Generation 4 USGI Magazine

[mr.tickle]

I've read Magpuls statement, however they're also a company selling a product. According to them they are the only polymer magazine that feeds M855A1, which is false as I know of 4 other polymer magazine brands using feed lip geometry that is suitable for M855A1.

The only other one I know of is Daniel Defense mags. What are the other three?

[joglee]

The only other one I know of is Daniel Defense mags. What are the other three?

ETS Group.
Tangodown.
Troy.
HK Polymer Mags.

There's a couple others I cannot recall off the top of my head.

[Iraqgunz]

I'll let them address it. I get they are selling a product, and they happen to be some of the most reliable mags I have used or seen in 30 years. I also don't have a love affair to magazines.

The issue I've experienced with the Gen M3 is after a while the steel tip puts a small divot into the polymer due to recoil.

This divot can then catch the bullet tip locking up feeding, leading to Stoppages.

I've read Magpuls statement, however they're also a company selling a product. According to them they are the only polymer magazine that feeds M855A1, which is false as I know of 4 other polymer magazine brands using feed lip geometry that is suitable for M855A1.

[SPQR476]

M855A1 is indeed a problematic round to feed, but field reports are good, and despite the additional wear and tear, it seems to have benefits. "Woodpeckering" or the damage to the inside front of the magazine is indeed common, but it happens with just about every type of mag. Even though the damage may appear less in metal, the damage is more likely to catch round tips and cause stoppages. The PMAG M3 is quite tolerant of this damage and continues to feed without issue. I'm not saying that something weird can't happen in an isolated case, but in Crane testing they were over 3000 rounds per mag without issue, and they've gone much higher.

Yes, other mags have similar presentation angles, but that's not the only factor. For example, the EPM program was kicked off after a
2011 test of the EMAG (very similar internal geometry to M3) with M855A1 vs tan follower. We had zero mag related stoppages (which will be a common theme in all govt testing to date) and did less ramp and chamber face damage than USGI. I have in my possession a series of follow on tests where Picatinny attempted to copy the presentation angle of the EMAG, and then M3 (same angle) in what would become the EPM. But...you can't just change the presentation angle without affecting the support of the entire stack. No one else has done it "right" yet. USGI will never work with this presentation angle without other major changes.

Everything else that has tried to copy our presentation angle has missed other factors, too, and many polymers just can't hack dust/debris/fouling/temps, etc., and so everything else can't maintain fast enough stack rise time, so you get BOB. This has manifested in every round of testing in everything other than PMAG, so you don't have to take our word for it.

What you'll also see is EPM failures way higher when other ammunition types are used, e.g., Mk318 in the 2016 Aberdeen tests, where the EPM and the other highly regarded magazine choked on 318 even more so than on 855A1.

The HK maritime mag does well, but the issues with that magazine are already well documented.

M3 is the only magazine that works with all the ammunition types in every service rifle, with zero issues, and in fact, zero mag related stoppages, period. That's why USMC adopted and are extremely pleased with it. In dirty conditions, even more so.

The latest floorplates also pass full weapon drops to -60, which was the only thing you could gig the M3 on in earlier variants, even though nothing else passes that very well, either. We were pure fleeted in a recent AK exercise, where temps were, in fact, -60, and in addition to zero durability issues despite attempts to rough them up, advantages in cold weather handling and firing performance over GI were noted. I can put mil users in touch with the command if interested.

Don't take my word for it...SYSCOM came to these conclusions, too, after looking at multiple rounds of govt testing and foreign mil testing.

If anyone dies see any issues with 855A1 and PMAGs, please reach out to the mil team or to me and I'll get you with them and/or engineering as appropriate to address. They will also provide test data/test summaries and POCs to receive the test reports from the govt sources.

SOCOM is in on the NSNs now so they don't have to use discretionary funds, USMC, of course, and a pile of others that mil users can contact for their assessments directly and we can effect linkup.

Yes, we're selling a product, but a pile of us are not far removed from relying on these weapon systems for our lives and we still have friends and family in the fight, so if we weren't providing the best possible option, we wouldn't push it. Conscience wouldn't allow it. My own son is a LCpl 03, so I've got a very vested interest in making mags that work better than anything else, and that's what we do.

[Krazykarl]

My own son is a LCpl 03, so I've got a very vested interest in making mags that work better than anything else, and that's what we do.

This is all the information that I need. Thanks for making a dependable product. My best to your son and family.

[Serious Account]

Looks like the latest test shows the EPM performed the worst.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...decessor-pmag/

[Sancho Panza]

Don't care what the Corpse has to say; I'll wait for the Army tests.

[tom12.7]

Sure, I know that M855A1 is a slightly different animal, but not an entirely different animal. Even before my time entering into this there has been a long standing debate concerning available bolt over magazine travel time in total versus the capacity of the magazine ability to properly present the round for feeding.
If we compare the magazine timing issues versus the bolt over travel time, we can get a better understanding. How many M16A1s had issues with the black followers compared to green ones for non cherry picked tests? How does that compare to the carbines? We are in a better place now for many things, but not all. There are ways to look at things and sometimes "certain" improvements can be losses for others.
For many, the "rougher ride" to chambering of the M4 style ramps can be considered a negative.
There's a few things that we can look at for referencing a round into the chamber from the magazine.