Here's the story:
No one seriously involved in the modern Second Amendment movement in America has not heard the yells and screams of many self-inflating gun nuts--and I count myself a gun nut, so that part's not an insult--when someone supposedly confuses "magazine" and "clip" in terms of gun specs. The action seems to have started in 1990s or early 2000s. Before that, a great deal of overlap occurred in common gun community usage. Indeed, in the original 1909 Army specifications for a new automatic pistol--the program that led to the M1911 .45--"clip" was indeed used for what these folks would insist is a magazine--and only a magazine.
Ultimately, this action stems from the fact that gun specs are probably the ONLY area where conservative-types are actually superior to liberal-types in terms of pure academics. In essentially every other area of discussion, liberals will tend to know more, as they are more willing to actually STUDY, and they take their issues seriously. When they say something that is factually untrue, it is far more often than not the case that they are attempting to deceive, rather than being sincerely wrong. Conservatives, on the other hand, generally are too individualistic and too devoted to things like football and NASCAR to actually study or research something, and their devotion to the concept of "principles" causes them to think every question has solid, absolute answers. As I've often noted, "Liberals are liars; conservatives are confused."
In today's TDF, yours truly will square all the circles and present the resolution to this matter. This take is based on FACTS, not dogma, and focused on REALITY, not, "Well, I jees' kinda theenk..."
1. Remember the 1909 Army usage. "Clip" has long been used for "magazine," period.
2. Keep in mind part of the general meaning of the word, "clip": "To snap onto" (verb) or "something that snaps onto" (noun).
3. Focus on the function of an ammunition clip, even as these Teabrainers define it: It holds individual rounds together in an arrangement to provide for ready use in a weapon.
Now, going backwards through these points, we see the answer: An M1-style en bloc clip or a SKS-style stripper clip hold rounds thusly, but they have no feeding mechanism--a spring or ratchet--integral with them. The former fits into the weapon magazine (which has the feed mechanism), and the latter simply holds the rounds until they are "stripped" off of it in the process of loading the weapon.
However, consider that a "magazine," as these people define that, does exactly the same thing, particularly as with the en bloc. Both hold rounds in an arrangement designed to provide for them being fired through the weapon. The only difference is that THE FEED MECHANISM IS INCLUDED IN THE ITEM ITSELF. Thus, we start to see an alignment of functions between magazines and clips
Next, looking at Point 2, we have the image of a "clip" being a part self-contained and readily separable from the weapon, but which in some manner attaches to--to one degree of sturdiness or another--and detaches from the weapon. Some magazines are considered "detachable" because they can readily be attached or detached from their weapon. In "assault weapon" laws, a "detachable" magazine is one of the key traits used in defining such a weapon. So both clips and this specific type of magazine ("fixed" magazines, which are not considered detachable, are not in sight in the terminology debate) have another common factor--they "clip" to their weapons in fulfilling their function.
The answer now should be obvious: Detachable magazines are indeed clips--a form that includes the bulk of the feed mechanism within itself--but not all clips are magazines. This of course fits PERFECTLY with the 1909 Army specifications referring to the sought pistol's detachable magazine as a "clip." And it explains the use of "clip" by people either not read into the discussion or such gluttons for punishment that they use "clip" for magazines regardless.
En bloc clip: Not a magazine (no feed mechanism).
SKS stripper clip: Not a magazine (no feed mechanism; removed before ammo is fired).
SKS magazine: Not a clip (integral--"fixed").
AR STANAG magazine: A magazine (contains feed mechanism) which can be called a "clip" (is removable/"clips" on).
People who followed the gun scene forty years ago know what I have put here is the truth. They remember the interchangeability. But many also know that if they speak up about it, a chain of stylized dogmatists will slam them as stupid. And likewise, I am sure that any forum where this article is linked will display the same desperate attempt to hold onto an academic bludgeon by which they can feel like they aren't unsophisticated rubes.
But as said at the beginning, this presentation is based on facts and reality. And even as their chants of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" don't change the legal, political, and historical realities of 2A RKBA, their complaining here doesn't change to academically proper use of the terms. The 1909 Army specification is the killer here. None of the dogmatists will ever be able change that fact. They are creating a contention where there need not be one.
This is right. They are wrong.
All that said, the advice of TDF is to generally follow the terminology convention of these people. When someone does use "clip" for magazine, though, please don't join in the attacks on the person. On the contrary, if possible contact the "violator" privately, apologize for your fellow 2A practitioners' childishness, and explain the issue. For the biggest reality of all in this is that RKBA is politically dependent on these people. And if letting them have their little game here keeps them politically usable, then it's a small price to pay for maintaining our private firepower and the capacity for--when the time comes--destroying our enemies.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html