A 2039 "Neo-Armalite"?
Alternative-history writer Harry Turtledove's (of "The Guns of the South" fame) "The Road Not Taken" is discussed HERE. It is recommended that the reader at least glance at it for a full context of this post.
In the story, set in still-future mid-21st century, Turtledove references soldiers using "clips" to reload their Army rifles. Of course, with the current craze of pouncing on the "magazine"-versus-"clip" definition distinction, a young YouTuber addressed it in his reading of the story, and commenters picked up on it. Again, see HERE. In an ongoing discussion, yours truly, in perhaps a certain fudd mood and in simple defense of the writer's use of the 1980s terminology convention, suggested in defense of Turtledove's use that perhaps the rifles did indeed use mere clips--ammunition-holding racks with no feed mechanism within themselves. The excerpted conversation from the comment thread HERE is below:
...
DAVID BROWN: So? This story is set in the future, soldiers would most certainly be using magazine fed weapons and not clips. Why criticize him for not knowing what 1 word was in the entire story?
ME: @David Brown And how do we know? Think about it: If we accept the kid's distinction between "magazine" and "clip"--a distinction not so clearly drawn at the time the story was written (I was alive and remember)--there is no certainty that arms in domestic arsenals won't be clip-loaded. Indeed, the M14 is capable of being clip-loaded, which a shortage of detachable magazines in the unit might necessitate. Today we see increasing restrictions on magazines and rifle features for civilian use. Fixed-magazine weapons fed by clips--such as certain CA-legal AR set-ups--have gained a boost in popularity so as to keep certain features legal on a weapon. It is not at all implausible that a future regime may decide to likewise restrict the military's standard domestic issuance, be it for PC reasons or a fear of military uprising.
M14/M1A clip reload.
DAVID BROWN: Lee T. Walker I said almost certainly. Can't completely rule it out, but it seems much more likely that soldiers more than 10 years in the future would be using magazine fed weapons, especially based on the descriptions in the story. Why would the US purposely neuter their military? [EMPHASIS ADDED BY TDF, AND ANSWERED BELOW] That's like saying "you can't completely rule out that the military won't go back to using bolt action rifles". Sure, you can't completely rule it out, but come on, you really think that's likely?
Of course, none of this is to DEFEND magazine restrictions in law. Rather, it hopefully illustrates that all is not lost tactically if this current trend of the American people is successful at that stage. And it may excite some imagination for new civilian arms seeking to make the most of what remains available.
ME: @David Brown 1. Production costs: Save the more expensive top-of-the-line arms for frontline use, with these cheaper ones for domestic issuance. Compare the French MAS36, the bolt-action they adopted in 1936, when the move to semi-auto was a foregone conclusion. The idea was for these bolts to eventually be stored for use by rear-area and reserve troops, while frontline forces would eventually receive a semi-auto. 2. PC: Have domestic troops look less like military occupation forces. And on the opposite end, if current gun control efforts continue, reduce the appearance of the military-to-civilian firepower difference. 3. Fear of military uprising: Reduce the power of domestically-stationed mainline forces compared to a Praetorian Guard against such an uprising. 4. In this story: Possible unmentioned shortage of detachable magazines. Compare the M14's clip feed. 5. New/larger caliber: Check out the new 6.8mm round being adopted by the U.S. The magazines are oddly large and bulky, regardless of weight. It's conceivable that these "Neo-Armalite" rifles are chambered in something that would require a full-on detachable magazine (by the now-common distinction) so bulky that a clip (by the now-common distinction)--be it en bloc, stripper, or whatever--would actually be more practical than carrying boxes which each have their own feed mechanisms. And remember, we don't even have a definite statement of capacity. The aliens [CORRECTED SPELLING FOR THIS ARTICLE] said "dozens," but they were so awestruck they could be given to hyperbole. Once capacity is low enough for whatever reason, clips make more sense. The truth is, as I said, to call a detachable magazine a "clip" goes back far longer than gun enthusiasts trying to enforce a hard break between the two. In 1909, the Army issued a specification for a new automatic pistol, referring to the detachable magazine as a "clip." It wasn't wrong. It was simply convention. Sometime in the '90s it became fashionable to sound all technical and draw the hard distinction. Turtledove has some knowledge of firearms, based on his other works, but he is no expert. He wrote according to common use of the time (mid-1980s). And in those days, seeing a detachable magazine as a form of clip was indeed common, and certainly not a target of ridicule.