Page 18 of 45 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 447

Thread: E-Lander magazines

  1. #171
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near a cornfield...
    Posts
    1,212
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Grobdriver View Post
    Feinstein is a joke, a moron - and a ruse...
    I'm sure she is but this isn't the proper forum. Try reading the site rules before you post.
    Last edited by wetidlerjr; 01-25-13 at 11:36.

    Bill Tidler Jr.
    **************

    ...We have long maintained that the only accessories that a 1911 needs are a trigger you can manage, sights that you can see, and a dehorning job. That still goes.
    ~Jeff Cooper

  2. #172
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    West Chester, OH
    Posts
    29
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiet Riot View Post
    Quiet Riot, what kind of scope is on the rifle in this video?

    Anybody else know?

  3. #173
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Central Tx
    Posts
    45
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gaspipes View Post
    I ordered 5 on 1/6 #10337

    I had intentions of getting the 5 and making sure they were good and f so ordering another 10 but I am not going to do that if it takes 3 months to ship them AFTER they charge my card the day I order. Craziness!
    I ordered a couple on 12/23 just got them in the mail yesterday (1/24)

  4. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    379
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gaspipes View Post
    Quiet Riot, what kind of scope is on the rifle in this video?

    Anybody else know?
    GRSC 1-4x. It has been discontinued in favor of their much higher quality 1-6x.
    aka, "TWANGnBANG"

  5. #175
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Land of illegals, and unsecure borders
    Posts
    159
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by boogergoo View Post
    I ordered a couple on 12/23 just got them in the mail yesterday (1/24)
    Perfect. That would fit the 5 - 6 weeks they are asking for on their website.

  6. #176
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    737
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well, after thirty years of USGI mags-
    during which I have tried olrlite, some 40 rounders, and other stuff that popped up-
    I always got burned and went back to USGI.
    Even when something finally seemed super initially back around 04 (HK), always ended up being proven worse in the long run.

    5 years ago, those varying burning experiences led to this-
    at work was given a sample mag- it was plastic and I tossed it in a box (lancer)
    repeat (magpul)

    Heck, in the last year or two I bought a gun that CAME with a PMAG and I just tossed it in a box.

    Less than a year ago I finally decided to give them a try.
    Yep, less than a year in the PMAG circle of trust.
    I seriously spent years waiting for the shoe to drop on what the issue with PMAGS was going to be, or the reliability level be disproven.

    I am not sure what shape the mags will be in 20 years from now. Plastics have such a change in their properties over time, I have 8 track rollers that have turned to sticky goop, and car interior parts that are dry and brittle. Yet other stuff that seems the same as when it was new.

    So, have not even considered E-Landers.
    I hope they turn out good for you guys.

    As for everything is awesome about the IDF, I would guess it is a leftover from the 80s when we were not really getting our combat on.

  7. #177
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,525
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Okay, got [some] of mine today. No shipping email and received (4) of the (6) magazines paid for. Possible two shipments. Email sent and we'll see...

    Anywho, this is just an overall eyeball review with basic PMCS checks. No live-fire until Monday.

    The finish is excellent. Better than any magazine that I have held previously. The magazines I received are marked, '13'. The magazine locks are closed ala' HK mags as opposed to the open, '10' magazines (ala' USGI magazines)



    Clearly marked with month/year/manufacturer on the left side.

    Backside of welds:


    Frontside of welds:


    Top-View


    Base-Plate view:


    The follower closely matches a Magpul:


    Also similar from the top:


    The Izzy follower also fits USGI mags


    Additionally, Magpul followers fit E-Lander magazines


    However, followers, from the bottom, indeed are different:

    Notice that the Magpul has a spring guide and the E-Lander does not.

    Yes, USGI Ranger Plates fit E-Lander Magazines:



    Loading these on a closed bolt is hard. I gander that the Magwell of the Tavor is slightly different than that of the M16. One has to do (at least with the E-Lander examples I have) a Hollywood, 'mag slap' to seat them fully on a closed bolt. Not a good thing.

    More when I have rounds downrange.
    Last edited by Dave_M; 01-27-13 at 00:36.
    Dave Merrill
    Terrible Technical Writer. Awful Photographer. Lazy Instructor. Kind of a dick.
    Loves Tacos.

  8. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,647
    Feedback Score
    0
    There are a couple threads regarding these mags over on TOS and many users are commenting on the hard seating issues.

    Here's what Mako Group posted over there:

    This has been dealt with thoroughly on several other threads - I will summarize it here:

    E-Lander mags are shipped with new Tavor rifles. They have been extensively tested in the Tavor and the M16/M4 by the IDF and also by independent testing companies and found to work flawlessly and to be consistently within spec. Keep in mind that the IDF tends to require more and harder testing than most other militaries.

    I personally tested these magazines for almost two years before the decision was made to import them. I found them to be consistent and to have perfect function in every rifle I tested them in, except for one Spikes lower/Delton upper and one DEZ Arms rifle that had a slightly tighter fit, but not enough to cause any concern.

    When we had been shipping these magazines for a while, we began to receive a handful of complaints about hard seating in certain rifles. We began to look for data on this, to determine if it was limited to specific rifles, but found that people were reporting that the same magazine worked fine in one rifle, but seated hard in another, often of the same manufacture. Compounding the problem, we soon learned that people were reporting that the mags seated hard in a certain brand of rifle, but we found that many of these were actually lowers that were built up by some one, so the guy who claims hard seating in a RRA rifle may actually have a RRA lower with lower parts from Blackthorne, an upper from Model 1 Sales, and a bolt carrier that he is not sure where it cam from, so we quickly learned that we could not establish a pattern in most cases, thoug we do no know that certain brands of rifles tend to have higher numbers of seating issues - even so, some of these companies have changed hands or changed suppliers, and we cannot determine if there is a certain range that have a higher tendency to have seating issues.

    Immediately, there was a range of tests performed in Israel to see if an error had been introduced in manufacturing. Magazines from all series were carefully measured and also checked with the measuring built by Colt that are used in the factory for quality control. All magazines were found to be right on the specifications. Next a range test was conducted using the mags from the various series and multiple M16 and M4 military contract rifles built by Colt. They were also tested in Gilboa and Tavor rifles. All magazines worked flawlessly and had no seating issues. I fact, this has never been reported in all the time these magazines have been in use in Colt military contract rifles.

    At this point, I contacted those who had reported seating issues and asked them to return the actually magazines that they had issues with. Meanwhile engineers and executives from E-Lander flew to the US to investigate the reports. I met with our CEO and the engineers from E-Lander and we investigated the returned magazines, comparing them to other magazines of various series pulled from stock. They were compared to the military specification drawings from Colt, which are the standard for M16 magazines, and the standard to which E-Lander mags are built. We measured all of the returned magazines, plus all of the magazines pulled from stock, both loaded and unloaded, and found that they were right on the ideal specs in all dimensions, according to the drawings. We also found that they were extremely consistent from magazine to magazine and from series to series, with the 10 series being exactly on, while the 12 series was just off from the 10 series with an almost immeasurable difference in one dimension, but still right on the ideal specs, according to the MIL-SPEC drawings. For each dimension, the drawings have a target dimension and then an allowable variance. Imagine if a certain measurement was 10. The variance may be 3 on one side and 2 on the other, so any measurement between 8 and 13 would be considered within spec. The E-Lander mags would consistently be 10.

    We then measured US-made magazines. We found them to be just outside of spec in certain critical dimensions.

    We then tested fit in a variety of US-made rifles - we found no issues with seating in any rifle we tested the magazines with - these were the same magazines that were returned to us for seating difficulty. We spoke with rifle manufacturers and industry experts about the issues. We submitted mags for testing to manufacturers such as LMT, Mega Machine, Alexander Arms, etc. - both new magazines and some of those that were returned. We also sent some of the returned mags to certain gun writers who are knowledgeable enough to do thorough investigations of their own.

    Here is what we determined, due to our own testing and also largely from information provided to us by manufacturers and industry members:

    Colt military contract rifles are all gauged to guarantee that they are within spec. Most rifles built for the civilian and law enforcement market in the US are not. There has never been an issue with seating in the Colt military contract rifles in use in Israel, nor with Tavor, Gilboa, or FN SCAR.

    There is actually a wide variation in dimensions between rifles in the civilian market in the US. Even among the large manufacturers, parts are sourced from a myriad of suppliers, and things change, sometimes quite often.

    With civilian market rifles in the US, by the end of last week, we had had at most .07% of the thousands of magazines we have shipped reported as being difficult to seat in particular rifles. When we consider that some shooters have not tried them yet, and some who have may not report issues to us, we feel confident in saying that so far, we have had less than 1% of the magazines we shipped having reported seating issues.

    Clearly, the magazines are built to the ideal dimensions, according to the MIL-SPEC drawings, for use in MIL-SPEC rifles. By MIL-SPEC, I don't mean the term as it is thrown around by many AR-15 manufacturers - I just looked at a rifle that was advertised as MIL-SPEC by the manufacturer, yet it had a fluted non-chrome-lined barrel, stainless lower parts, non-standard selector, "MIL-SPEC" buffer tube with too many positions, no lock washer on pistol grip screw, AR-15 bolt carrier, etc. (and by the way, it didn't go bang, either). When I say MIL-SPEC, I mean built to the military specifications as provided for M16 magazines and found to be identical in two versions of the Colt factory drawings that we were using. The E-Lander magazines are truly built to MIL-SPEC dimensions.

    Clearly, the magazines are not built to the ideal dimensions for the US civilian market. There is just too much variation between rifles, for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. While they work fine in almost all rifles, we want them to work fine in all rifles. Of course, this won't ever happen, because there is stuff out there that is just way out of spec, but most rifles are close.

    Dimensions on the rifle that can be critical to magazine compatibility are:
    Magazine well
    Magazine catch location
    Magazine catch hole location
    Magazine catch
    Magazine release button size, shape, and location of threaded hole
    Upper to lower fit
    Radius in upper for magazine fit
    Bolt carrier dimensions
    Groove location and depth on bottom of bolt carrier.

    Any of these can affect the fit of the magazine, or several that would not affect the fit by themselves can stack together to affect the fit.

    We can go one of two ways - we can say, "We know our mags are in spec and so it has to be your rifle; tough luck." Alternately, we can find a way to solve the issue for those few rifles that the mags seat hard in.
    We don't think the first response helps anyone - it does not help us, and it certainly does not help anyone else. I know that people hold the military specifications to be the holy grail for ARs, but if you have a rifle that does not necessarily meet the specifications, but still works fine, is there really a big problem? Not as long as you have mags that work, right? So the second solution is the one for us. We cannot change the rifles, so we must adjust the magazines slightly.

    As I said before, we measured US-made mags and found them to be just out of spec. Why would this be? I think it is because they already know what we are just learning - that ideal military specifications for magazines may not be ideal for non-MIL-SPEC rifles in the US civilian market. Remember that many people experienced drop-free issues with the Gen 1 Pmags, until Magpul made a change. I can promise you that Magpul is not a company that releases out-of-spec stuff. So we can be sure that those Gen 1 Pmags were in-spec, yet there were issues with certain rifles. On the other hand, the first Pmags work flawlessly in every rifle I own.

    The solution we found is to move the top edge of the magazine catch window on the magazines slightly up from the ideal specification (but keep it within spec, because the primary customers for these magazines are military). If this is done, the magazines should still work perfectly with the military contract rifles, yet seat easier in the few commercial rifles in the US that they now seat hard in.

    If you find that you have a rifle that the mags seat harder ion than you prefer, you can use a couple strokes with a file to raise the top of the mag catch window slightly, but only very slightly - don't remove too much.

  9. #179
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,594
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I'll save some of you guys reading: The last sentence cuts to the chase.


    "If you find that you have a rifle that the mags seat harder ion than you prefer, you can use a couple strokes with a file to raise the top of the mag catch window slightly, but only very slightly - don't remove too much."

  10. #180
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    24
    Feedback Score
    0
    I woke up yesterday morning with a shipping notification for my order (number 8400ish).

    Interesting read on the hard seating issue. I look forward to checking how mine do when they arrive

Page 18 of 45 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •