"

Controversy:  Your point here is well taken but for the fact a person can be well aware of possible distinctions in terminology and still call a magazine a clip.  In actuality, it is the ""firearm experts"" that insist on a controversy by way of insisting on their terminology.  In other words, because they have taken issue with the layman's wording they have indeed made it controversial and not the other way around.  So while the distinction in wording may not be controversial within their circle of buddies they are in fact responsible for the controversy.  

M-W Dictionary:  When I say ""the dictionary"" clearly I'm referring to ""the dictionary"" I cited before in this case M-W.  I am a ""cognitive miser"" like anyone that takes short cuts when I can, just as you shortened it to M-W.  Rather than grasp at straws in dissecting ones arguments let us focus on the big picture when we know what each other means.  I agree the dictionary isn't for giving an exhaustive description, that's what encyclopedias are for.  However in this instance it does shed some light on ""the controversy"" as it does indeed define a clip as also a magazine.  The reason for including it is not to give people a better understanding of the differences between types of clips or the different types of magazines.  The purpose of including it is to show the other side of the controversy and according to my research within Wikipedia this is entirely acceptable.  

Agreement: Clearly some people don't agree with M-W just as you and I don't agree with SAAMI's statement that people sometimes refer to ""cartridge clips"" as ""magazines"".  The ""experts"" on weapon's have this fact somewhat backwards and are incorrect as they should state that people refer to ""magazines"" as ""clips"".  Just because you and I disagree with SAAMI's statement doesn't mean it should be taken out as a reference and I'd never suggest that.

What I suggest is a compromise.  I agree with you about the references regarding Remington and Marlin as that does seem to fall under OR.  M-W however doesn't fall under OR as it is a published source and being a leader in its industry it could be argued is the authority on word use.  Do you have any suggestions on how it could be incorporated so as to show how this controversy is perpetuated?  Without saying it's wrong because it clearly isn't according to common usage.  I'm thinking something like this....Clip technically defined.....use to describe magazine is controversial....however M-W defines it as such.

This allows readers to see their is a difference in terms, there is a controversy, and why it potentially exists or is perpetuated.  I think this is fair.  Note well that I never attempted to remove any sources that backed up what you're saying here.  I'm not interested in destroying your view, only presenting both sides fairly.  "