Originally Posted by
Mysteryman
So range use by amateurs is considered a validating source for reliability and durability of magazines? We all know that magazines are CONSUMABLES right? I guess the feed lip creep of a USGI is a myth and stepping on them does nothing to damage them either..
I'm kind of here. I need more than just a statement of "USGI outlasts polymer mags." How so, in what conditions, how many rounds, what platforms, what numbers? There are too many questions here raised for me to give credence to one side or the other. I mean this seriously. If you mean mag for mag purchased that the USGI mags are lasting longer then the Pmags under the same course of fire? Are both mags seeing similar round counts in the same weapons? If not, what is the difference in round count or platform. If your Pmags are getting 3X the number of rounds to the USGI mags, well then that might explain a lot. But the statement makes nothing that I can break down. Are you saying that USGI mags are lasting longer then polymer mags in general, in which case what polymer mags and under what conditions and round counts.
I'm sorry OP, the statement you've got posted there just doesn't give me any appreciable data that I can make a worthwhile conclusion from other than broad strokes. And If I just go by what a shooting range sees I'd make the conclusion from what I have seen in shooting ranges that AKs and Glocks are the most unreliable POSs ever made because they are the guns I have seen malf and go down the most followed by 1911 and then a distant 5th by the AR 15, 4th would be the M&p series of handguns. This ignores numbers and conditions, and twenty other factors though.
"I don't collect guns anymore, I stockpile weapons for ****ing war." Chuck P.
"Some days you eat the bacon, and other days the bacon eats you." SeriousStudent
"Don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello." WillBrink
Bookmarks