View Full Version : When and why did the 30rd mag come about?
The title pretty much says it all. Why was the first AR mag 20 rds? When and why did the 30rd come about? Why is it curved instead of being straight like the larger capacity FAL/M14 30rd mags?
I'm interested to hear from those who know for sure also, buy my educated guess is this:
The vertical stacking of tapered cartridges produces a natural curve. The curve in the magazine, AFAIK, is to prevent a nosediving of the rounds during feeding, which would cause hangups on the ramps. The effect is probably not so great in 20 round magazines to make a difference, but in 30's the curve seems to be needed.
The more tapered nature of 7.62X39, for example, seems to me to be the reason why AK magazines are more curved than AR magazines, and consequently, why 7.62X39 does not work all that great with the straight magazine well of the AR.
IIRC the first magazines started entering into service around 1969. There was alot of reluctance because 30 round magazines did not prove as reliable as 20 rounders.
Of ccourse the AK magazines that we were seeing in Vietnam seemed to be working fine. Alot of it had to do with the way the magzines curve. AK magazines are considered "constant curve" and AR magazines are considered an interrupted curve.
I believe that SAR did a write up on this several years back (maybe the Stoner interview).
As for why they came about I would assume it was to increase the firepower available to the grunts on the ground and to reduce the amount of mags that had to be carried.
I'm interested to hear from those who know for sure also, buy my educated guess is this:
The vertical stacking of tapered cartridges produces a natural curve. The curve in the magazine, AFAIK, is to prevent a nosediving of the rounds during feeding, which would cause hangups on the ramps. The effect is probably not so great in 20 round magazines to make a difference, but in 30's the curve seems to be needed.
The more tapered nature of 7.62X39, for example, seems to me to be the reason why AK magazines are more curved than AR magazines, and consequently, why 7.62X39 does not work all that great with the straight magazine well of the AR.
That makes sense about the curvature, but then how well do 30rd M14 and FAL mags feed? Do they have issues since they're straight?
Lone_Ranger
03-23-12, 14:28
IIRC the first magazines started entering into service around 1969. There was alot of reluctance because 30 round magazines did not prove as reliable as 20 rounders.
Of course the AK magazines that we were seeing in Vietnam seemed to be working fine. Alot of it had to do with the way the magzines curve. AK magazines are considered "constant curve" and AR magazines are considered an interrupted curve.
I believe that SAR did a write up on this several years back (maybe the Stoner interview).
As for why they came about I would assume it was to increase the firepower available to the grunts on the ground and to reduce the amount of mags that had to be carried.
I think you just answered the OP's question!! The first 30-round AR magazine came shortly after, a soldier with a 20-round AR magazine encountered an enemy soldier, with a 30-round AK magazine. Especially, if the soldier was being fired upon by said 30-round AK magazine.
The soldier came back and said, why can't we have these, too?
I think you just answered the OP's question!! The first 30-round AR magazine came shortly after, a soldier with a 20-round AR magazine encountered an enemy soldier, with a 30-round AK magazine. Especially, if the soldier was being fired upon by said 30-round AK magazine.
The soldier came back and said, why can't we have these, too?
Obviously more ammo in a single mag is a good thing (within reason) but I'm interested in the process of the evolution in design.
The first M16 magazines were 20 rounders simply because detachable box magazines that came before (M14) had a max capacity of 20 rounds.
A 5.56 30-rounder is more curved than a 30-rounder 7.62 because the 5.56 cartridge has a steeper taper.
The first M16 magazines were 20 rounders simply because detachable box magazines that came before (M14) had a max capacity of 20 rounds.
A 5.56 30-rounder is more curved than a 30-rounder 7.62 because the 5.56 cartridge has a steeper taper.
Huh?
AK mag sure seems more curved than the AR mag.
http://www.44mag.com/images/uploads/nh30m_2_600.jpg
http://www.44mag.com/images/uploads/ak30bbad_300.jpg
StG44 magazines- 30 rounds.
M2 carbine magazines- 15 round with optional 30 rounders.
The U.S simply had it's head up it's ass (especially post WWII) and the ability was probably there, not the mindset.
The first M16 magazines were 20 rounders simply because detachable box magazines that came before (M14) had a max capacity of 20 rounds.
A 5.56 30-rounder is more curved than a 30-rounder 7.62 because the 5.56 cartridge has a steeper taper.
I've read somewhere that we didn't start using thirtys again until the round burst came out. I'll try and find the source but wanted to see if any of you guys have seen the same writing. Apparently because guys were wasting too much ammo fa with thirty rounders.
When I enlisted in 1986 my first issue was an M16A1. 30 rounders were already well into the system at that time.
M16A2's were still not full integrated at that point. I remember seeing 30 rounders as early as 1983.
I've read somewhere that we didn't start using thirtys again until the round burst came out. I'll try and find the source but wanted to see if any of you guys have seen the same writing. Apparently because guys were wasting too much ammo fa with thirty rounders.
When I enlisted in 1986 my first issue was an M16A1. 30 rounders were already well into the system at that time.
M16A2's were still not full integrated at that point. I remember seeing 30 rounders as early as 1983.
Yeah i'm not sure what it was. It was years ago and I was trying to see if anyone knew of hearing the same and what the source was. Trying not to detail this thread too much though. It seems outlandishly possible knowing what my battalion a they forced everyone to wear the exact same each setup per battalion sop. FYI it rendered the operation of the iotv's quick release impossible. Genius right?
I think you just answered the OP's question!! The first 30-round AR magazine came shortly after, a soldier with a 20-round AR magazine encountered an enemy soldier, with a 30-round AK magazine. Especially, if the soldier was being fired upon by said 30-round AK magazine.
The soldier came back and said, why can't we have these, too?
Right.
We couldn't be outdone in ammo capacity by the Commie-Blok community!
:nono:
The first M16 magazines were 20 rounders simply because detachable box magazines that came before (M14) had a max capacity of 20 rounds.
A 5.56 30-rounder is more curved than a 30-rounder 7.62 because the 5.56 cartridge has a steeper taper.
Huh?
AK mag sure seems more curved than the AR mag.
5.56 has more taper than 7.62x51
7.62x39 has more taper than 5.56
HackerF15E
03-24-12, 07:52
Huh?
AK mag sure seems more curved than the AR mag.
He's talking about the AR mag compared to the M-14 mag.
Saw a few with the SF types in RVN, 69-70. My understanding was that they were issued with the CAR-15 (nobody called them the XM177 back then) but that they couldn't be trusted to feed properly in the field. I never had or fired with one, but my CAR was a shot-out hand me down so I can't verify what actually was issued.
RogerinTPA
03-24-12, 13:27
I used 30 round Mags in the late 70's (76-80) for the M-16A1 at High School ROTC summer camp for weapons qual, which was ran by the USAR.
medicman816
03-24-12, 15:01
Based on the following, I think lone ranger is correct.
I remember once seeing a stoner interview that discussed this. It was probably a history channel history of the gun show on the m16. It may have been on a show about the comparison of the m16 and ak47 as i think that stoner and kalachnikov we're at the interview together. I have no other way of citing the source, it was back in the 90's. I also don't know if it was a made up answer or not so take it for what it's worth. Stoner basically said that the GI's were happy with the 20 round magazines until they heard about the 30 round magazines that the ak47 had, then they wanted them too. Seems to make sense.
medicman816 is closest based on several documentaries that I recall seeing in the mid to late 1990s. Dr. William Atwater, curator of the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, was featured in several Weapons At War segments that discussed the introduction of the M16 rifle into service with US Forces in the early 1960s. The shows were on the History and Discovery Channels. Dr. Atwater, as I recall, described the adoption of the 30 round mag being based on Army and Marine Infantrymen having seen the 30 round mag for the AK47 and demanding 30 rounders for the M16.
I searched both History and Discovery Channels for DVDs on the topic but did not find the specific videos. Dr. Atwater's wikipedia site does mention his participation in these types of videos.
Not sure this helps, but I remember an old article I read where 30 rounders were a specialty item only issued to certain soldiers (LRRP?) for use in breaking contact during an ambush. They were each only issued one magazine.
Of course, if true this was very early in the process.
Dennis.
I saw the same ducmentary some years ago.
Kind of reminds me of what I posted earlier. :confused:
medicman816 is closest based on several documentaries that I recall seeing in the mid to late 1990s. Dr. William Atwater, curator of the US Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, was featured in several Weapons At War segments that discussed the introduction of the M16 rifle into service with US Forces in the early 1960s. The shows were on the History and Discovery Channels. Dr. Atwater, as I recall, described the adoption of the 30 round mag being based on Army and Marine Infantrymen having seen the 30 round mag for the AK47 and demanding 30 rounders for the M16.
I searched both History and Discovery Channels for DVDs on the topic but did not find the specific videos. Dr. Atwater's wikipedia site does mention his participation in these types of videos.
I'm pretty sure the 30 came out after feeling slighted by the Teams with HK33's and 40rd mags... Ha.
I actually have no idea. These things all happened before I was born.
A while ago, I do remember seeing some Stoner 63's, before they were sent back and presumably chopped up, and believe they had a constant curvature 30rd mag with HK like stops. Not sure if the 63 predates the M16 30rdrs.
Based on the following, I think lone ranger is correct.
I remember once seeing a stoner interview that discussed this. It was probably a history channel history of the gun show on the m16. It may have been on a show about the comparison of the m16 and ak47 as i think that stoner and kalachnikov we're at the interview together. I have no other way of citing the source, it was back in the 90's. I also don't know if it was a made up answer or not so take it for what it's worth. Stoner basically said that the GI's were happy with the 20 round magazines until they heard about the 30 round magazines that the ak47 had, then they wanted them too. Seems to make sense.
Kind of reminds me of what I posted earlier. :confused:
I recall seeing that same interview as well.
Heavy Metal
03-25-12, 21:29
A while ago, I do remember seeing some Stoner 63's, before they were sent back and presumably chopped up, and believe they had a constant curvature 30rd mag with HK like stops. Not sure if the 63 predates the M16 30rdrs.
I believe the 63 always had a 30 as it's baseline mag and predated the M-16 30 by several years.
My info is the 16 30 was initially put into service in 1969 and was not a common issue item till near the very end of the war.
I remember something about us matching what the commies had- 30 rd AK.
I have read that the 30rd AR mag was problematical at first. I think that Iraqguns explained it well in one of the first posts.
I think about 1969 for a beginning of issue date for 30rd AR mags. But, thinking hard, I dont remember ever using 30rd mags until the late 70's or early 80's?
I attended USMC Basic in 1981. 30 rounders were all I ever saw, be it in Basic Training or in the FMF.
My, you learn something new every day. When I was a boy my father had a bolt action AR15. The world just keeps growing.
???:confused: Do you mean a space gun?
Thought this post from Kevin Gibson from another forum would be pertinent here:
"The straight, then curved shape of the AR-15 30 rounder has been a problem from the beginning. I met Gene Stoner at an event where he was a keynote speaker and both in his speech and afterward as myself and a few others got to spend some time with him discussing things, he just plain HATED that 30 round magazine…just went on and on.
The first pass at a 30 rounder was a constant curve magazine but it proved to not have enough curve, so they went to the straight then curved design. The PMAG has the straight then curved shape on the outside, but internally it’s a steady curve. While it’s still a bit of a compromise design, the PMAG gets it as close to right as it’s ever likely to get. The PMAG is an excellent magazine. If you intend to use 30 rounders you’re doing yourself a disservice to use anything else."
Doctrine decides what the standard infantry load is and what equipment we buy to carry it.
M 1956 loads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1956_Load_Bearing_Equipment
This link says the 30 round mag case came out in '69
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernized_Load-Carrying_Equipment
I'm at work right now but you can find pictures of guys running the XM177 late 60s with 30 round mags in them.
edit* found one really quick
Note the 30 round on the left
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff160/nosepiece/macvsog2.jpg
When I enlisted in 1986 my first issue was an M16A1. 30 rounders were already well into the system at that time.
M16A2's were still not full integrated at that point. I remember seeing 30 rounders as early as 1983.
I enlisted in 1976. The M16A1 was in use then. Most of the mags we had were the 20rd and we had the old canvas M14 mag pouches and eventually the nylon 20 rds pouches. 30rd mags were hard to come by and were horded. I was in a Cav unit then and not an Infantry unit. When I went to Europe in 78 we had 30 rd mags.
patrick sweeney
04-03-12, 16:02
Ok, all the gory details, as best I remember without digging out the library.
The originals were twenty rounds simply because the Stoner rifle was a 1950s design, and that's all anyone "needed" at that time. The USGI 20-round magazine is essentially an M14 mag, writ small.
We get sucked into SEA in a big way, and find that the grunts don't like having "only" 20 rounds, when the bad guys have 30. So, the word goes out: we need 30's.
One problem: the on-again, off-again nature of the M16 acquisition has meant Colt made slightly varying iterations of the rifle. They all work with 20-round, straight mags, but some won't accept a constant-curve 30 round magazine.
By this time Colt is in enough hot water over the m16, that they don't need another black mark on the black rifle. And, they can't really tell DoD that some of the rifles they sold the government aren't up to snuff.
So, they design a straight-then-curved 30 round magazine, and struggle for a generation to make it actually work.
And yes, a Magpul PMag30 is a constant-curve magazine inside of a straight-then-curved shell. Clever of them.
Why is a 20 not curved? The taper of the cartridge stack doesn't add up to enough that you can't handle it with planned carrier tilt. the 30 is too much, and thus requires a curve.
And those 20-round mags that look like shortened 30s? Exactly. Take the stamping equipment, and make a tube long enough to hold 20, but not thirty, and don;'t change anything else. If you;re a magazine company, and you started making 20s, and then added 30s, two different magazines makes sense. If your company started only ever making 30s, modify what you have, rather than try to re-invent the wheel (or 20-round mag.)
Larry Vickers
04-04-12, 06:50
Remember the arrogance level in the US Ordnance Corp in the 1950's - if you have never read anything about the M14/FAL saga you should as it sets the stage for the M14/AR 15 saga that followed;
The USA defeated ( I'm sure we felt singlehandledly ) both the Nazis and the Japanese with a variety of small arms but mainly a clip fed 8 shot rifle ( M1 Garand) - the instant the MP43 hit the field ( mainly against the Russians) the Garand was obsolete; we honestly never got that thru our head until Vietnam when we faced the AK- the Russians on the other hand got that memo early on and developed the AK to equip their army
The 20 rd mag of both the FAL and M14 was 2.5 times the firepower of the 'war winning' Garand so I am sure it was felt to be more than enough- thus when the AR was developed the designers thought WAY out of the box but not in regards to magazine capacity; they had the same 20 rds is enough mentality as everyone else at the time
The Stoner 63 was a weapon system that was developed by Stoner for Cadillac Gage after he left Armalite- by then he obviously got the memo on magazine capacity and designed a 30 rd magazine, and a pretty good one at that ( influenced by the AK mag), as a baseline mag for that weapon system- hence the constant curve
Alas only until Magpul and the Pmag was a constant curve ( more or less) possible for the AR- remember up until the Pmag the plastic AR magazine was a total joke- they had been tried and found seriously lacking so when myself and countless others saw the Pmag for the first time at SHOT I laughed as I assumed it would fail- and I was as wrong as wrong could get!!
That being said let me give you my advice for Pmags; use black ones, window or non window, for serious purposes - to me they are the most durable - do not use the brown ones for anything other than plinking as I have seen too many of them crack
If you use them hard for months on end in my opinion after about 6 months you should pitch them and buy all new mags; for the cost that is a bargain
And last but not least if you are going to be using your AR in extreme cold use metal mags- and use a good cold weather lube on your weapon like TW25B
Cheers
LAV
Larry,
I was hoping you would drop in at some point. You are exactly correct about the Ordnance Corp. attitude and there have been several good articles over the years in Small Arms Review by prominent designers and engineers who bemoan the fact.
Great info Mr. Vickers, thanks!
Does anyone prefer the 20 round magazine? I personally like using it, especially when shooting a match or practicing while in the prone position. Don't get me wrong though, the 30 rounders certainly look cool!
Having 30 rounders has nothing to do with looking cool. Yes, the 20 rounders have a place, but I'll use the 30's whenever possible.
Does anyone prefer the 20 round magazine? I personally like using it, especially when shooting a match or practicing while in the prone position. Don't get me wrong though, the 30 rounders certainly look cool!
Having 30 rounders has nothing to do with looking cool.
I was referring to the tactical couch soldiers who outfit their guns with all the latest gear so they can play army, but then can't hit the broad side of a barn when they visit the range because they don't understand the basic principles. I'm figuring you know the types I'm talking about because we've all had the misfortune of running into these clowns...
Just throwing it out there since no one has mentioned it, although it was mentioned as a plus for 20 rounders.
I heard part of the decision around a 20 round mag was for shooting in the prone position.
As for switching to 30 rounds, I think it has been nailed "they have, I want".
30 round magazines for the 7.62x51 have not proven to be as reliable as the 20 rounders because of the weight of the cartridges. Springs strong enough to provide reliable feeding exert enough pressure to deform the feed lips after awhile. The exception was the Bren mags as the mag fed the weapon from the top and used gravity and used weaker springs. HK 30 round mags usually work pretty good with their double feed lips, but not as consistently as the 20 rounders. And, as mentioned above, the extra length of a 30 round mag for an M14, FAL or HK91 could be a hindrance when shooting prone. I'd say going with a 20 round mag instead of a 30 was due to more than just "not getting the memo".
When the M14 and AR10 were designed, no one was using a 30 round magazine. What about the AK-47? The west didn't know about the AK until years after it's introduction. I believe it was first openly displayed during a military parade in Moscow in the mid to late fifties. Also, due to manufacturing problems, the AK was not issued in any significant numbers until 1956. The Soviets were still using Mosin Nagants and the SKS. Probably the PPHs as well.
During Vietnam, the Marines used the M14 and it's 20 round magazine to great affect and for the most part, they didn't feel under-gunned. Of course that was earlier in the war and the NVA was probably mostly equipped with Mosins and the SKS.
During the Bush Wars fought by Rhodesia and South Africa, the FAL with it's 20 round magazine dominated the battlefield and there, the terrs were using AKs. The Rhodies in particular were under-equipped and didn't always have the luxury of fixing the enemy in place with rifle so they could finish them with heavier weapons and/or airpower. They started and finished their fights with their FALs.
I had a brief correspondence with a former soldier who used a FAL against terrorists in one of the Iraqi wars. He said it's range and power gave him and his team mates a significant advantage over their AK equipped foes in the open terrain of the desert.
Other factors came into play, but it's interesting that the demand for a 30 round mag didn't arise until the the 7.62x51 was traded for the 5.56x45. Part of it may be with the greater controllability of the AR, the rate of fire went up and the 30 rounders were needed to keep up with the increased ammo consumption
I think you just answered the OP's question!! The first 30-round AR magazine came shortly after, a soldier with a 20-round AR magazine encountered an enemy soldier, with a 30-round AK magazine. Especially, if the soldier was being fired upon by said 30-round AK magazine.
The soldier came back and said, why can't we have these, too?
At the 42:50 mark, Mr. Stoner confirms what is stated above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44_V9dOF5tg
A corollary question to this: why did it take us so long to adopt chest rigs as now known into US standard equipment when the Chinese came out with them in the 50's?
At the 42:50 mark, Mr. Stoner confirms what is stated above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44_V9dOF5tg
That was a great vid, and the one on the M-16 too.
A corollary question to this: why did it take us so long to adopt chest rigs as now known into US standard equipment when the Chinese came out with them in the 50's?
IMO the Cold War Army was focused on the anti-tank mission and the Infantry's only job in that fight was too keep our tanks alive, they were not focused on Infantry combat.
And last but not least if you are going to be using your AR in extreme cold use metal mags- and use a good cold weather lube on your weapon like TW25B
If the plastic on your magazines breaks in cold weather, then that probably means your stock,pistol grip, and handguards would also break. And if you're carrying firearm with a receiver or frame made out of polymer, then that would break also. What proof is there for such statements?
If the plastic on your magazines breaks in cold weather, then that probably means your stock,pistol grip, and handguards would also break. And if you're carrying firearm with a receiver or frame made out of polymer, then that would break also. What proof is there for such statements?
Really, that's what you had to add to this thread? That by itself is retarded.
What's your experience to the contrary? Have you been in the AO's LAV has?
Finally, just using common sense, when's the last time you dropped your firearms furniture off of the weapon? Yet, magazines DO drop free (from a properly functioning weapon). How much spring tension or compression is on your stock or pistol grip? Oh, wait, none. How much is on the magazine? A whole lot more once its filled with ammo and the spring is fully compressed.
Roll on, Jackermac.
Really, that's what you had to add to this thread? That by itself is retarded.
What's your experience to the contrary? Have you been in the AO's LAV has?
Finally, just using common sense, when's the last time you dropped your firearms furniture off of the weapon? Yet, magazines DO drop free (from a properly functioning weapon). How much spring tension or compression is on your stock or pistol grip? Oh, wait, none. How much is on the magazine? A whole lot more once its filled with ammo and the spring is fully compressed.
Roll on, Jackermac.
I did not mean to offend you, sorry. I'm not questioning his experience, I just wanted some factual evidence to back up that claim. Stocks and pistol grips can get banged and broken. Perhaps my example of trying to compare a stock breaking in cold weather compared to the magazine was not the best, but I don't claim to be an expert.
Not directly related to the topic but: I found it interesting that an old co-worker of mine was never comfortable with the introduction of the 30 rounders in Vietnam. He only trusted the "18 rounders". Basically, his combat experience found that the 20s loaded with a max of quantity of 18 was the most reliable set-up. Any other Vietnam vets here ever hear of this?
train of abuses
04-24-12, 10:53
If the plastic on your magazines breaks in cold weather, then that probably means your stock,pistol grip, and handguards would also break. And if you're carrying firearm with a receiver or frame made out of polymer, then that would break also. What proof is there for such statements?
Do you realize who you are addressing? I am not trying to be a smartass, but there is a reason a lot of the true experts on firearms and firearms trainers don't post much on internet forums. Stuff like this is an example. If someone with the knowledge and experience of Vickers makes a statement, then you can take it to the bank that there is a reason for him posting it.
Besides, I believe forum member Alaskapopo has demonstrated the same thing in the past.
If the plastic on your magazines breaks in cold weather, then that probably means your stock,pistol grip, and handguards would also break. And if you're carrying firearm with a receiver or frame made out of polymer, then that would break also. What proof is there for such statements?
I understand that you probably were not trying to insult anyone here especially LAV. I dont think you are an idiot. While I cannot cite any formal proof or documents to support that statement it is well known that the feed lips on Magpul Mags are always the weakest link. I love my plastic mags like the next guy but yes in extreme cold with the abuse and pressure on the mag you will always find that Polymer mags will fail before quality USGI mags due to mostly this feed lip problem.
The mag happens to be at its thinest in this spot and also under rthe most pressure and abuse when loaded and operated. Hope that helps to answer your question. Try to word your questions a little differently. Like maybe instead of demanding proof ask instead, why he states what he states maybe where he finds most Pmags failing or ask for some examples from his experience. I'm confident that he's probably failed more mags than I have touched.
Just throwing it out there since no one has mentioned it, although it was mentioned as a plus for 20 rounders.
I heard part of the decision around a 20 round mag was for shooting in the prone position.
As for switching to 30 rounds, I think it has been nailed "they have, I want".
The entire USMC shoots once a year in the prone with 30 round magazines.
The entire USMC shoots once a year in the prone with 30 round magazines.
True!
BUT!
I did USMC bootcamp in early 1980, and we had the 20s, though once out in the fleet, IIRC, the theory was that the fireteam Automatic Rifleman (who was just carrying an M16A1, but was designated for full auto supporting fire) (at the time, we had the M16 or the M60- no actual Squad level Automatic rifles) (yes the M16A1 was Select fire, we are talking the schemes of the brass meeting the Reagan Years budgets)
(anyway)
We had plenty o twenties, and the Automatic Riflemen got 30s (in theory). In practice, everyone had 1 or 2 thirties, in case of a mad minute.
In 1983, we were issued the M16A2, and along with it we were supposed to switch over to all 30s. Personally, me, I traded my 30s around till I had all 20s again, as I had found that extra few inches made it tough to get right down in the dirt (and riflemen LOVE the dirt) when prone, and was occasionally prone to hooking brush, doorframes, deuce gear, etc.,.
As to the 18 in a 20 protocols someone asked about up there, it was often spoken as gospel that you should short load, and just as often ignored- my personal notion is that 20 in a 20 is only a problem when you jam a full mag in on a closed bolt. Don't do that.
All this is based on my fuzzy 30 year recollection, but it's as I experienced it.
edited to add:
We never used chest carriers for the same reason that we kept our dogtags in our boot laces.
I thought the "0311" part of my screen name might have been a hint... Oh well. I never had an issue shooting prone with a 30 round mag.
Alaskapopo
05-01-12, 03:19
If the plastic on your magazines breaks in cold weather, then that probably means your stock,pistol grip, and handguards would also break. And if you're carrying firearm with a receiver or frame made out of polymer, then that would break also. What proof is there for such statements?
I love P mags but in -40 below the AST SIRT team up here has had some of the mags crack on the feed lips in training when inserting the magazine into the magazine well. For really cold temps like you would see in Fairbanks where this occured I would use GI mags in the winter with magpul followers and base pads. I personally have 2 p mags with cracked feed lips that I am waiting to send back to Mag pul when I get more to make it worth sending in.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Magazines/Pmagsplit1.jpg
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-01-12, 03:25
True!
BUT!
I did USMC bootcamp in early 1980, and we had the 20s, though once out in the fleet, IIRC, the theory was that the fireteam Automatic Rifleman (who was just carrying an M16A1, but was designated for full auto supporting fire) (at the time, we had the M16 or the M60- no actual Squad level Automatic rifles) (yes the M16A1 was Select fire, we are talking the schemes of the brass meeting the Reagan Years budgets)
(anyway)
We had plenty o twenties, and the Automatic Riflemen got 30s (in theory). In practice, everyone had 1 or 2 thirties, in case of a mad minute.
In 1983, we were issued the M16A2, and along with it we were supposed to switch over to all 30s. Personally, me, I traded my 30s around till I had all 20s again, as I had found that extra few inches made it tough to get right down in the dirt (and riflemen LOVE the dirt) when prone, and was occasionally prone to hooking brush, doorframes, deuce gear, etc.,.
As to the 18 in a 20 protocols someone asked about up there, it was often spoken as gospel that you should short load, and just as often ignored- my personal notion is that 20 in a 20 is only a problem when you jam a full mag in on a closed bolt. Don't do that.
All this is based on my fuzzy 30 year recollection, but it's as I experienced it.
edited to add:
We never used chest carriers for the same reason that we kept our dogtags in our boot laces.
I prefer 30's when shooting prone because they are at a better height to mono pod off of. The only thing I use 20's for is bench shooting.
Pat
Pat-
I can see that as a point, but I don't do that because it seems to me that using the magazine as a rest might cause functioning issues- do you ever have any issues with it?
The latching mechanism is supposed to hold the mag 'in' not out, so it seems to me (not having paid any particular attention to it) that it's over worked to hold up the rifle.
My other resistance to it would be that I always want my forward control point as far forward as possible for stability- which is pretty picky, and 'needs must' when employing a field expedient technique, but it seems to me that a center pivot would be kinda wobbly when opposed to one way forward.
JTB- I certainly didn't mean to contradict your contribution- I know they use they 30s exclusively these days. I was just adding a little historical perspective from my own experience. Semper Fi
Having spoken with many old, old MACV-SOG recon guys the CAR-15 (XM-177E2) was fielded and issued in 1967/68 (notice the CAR held the "XM" designation for years). Standard cotton web gear pouches were for the M14 and 20-round M16 magazines, so many guys had one 30-rounder they inserted in the mag well and carried 20s. If a guy was lucky or a great scrounger he might have more, carried in a Claymore pouch and secured with standard GI bandolier safety pins to accomodate the length.
After Vietnam many of the weapons served a long, long time, some transferred to the Special Forces School, the Ranger Battalions, and newly-established Special Mission Units. In the interim between 1970 and 1994 the Army made a few small lot purchases of M16A1 and M16A2 Carbines.
The services (Army as Program Manager for the Marine Corps System Command) did not assign an XM-4 Carbine designation until 83/84.
USSOCOM was not established until 1987 and did not adopt and buy the M4 until 1993/Fiscal Year 1994.
20-rounders were the military standard into the late 70s.
=====
http://www.modernforces.com/img/new_site/xm177_450.jpg
"SOG's favorite weapon...
The CAR-15 Commando was not initially part of the CAR-15 Military Weapons System, but was added in 1966 in response to the US military's desire for a shorter M16 and the Model 607 SMG's inadequacies.
Colt engineer Rob Roy designed a simpler two-position telescoping tubular aluminum buttstock to replace the complicated extending triangular version. The fragile and ad hoc triangular handguards were replaced by reinforced round handguards. Each half of the round handguard was identical, simplifying logistics by not requiring a top/bottom or left/right pair. The Model 609 Commando had a forward assist, while the Model 610 Commando did not. A Model 610B with a four-position selector was available but not used by the U.S. military. All versions were equipped with the 4.25-inch long moderator.
The Model 610 was classified as the XM177 but adopted by the Air Force as the GAU-5/A Submachine Gun (GAU = Gun, Aircraft, Unit.) The Army purchased 2,815 Model 609 CAR-15 Commandos on June 28, 1966, which were officially designated Submachine Gun, 5.56 mm, XM177E1. As part of the contract Colt was supposed to supply each XM177E1 with seven 30-round magazines (it was technically a submachinegun). Colt was unable to build a reliable 30-round curved magazine that would fit in the M16 magwell, so most XM177E1s were shipped with 20-round magazines. The exception was 5th Special Forces Group, who received a total of four early 30-round magazines with each weapon. Colt completed delivery of the purchased XM177E1s in March 1967.
In 1967, in response to field testing, Colt lengthened the Commando's barrel from 10 inches to 11.5 inches. The increased length reduced noise and muzzle flash, and allowed fitting of the Colt XM148 grenade launcher. A metal boss was added to the moderator for mounting of the XM148 and rifle grenades. The chambers were chrome-plated. The Commandos with the longer barrels were called the Model 629 and Model 649. The Model 629 Commando had a forward assist; the Model 649 Commando did not.
http://www.modernforces.com/img/new_site/new_m203_3_450.jpg
Note the old-school mounting point for the grenade launcher vice the M4 barrel groove.
In April 1967 the Army purchased 510 Colt 629 Commandos for use by troops assigned to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group (MACV-SOG), and designated them XM177E2. Delivery was completed by the end of September 1967. The Air Force adopted a similar model without the forward assist feature as the GAU-5A/A. Sources debate whether or not this was a Colt Model 630 or 649.
According to John Plaster and other sources, the lack of 30 round magazines continued to be problematic and SOG Special Forces operators resorted to pooling their personal resources and purchased the larger capacity magazines on the civilian U.S. market. Problems with range, accuracy, barrel fouling, and usage of tracer bullets continued to plague the XM177 series. Colt estimated that it would take a six-month $400,000 program to do a complete ballistic and kinematic study. There were also recommendations for a 29-month $635,000 research and development program. Both recommendations were declined by the U.S. military as American ground force involvement in the Vietnam War was gradually winding down.
Production of the CAR-15 Commando ended in 1970."
Alaskapopo
05-01-12, 14:47
Pat-
I can see that as a point, but I don't do that because it seems to me that using the magazine as a rest might cause functioning issues- do you ever have any issues with it?
The latching mechanism is supposed to hold the mag 'in' not out, so it seems to me (not having paid any particular attention to it) that it's over worked to hold up the rifle.
My other resistance to it would be that I always want my forward control point as far forward as possible for stability- which is pretty picky, and 'needs must' when employing a field expedient technique, but it seems to me that a center pivot would be kinda wobbly when opposed to one way forward.
JTB- I certainly didn't mean to contradict your contribution- I know they use they 30s exclusively these days. I was just adding a little historical perspective from my own experience. Semper Fi
With respect its a myth that resting the magazine on the ground will cause malfunctions. Not sure why it got started but in my first rifle training the instructor went over the myth and dispelled it. I always shoot prone off the magazine and never have issues. In fact that is also how you see three gunners shoot prone in matches. Dig the mag into the ground hard and use it to stabalize the rifle.
Pat
Thanks- Maybe Ill give it a try
Pat-
I can see that as a point, but I don't do that because it seems to me that using the magazine as a rest might cause functioning issues- do you ever have any issues with it?
The latching mechanism is supposed to hold the mag 'in' not out, so it seems to me (not having paid any particular attention to it) that it's over worked to hold up the rifle.
My other resistance to it would be that I always want my forward control point as far forward as possible for stability- which is pretty picky, and 'needs must' when employing a field expedient technique, but it seems to me that a center pivot would be kinda wobbly when opposed to one way forward.
JTB- I certainly didn't mean to contradict your contribution- I know they use they 30s exclusively these days. I was just adding a little historical perspective from my own experience. Semper FiUSMC has been allowing shooting off the mag for a long time, and USA is about to adopt it as doctrine.
After Vietnam many of the weapons served a long, long time,
In 2009 at Kandahar I found an Airman with a CAR-15, damn thing was almost silver, I wish I had written down the serial number.
At the 42:50 mark, Mr. Stoner confirms what is stated above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44_V9dOF5tg
Thank you for posting that video. I had thought of that interview as soon as I saw the title of this thread.
"This magazine was perfectly satisfactory for the US Army until the troops in Vietnam ran into Mr. Kalashnikov's weapon..."
We had 30 rounders for our M-16's along with XM-177's in the late 70's. The photo sinister posted is what we had except if I remember correctly ours did not have FA. Older now and my memory is not 100%. May have a photo or two around here someplace. If I find them I will post a pic.
My understanding about the original 20rd mags is that back then, soldiers were expected to fire mainly semi, reserving FA for emergencies. In this case, 20rd was plenty.
In the Vietnam bush, FA firepower became king, and the need for higher capacity became evident, especially when compared to the AK.
I've seen numerous photos of Marines (and Army) from the early '70s with 30rd mags. In '77 I was issued an M16A1 at Marine OCS with 30rd mags and pouches.
Personally, I prefer 20rd mags, for compactness. Also, you can get more prone with shorter mags.:p
----
As far as the automatic rifleman in the 1970's Marine Corps fireteam, all the Marines carried M16s, the only difference was that the AR-man was issued a clip-on bipod and extra mags & pouches, and was expected to fire FA bursts, while the riflemen were to fire semi, unless directed otherwise by the FT leader.
That makes sense about the curvature, but then how well do 30rd M14 and FAL mags feed? Do they have issues since they're straight?
I have a Tapco reprint of an Australian technical manual mentioning that the 30rds magazines for the L2A1 were no longer in production due to being unreliable, although their claim was added friction due to the extra rounds instead of cartridge shape.
Seems like I have read that other FAL based light machine guns using 30rds mags were generally unreliable as well, but not sure if any mentioned the cause being the magazine or some difference in the rifle itself.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.