, 02:16:10 PM
Post by: AJ Dual on November 16, 2006, 02:19:46 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 16, 2006, 02:37:12 PM
I'll go with two mags, taped or clamped together "jungle style". The newsprint photo quality is obviously poor, but looking at the bottom of the "wrong" mag, it looks like you can see feed lips.
If that's the case, the wouldn't you end up see one of the two following results?
A) The mags are taped curve-to-curve with a vertical offset to allow the mags to be inserted after flipping them. By definition, this setup would have both mags curved the same direction. Thus, the curve is still oriented improperly.
B) The mags are taped together top-to-top with a space between to allow for magazine insertion. In this case you should see the forward curve (the proper orientation) of another magazine ahead of the improperly curved one. There is pictoral detail forward of the magazine (the trim line of the car's rear window) that makes this scenario an impossibility.
Besides, doubled-up mags are pretty thick. Even with the poor quality of the pic they would stand out like a sore thumb. In this pic the width of the mag can be determined by looking at dark strip that separates the side of the magazine facing the viewer (the lit side) and the officers arm. That dark strip is the rear of the mag and it's the same width as the bottom of the mag we can see, meaning they are the same. If it was two mags taped together the dark strip should be appx twice as wide as the bottom of the mag.
Brad
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 16, 2006, 02:44:42 PM
Brad
Post by: El Tejon on November 16, 2006, 03:03:29 PM
The magazine is upside down and, I believe, unloaded. As well, her dust cover is open.
Her form is horrific as she is standing exposed full value numbnuts.
This photo should be saved and featured in a permanent thread to be viewed every time Sarah Brady yammers on about how "highly trained" the police are.
I can hardly wait the next time some moron big city cop or politician tells us how highly trained the police are.This photo also confirms what I have been told by other officers. They may be given "patrol rifles" but do not receive training or ammunition.
Post by: Twycross on November 16, 2006, 03:21:20 PM
Post by: Marnoot on November 16, 2006, 03:23:34 PM
The mag looks waaay too long. As if it's not seated far in enough. I'm inclined to go with El Tejon's 'jammed in upside-down and backwards' theory.
I don't see that as possible unless the magwell or mag has been modified. There's a ridge on the back of the magazine that keys it into the magwell. This ridge would prevent it from being inserted in an orientation that would cause it to curve backwards.
Post by: 280plus on November 16, 2006, 03:38:39 PM
BTW, if you orient the key on the mag with the keyway in the mag well, even upside down, the curve is oriented toward the front. And it would not fit in at all that way either.
Post by: 280plus on November 16, 2006, 03:48:22 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 16, 2006, 03:51:59 PM
Maybe if there was a Magpul thing on the end it would go into the well. I'd sure like a pic of that same scene 5 seconds later.
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 16, 2006, 03:52:31 PM
Post by: El Tejon on November 16, 2006, 03:52:39 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 16, 2006, 04:03:09 PM
Post by: vaskidmark on November 16, 2006, 04:17:02 PM
That makes me think there are two (2) magazines - but I can't see where/how they are being held together.
Hope there is some clarification available tomorrow.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: Marnoot on November 16, 2006, 04:17:14 PM
Post by: cosine on November 16, 2006, 04:17:57 PM
LOL,,,I did a search on reverse banana clip and at least found out what a "reverse banana" is. A little more info than I needed, I must admit.
I had no idea it had that particular meaning. More info than I wanted to know, too.
Post by: auschip on November 16, 2006, 05:37:20 PM
If she was using a magazine coupler like this
It would work (or tape, but the picture isn't clear enough).
Post by: wingnutx on November 16, 2006, 05:45:04 PM
So... could be.
Post by: meinbruder on November 16, 2006, 07:01:44 PM
Some mag couplers only grip the shorter sides of the mag, not the longer side that is presented to the camera.
So... could be.
So... could be.
Someone commented early in the thread that the picture seemed odd. It appears that Lady-Blue has the rifle pulled into her left shoulder, which suggests she is a southpaw. I think the mag would show as a thicker doubled image if the rifle were pulled into the right shoulder giving a better view of the back of the mags.
I think there are two magazines clamped in opposition; the clamps wouldnt show in the lo-resolution picture in the paper. I opened it in photo shop and it has an odd blocky look, which just indicates the detail just isnt available to get a good look.
Mike
}:)>
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2006, 08:27:56 PM
Quote
It appears that Lady-Blue has the rifle pulled into her left shoulder,
No. No it doesn't.
Post by: wingnutx on November 16, 2006, 08:32:18 PM
Fuzzy pic, weird angle.
Post by: roo_ster on November 17, 2006, 01:36:58 AM
There are plastic AR15 mags out there. Maybe this is one & it can be jammed into the mag well bass-ackwards.
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 02:27:08 AM
Anyhoo, my guess is she's got a shorter mag in the well (maybe a 20,) with a longer (looks like a 40 rounder to me) taped backwards to it. This way she can get at least one 40 in the mix without having the butt of the other mag sticking out in front which we'd see if there were 2 40s taped together at that length. I'm pretty sure I see electrical tape wrapped around them.
Of course, the more I look at now it the more I don't know. If that's a 40 she has it sure does look like its inserted into the mag.
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 03:12:35 AM
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on November 17, 2006, 04:40:44 AM
Post by: El Tejon on November 17, 2006, 07:03:29 AM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on November 17, 2006, 07:20:35 AM
Anyone who claims it can not be done, has not met my wife.
Post by: doczinn on November 17, 2006, 07:30:49 AM
The only thing that makes sense is that it's a short one clipped to a long one. But why the hell would she do that, and why clip the long one that way, which makes it awkward to reload?
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 08:30:56 AM
Post by: cosine on November 17, 2006, 08:34:28 AM
Quote
Now THAT'S about an adrenaline rush right there.
No kidding!
Post by: wingnutx on November 17, 2006, 08:43:41 AM
Post by: cosine on November 17, 2006, 08:46:11 AM
This reminds me of that pistol ad where the ammo was loaded backwards into the clip magazine 
.
.I've got that for you too.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on November 17, 2006, 09:12:42 AM
train as yea fight
Post by: wingnutx on November 17, 2006, 09:13:02 AM
Post by: Marnoot on November 17, 2006, 09:49:05 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 17, 2006, 09:58:37 AM
Doh, I stand corrected.
I stand exhonerated.
Post by: El Tejon on November 17, 2006, 10:02:33 AM
Learn from this: 1) the vast majority of police, despite what VPC sez, are not trained in firearms and not really "into" guns to gain anything from the training, 2) there are 100 ways to screw a firearm up, 3) training trumps gear.
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 10:18:39 AM
Post by: El Tejon on November 17, 2006, 10:36:18 AM
Hey, 280, did you ask if the magazine was unloaded? If my eyes are still as good as they once were, I think I see a follower at the "bottom" of the officer's magazine.
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 10:51:53 AM
Post by: wingnutx on November 17, 2006, 10:57:11 AM
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 17, 2006, 10:59:20 AM
Panic will get you nowhere, obviously.
Nonsense. It can vault you to instant infamy on gunboards across the internet. 
Post by: cosine on November 17, 2006, 11:01:35 AM
In case you're wondering where I got the picture, I swiped it off of a golf forum, believe it or not.
Woohoo, I introduced (I think?) a new embarrassing, infamous firearm picture to the gun boards of the Internet!
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 17, 2006, 11:21:11 AM
Woohoo, I introduced (I think?) a new embarrassing, infamous firearm picture to the gun boards of the Internet!
That's not hard. The rare part is finding one that doesn't involve oneself.
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 11:33:24 AM
Post by: cosine on November 17, 2006, 11:43:37 AM
Quote
I personally wouldn't want the cops to take a beating over it. I have cops in the family, that kind of thing.
I understand. I didn't post the picture to make fun of the officer or the PD, and wouldn't want either the officer or the PD to "take a beating" over it just like you said. I just thought it looked unusual and was curious about it.
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 01:20:22 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 17, 2006, 01:27:26 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 17, 2006, 03:57:49 PM
Doh, I stand corrected.
Me too. I didn't think it was possible. It makes me have less respect for the Po-Po, though.
I sure wish LawDog would post.
Post by: auschip on November 17, 2006, 05:18:41 PM
Doh, I stand corrected.
Me too. I didn't think it was possible. It makes me have less respect for the Po-Po, though.
I sure wish LawDog would post.
I would have never thought that possible (and even posted as such). I think that mag must have been mangled beyond belief.
Post by: El Tejon on November 18, 2006, 03:01:09 AM
In re-reading the threads on THR and here, I'm amazed at how nice people are! Guys were bending over backwards and seeing things that did not exist to attempt to rationalize the officer's error. Guess that just goes to show how gun owners always look for the best in people.
Post by: 280plus on November 18, 2006, 04:44:14 AM
I'm just glad that wasn't me and MY rifle.
Post by: DJJ on November 18, 2006, 04:54:10 AM
Mental note, don't mess with the female cops in Marble Falls. They be pretty strong!
Yeah, but stand off and engage them in rifle fire and you'll be fine.
Post by: rscalzo on November 19, 2006, 01:43:12 PM
I've never seen patrol rifles stored in vehicles without a magazine inserted so the mistake is odd. I also question that a Watch Captain would even comment on the picture to a caller unless he is making the same assumption everyone else is making here from the same photo. Who knows.....
Post by: 280plus on November 19, 2006, 01:52:08 PM
Post by: wingnutx on November 19, 2006, 03:01:23 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 19, 2006, 11:21:49 PM
Post by: rscalzo on November 20, 2006, 09:55:09 AM
Guess what !! It looks just like that picture and made reloads fast as the magazines were oriented correctly.
I also could not force the mag in backwards unless I were to damage the rifle and/or magazine.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2006, 10:17:23 AM
Quote
I just inserted a twenty round into my M4, then taped a thirty round backwards on to it flush with the bottom of the mag well.
Guess what !! It looks just like that picture
Guess what !! It looks just like that picture
Don't mean to bust your chops, but it doesn't. Your configuration would leave the forward edge of the properly inserted mag sticking conspicuously out in front of the rear-curving mag. There is no evidence of that in the pic.
Brad
Post by: 280plus on November 20, 2006, 10:23:23 AM
Post by: Antibubba on November 20, 2006, 07:23:43 PM
Post by: History Prof on November 21, 2006, 08:42:04 AM
I'm not doubting your "troubles" but one question I have asked on other NGs that hasn't been answered, and since you seem to be the answer guy, I just had to register at this NG to ask:
In what newspaper did this originally appear?
Methinks that if you answer that one question, you'll remove all doubt from any of the doubters out there.
Thx.
Post by: 280plus on November 21, 2006, 08:58:37 AM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on November 21, 2006, 09:32:46 AM
Post by: History Prof on November 21, 2006, 09:56:48 AM
Quote
if anyone thinks it's that important
Well, I can't speak for any one else, but in my line of work, citing one's sources is essential to any good work. Remember the history professor Michael Bellesiles who wrote Arming America? As an historian, he had to properly cite his sources in order to get published. As a liar, it was his citations that caused his downfall because Clayton Cramer was able to follow his tracks and prove him a liar. :shrug
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 21, 2006, 10:18:43 AM
280 has gone beyond the call of duty in calling the police dept. and speaking with someone there about what happened. The newspaper that ran the story is merely a middle-man that apparently portrayed an accurate picture, judging by the dept.'s apparent corroboration. Of course, 280 could be lying about calling the police dept, but if that's the case, why ask him about the newspaper?
Post by: 280plus on November 21, 2006, 10:49:00 AM
Post by: 280plus on November 21, 2006, 10:56:54 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 21, 2006, 11:07:50 AM
Post by: 280plus on November 21, 2006, 11:19:54 AM
Post by: El Tejon on November 21, 2006, 02:21:14 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 21, 2006, 02:40:55 PM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on November 21, 2006, 07:13:54 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=235900
Post by: client32 on November 22, 2006, 03:15:20 AM
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 22, 2006, 03:40:50 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=234962
Post by: cosine on December 13, 2006, 05:47:24 AM
New pic:
and this picture from Sigforum:
Hey, you guys from THR who didn't think it was possible, it looks like you really can jam a mag in backwards.
Post by: El Tejon on December 13, 2006, 06:41:13 AM
The Badger is displeased. Post by: Eleven Mike on December 13, 2006, 06:44:14 AM
Wait a minute. You probably photoshopped that picture, too.
Post by: El Tejon on December 13, 2006, 09:52:16 AM
If it makes cops look like fools, then it is obviously Photoshopped.
Post by: 280plus on December 13, 2006, 09:57:13 AM
Quote
If it makes cops look like fools, then it is obviously Photoshopped.
See, I just learned something. If this place ain't nothin' else it's educational.
Post by: El Tejon on December 13, 2006, 10:31:05 AM
Post by: crt360 on December 13, 2006, 12:13:10 PM
Here's a easy reference guide to photoshoppeing at THR:
If it makes cops look like fools, then it is obviously Photoshopped.
If it makes cops look like fools, then it is obviously Photoshopped.
To add to your reference guide to PS'ing at THR:
If if has a mountain lion in it, it's Photoshopped; unless,
the mountain lion is getting it's ass kicked by cool looking cops, then it's obviously real and shouldn't be questioned.
Post by: cosine on December 13, 2006, 12:27:23 PM
Cosine, you really ought to start a new thread on that in the Rifle forum at THR. They wanted a source, after all.
Doing so would probably prove to be futile. If they wouldn't take 280plus' word on what happened, nothing would convince them.