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, 13:28
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, 06:52
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, 12:27
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, 14:01
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, 20:29
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, 15:02
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, 05:50
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, 09:53
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, 02:19
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, 02:25
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, 13:47
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.
wild_wild_wes
08-04-13, 19:53
Don't forget that the M1 carbine had 30 round magazines developed for it during WW2.
If you look into US Army Ordnance and Springfield Armory in regards to infantry rifles, their blindness to technical innovation is stunning. Even with the examples of the MP44 and AK47 they could not grasp the concept of how rifles are actually used in combat (our allies certainly had by then; look at the 7.92X33 FAL prototype, and the British EM-2). It's a miracle the M16 was ever adopted at all.
I've read Ezell's "The Great Rifle Controversy". The history of US small arms development is not a particularly happy one. The whole M14 rifle episode is fascinating reading.
This is just theory on my part, but I'm pretty sure the only reason 20 round magazines were issued/used after the 30 rounders were implemented was because they were still in the supply system. It took years to exhaust them.
I've only been issued the 30 round magazine. I was able to find 20 round magazines occasionally. I liked using the 20 round magazines for jumping. You can insert one into the weapon when using the M1950 weapons container. We taped the 30 rounders to the sling of the weapon to find it when pulling it out of the M1950 in the dark.
When M193 was issued it came in bandoleers with two 10 round stripper clips per pouch, IIRC the older bandoleers had a couple more pouches than current bandoleers. When M855 came out for the M16A2 the bandoleers started to come with three 10 round stripper clips per pouch. This made the math much easier.
On a side note, I had a 1SG that told me when he was in Vietnam, they wore extra bandoleers to act as armor.
Alaskapopo
08-06-13, 14:44
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
Using the mag as a rest does not cause any issues, that is a long term myth like making sure the gas ring gaps are not aligned or the gun will blow up. Both total bunk. Been shooting off the mag as a support for more than 18 years now.
pat
halfmoonclip
10-03-13, 09:24
A couple points that perhaps weren't mentioned:
-in the original AR design, it was lightness uber alles, so it probably seemed counterintuitive to make a light alloy rifle and then weigh it down with a large magazine
-there has been a long argument about just how much of a 'machine gun' the AR platform was and is; with its light recoil, it's uncommonly easy to rock n' roll with an AR...the problem being how much of that kind of treatment the rifle (perhaps the pencil barrels especially) could take...there have been all sorts of efforts to discourage this, ranging from the break-off tabs that didn't let you select 'auto' to the 'burst' setting of some of the later marks
-point being, the smaller mags may have been an early effort to discourage ripping off really long bursts, tho' I may be talking out my ass here
Moon
ETA-when I drew (asked for more like it) range detail, and there was ammo left at the end of the day, it didn't take long to remove the PG and that tab that kept you from rock n' rolling, burn some ammo and put it back...I suppose the rationale was that, in a pinch it could be pried off, but it would be evidence that you had fired full auto...it was really easy to work around that
M
Doc Safari
10-03-13, 10:10
... the smaller mags may have been an early effort to discourage ripping off really long bursts, tho' I may be talking out my ass here
I'll add what I heard even though it may be in the "myth busted" category also.
The M16 was originally designed to use 20-rounders because it was fielded as a rifle with full-auto capability (not to be used very often). The 30-rounders came about when it was discovered in Vietnam that full-auto was being used more and more (rightly or wrongly) and 20-rounders emptied too quickly.
This seems consistent with other posts in this thread, but the reasoning may be slighly off-kilter, so I present it just as "another thing I've heard people say."
halfmoonclip
10-03-13, 10:46
Doc, you've restated my thoughts far more clearly. Just what the AR 'is' is the question.
Tho' I'm still suspicious that overall weapon weight and combat load may have been a factor.
Thanks.
Moon
Of course, the AR15 was originally procured by the Air Force as a carbine, to replace the carbines, cal. 30., M1 and M2.
halfmoonclip
10-03-13, 12:22
Of course, the AR15 was originally procured by the Air Force as a carbine, to replace the carbines, cal. 30., M1 and M2.
We are now run afoul of what to call something. Arguably the original AR had a longer barrel than the existing M1 carbine, but not by much.
Moon
ETA- just weighed a loaded 30 and 20 round mag; full disclosure, the 20 had 55 gr bullets while the 30 had greentips. Weights on my spring balance were 15 oz for the 30 and 11 for the 20.
That's not a huge difference for an extra 10 rounds, but Stoner sweated 4 oz here and there to get the weight down.
M
Yep, evolving language is fun. :) Especially firearms nomenclature:cool:
The M1 carbine got the title since it is a smaller, less-powerful shoulder arm than the issue rifles of the era. By this application, the AR fits even though it was conceived as a 'light-weight rifle'.
Historically, rifles have steadily gotten smaller as technology advanced, so the M4 is a true carbine, since it is a smaller, lighter version of a larger design.
I wonder why it took so long to develop the anti tilt follower.
halfmoonclip
10-06-13, 17:33
Not all problems are perceived immediately.
Moon
When Mr. Stoner showed his rifle to the Army at Ft. Benning, it had his original 25-round AR magazine. he told me a colonel told him to reduce it to 20 rounds as a "burst control measure."
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.
Not to de-rail the primary thread but the 30-round FAL magazine was actually the 7.62 magazine for the top-fed L4 BREN light machinegun. Since the rounds were meant to feed top-down, gravity gave the double-column stacked rounds an assist for feeding.
http://norfolktankmuseum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/L4-BREN-7.62mm.jpg
I believe the Pakistanis still use them.
halfmoonclip
10-19-13, 14:35
Some creative mag placement took place with the Bren and the Sten, tho' the feeding advantage of the Bren especially hadn't crossed my mind.
It did let the troops get closer to the ground.
Moon
Richard W.
01-04-14, 17:42
The online archive at Small Arms Review has the final testing report from Aberdeen Proving Ground prior to the 30-round magazine going into production for field use.
It says that the 30-rounder was initially proposed in 1965 for the XM177E1 submachine gun and a planned heavy-barrel version of the XM16E1 intended for use as a squad automatic weapon. Both of those types had a need for a bigger magazine than the rifles.
After the testing program (dust, cold temperature, high temp, durability, etc.) had shown that the 30 rounders were feasible, it was decided that the rifle would also benefit from "an increase in fire power capability".
BTW, the round handguard design, later adopted with the A2, was tested concurrently with the magazines in '67, but was not put into production at that time.
Here's the link, but you must be a subscriber:
https://www.smallarmsoftheworld.com/archive/August.2013/7tbfdndt5pdf/2015.pdf
Endless requests from troops in the field in Vietnam regarding a magazine that held as many rounds as the AK-47......of course it took years to field them. In 1970 we still did not have them....
BEFORE I read this thread... my guess is that essentially the Ruskies and allies went 30 round mag first and as a result the AR went from 20 to 30 over time as a natural response.
Edit: learned a lot reading that. Great read... all 4 pages.
Because the AK had thirty rounders.
IIRC the 30 round magazines came into fairly common use in late 1968-early 1969. I was stateside and a friend in VN told me about them. He had some. The mags were pretty tightly inventoried for a time--SecDef was tightening budget controls or whatever.
patrick sweeney
02-12-14, 09:00
That figures. There's a war on, so now is the time to be keeping track of $2 magazines?
Yes, considering who the SecDef was.
I think we have pretty much established the timeline and usage of the mags. As for the SecDef and accountability thing, that's speculation. But, let's not forget that the magazines were originally designed to be disposable and that practice stopped almost as soon as it started and was one reason why we had magazine issues later down the road
That figures. There's a war on, so now is the time to be keeping track of $2 magazines?
You'd be amazed at the supply issues that we still have today. I've paid for mags, lens covers, and even an M68 killflash.
A dear friend of mine served two tours in the RVN with the 101st 71 & 72. He encountered 30 rd mags in '71 and they were issued at that time 3 per man . Of course by hook & crook they acquired more per man as there was always gear in the rear for sale/trade. Myself I went in the army in '85 to 88 and we had 30 rd mags out the wazoo. It was only when I went ARNG after my active gig that I encountered 20 rd mags in gobs...and I mean in gobs !.
I went through basic at Ft McClellan in 1986 we were issued both 20 and 30 round mags. All of the 20's I had were Colt manufactured and the 30's were Adventureline.
Combat_Diver
10-11-14, 02:08
Looking at pictures of the 82nd and Rangers in Grenada they are all shown with 30 rd mags in their M16A1s. When I entered in 83' we had both 20s and 30s available for use. Getting harder and harder to find the 20s as most units threw them away or walked. Now as a contractor I still carry 20s in a combat zone in the gun where ALL reloads are 30s. The 20 in the gun is more compact when inside aircraft, armored vehicle so that when the gun is positioned between my knees muzzle down it doesn't bang my old knees which 30s do. When jumping out of airplanes and using a M1950 weapons case a 30 won't fit but a 20 does and then all you have to do is chamber the round once on the ground. When jumping exposed weapon use the 30 as the reserve parachute belly band secures the weapon better. 20s are also easier when finning subsurface (ie swimming underwater) as its less likely to snag other equipment/lines.
CD
When Mr. Stoner showed his rifle to the Army at Ft. Benning, it had his original 25-round AR magazine. he told me a colonel told him to reduce it to 20 rounds as a "burst control measure."
I came to post this. Original mag was a 25rd straight mag. I think they were steel as well.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s147/crackedcornish/Proto000004_more.jpg
http://www.wzrd.com/u/rbrennan/misc/25rdtest.jpg
Using the mag as a rest does not cause any issues, that is a long term myth like making sure the gas ring gaps are not aligned or the gun will blow up. Both total bunk. Been shooting off the mag as a support for more than 18 years now.
pat
Just catching up to this thread.
Of course speculation but could this be a difference of non-M4 cut feed ramps having problems/causing malfunctions in this situation and M4 cut feed ramps working fine is the same situation?
BTW, thanks Alaskapopo, LAV, Combat_Diver, and others for all the outstanding info and pics. Wish I would have found this thread earlier as it has been one of the most enjoyable. Always nice to know the "why" behind decisions with equipment and peoples motivations for decisions.
When were the waffle mags made? I assume NDS isn't just making shit up.
http://www.nodakspud.com/images/NDS-WM%20right.JPG
The steel 20rd waffle magazines were phased out after their poor performance in the late 1962 US Army trials. Springfield Armory offered Colt a revised steel magazine design, but clearly, Colt reverted back to their own aluminum 20rd design.
http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/Colt_AR.M16_Rifles/ArmaliteWaffleSteelMags.jpg
I love the history and evolution in this thread. The personal experiences make it a real gem!
Thanks for sharing, everyone.
Ready.Fire.Aim
01-14-15, 12:49
Deleted
patrick sweeney
01-15-15, 16:34
OK, I have to ask; A pink magazine?
Don't tell me that was USGI, ca. 1960-something.
OK, I have to ask; A pink magazine?
Don't tell me that was USGI, ca. 1960-something.
Patrick - Look what is printed on the side of the magazine: BLANK. I suspect that they were going for a red color with the anodizing. If I remember correctly, this variant had a spacer installed for use with a shorter than standard crimped blank cartridge.
I did a little more digging. The red blank magazine dates to a 1969 program run by Frankford Arsenal to improve M16A1 performance with the M200 Blank. The M200 of that era was 3/8" shorter than the M193 Ball cartridge. As a result, it tended to stub against the front of the standard magazine tube or the barrel extension during feeding. During testing, the red magazine with the spacer completely eliminated feeding malfunctions with the M200 Blank, compared to the 50-80% rate encountered with issue magazines.
31083
I recently had the opportunity to read a copy of the January 1966 report "Barrel Erosion Study of Rifles, 5.56mm, M16 AND XM16E1 - A Joint Army-Air Force Test." While that sounds boring on the surface, someone had the clever idea to include a set of rifles with new experimental parts offered by Colt. Included as early as February 1965 were the prototype continuous-curve 30rd magazines.
Here's a link to the report:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=AD0483309
A dear friend of mine served two tours in the RVN with the 101st 71 & 72. He encountered 30 rd mags in '71 and they were issued at that time 3 per man . Of course by hook & crook they acquired more per man as there was always gear in the rear for sale/trade. Myself I went in the army in '85 to 88 and we had 30 rd mags out the wazoo. It was only when I went ARNG after my active gig that I encountered 20 rd mags in gobs...and I mean in gobs !.
I served as a sergeant in D Co 1/502d Inf (AMBL) 101st ABN Div (AMBL) from Oct 71 till the division stood down in Feb 1972 and I never saw a 30 round magazine in use amongst any 101st ABN troops I encountered during that period. It was unit SOP to TURN IN all weapons and MAGAZINES every time we returned to base camp. Every time we went back to the field we were issued DIFFERENT MAGAZINES. These DIFFERENT magazines were guaranteed to be FILTHY inside. I made a practice of cleaning mine before I loaded them. Most guys didn't.
That was my second unit assignment in Vietnam. The first was to C Trp 3/5 Cav, 9th Inf Div., which was under the operational control of the 5th Mech when I went into it in early June but at the end of the month came under the operational control of the 101st ABN (AMBL). As soon as I could after I was issued a M-16, I tested several magazines to see how they fed. Loaded with 20 rounds, none of my small random sample would feed the top round. They didn't even come close... all (100%) were stove piped. I also experimented with both 18 and 19 round magazine loads. Both of those loadings fed fine, so, I always loaded 19.
But, back to the 30 rounders. 3/5 Cav was comprised of 3 armored troops and one air troop... or at least I thought it was at the time. Apparently some genius had re-designated D Troop (the air troop) as D 3/17th Cav, but that wasn't common knowledge, and that's another story... As a part of the "withdrawal" process D Trp lost its Infantry scout component and those guys had amongst their responsibilities, securing downed aircraft of the troop during recovery. To adjust to that loss, certain individuals in the 3 armored troops were designated for immediate reaction to secured downed aircraft if/when said individuals were in base camp. I was one of those "fortunate" souls. I never was actually called upon to secure a downed aircraft, but to be prepared to do so I did have to keep certain items packed and ready to go any time I was in base camp, and I was issued a card authorizing me to draw arms at any time. I also got issued two brand spanking new 30 round magazines. Those went in my lower right fatigue shirt pocket, and stayed there, 24/7. When we took our armor and weapons to DaNang by LST to turn them in, we were reduced to only individual weapons with only one magazine loaded (no crew served weapons mounted or loaded), and before we boarded the LST at Tan My our LT collected those in a sand bag and tossed them off of the dock. We sailed from Tan My to Danang with no ammo. Somehow I forgot about those two 30 rounders in my right front pocket through all of that. Also, later, in the 101st, I forgot about them every time we turned in weapons and magazines. I am a very forgetful person. So far as I know I was the only guy anywhere around who had any 30 round magazines... but who knows what someone else might have "forgot" in their pocket...? :)
Combat vet
02-02-15, 07:07
I was with CO A, 1/327th Infantry, 101st Airborne Div in Vietnam in 1971. WE were issued I believe 10 20 round magazines and 1 30 round magazine so I guess they were relativily new back then.
kevin
CoffeedrinkerinNC
02-02-15, 10:08
My father was a Marine 64 to 90, he said that he didn't remember 30 rounds becoming common till the mid 70's.
Here is what I know for sure. With the advent of the xm177E2 being phased out the Combat Developments Command (CDC) first established a requirement for a 30-round magazine for the M16(A1) in January 1966. 30-round mags were suppose to make their appearance with the XM177E1's and E2's but for some reason they weren't. Note: I remember in Plaster's book on MACVSOG that he and a few 10's (one-zero) had gotten a hold of some from the old Sherwood Military Surplus store in California. I remember them vividly as ordered some things from them in the mid to late 70's.
Also according to Eugene Stoner, he had explained the basics of an extended capacity magazine design to the Ichord Subcommittee as follows (verbatim): "...the shorter the magazine is, the less necessity there is for a curved magazine, and vice versa...a 30 round (Stoner System) magazine is curved and a curved magazine is the only system where you can get ideal feeding conditions through the full complement of the magazine, because the ammunition is slightly tapered and this follows the natural curve. If you laid the cartridges out on a table, this would be the arc, if you stacked them up, that they would go."
Also NOTE: (verbatim)on page 237 in the book "The Black Rifle" Subtitled "M16 Retrospective" By Stevens and Ezell, it states the following: Despite the numerous modifications to which the original AR-15 had been subjected, the dimensions of the magazine well area had remained untouched since the earliest days, and it was soon found that it was not so simple to design an extended capacity magazine for the M16A1. Colt's first 30 round M16A1 magazines were curved in an unbroken arc, but a problem awaited them upon their trials issue: they simply would not fit into the magazine wells of many existing AR-15s/M16/XM16E1s.
In March 1966 Co. Yount reported that due to Colts "inability to provide an operable 30 round magazine", the first few months' production of the XM177E1s/XM177E2s/"Commandos' were to be issued with regular 20 rounders. However, the other problems of the next sixteen months somewhat overshadowed the magazine project. In July 1967 Lt. Col. Engle, the acting Project Manager, recorded that a product improvement test was "suspended due to deficiencies found in the magazines. Colt's Inc,. is again reviewing the design and is scheduled to resubmit."
It appeared that the front of the magazine well of the rifle itself had not been too closely gauged or controlled in previous manufacture. In Gene Stoner's words"...at the time we didn't know better...I wish it (the capability to accept a fully curved magazine) had been put into the M16 rifle..."
The design finally chosen, Colts "Firearm box magazine with straight end and intermediate arctuate portions" was the best possible compromise, built somewhat along the lines of the WWII 30 round M2 Carbine magazine. However, it was 1969 before 30 round magazines first became available for issue.
Project: rifles (week of) 10-14 June 1968
30 round magazine: Colt's Inc. has signed a contract to produce 1,000 30 round magazines to be used in an initial production test. Delivery is anticipated in 6 1/2 months. A technical data package will be furnished by Colt under the terms of this contract at no cost to the government. This initial quantity...will be produced on hard tooling, so that immediately following the successful conclusion of the test mass production may be initiated.
Hope this helps guys.
DirectDrive
04-18-15, 19:52
At the 42:50 mark, Mr. Stoner confirms what is stated above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44_V9dOF5tg
Yep, I think it's that simple.
I was talking to a 3 tour combat vet about two weeks ago.
First thing he said was "They had a better rifle."
Doesn't take too much imagination to get to..."Why can't we have a 30 round mag ?"
Much of this stuff is covered in TBR...Collector Grade Pub. But anyway, the original mag for the AR was a straight 25 rounder. How well it worked is today, lost to history. I still like twenties for the bench, FWIW.
halfmoonclip
09-04-20, 22:26
The 20 is lighter and handier, and not nearly as sinful as the 30s... ;)
Moon
The 20 is lighter and handier, and not nearly as sinful as the 30s... ;)
Moon
So, "Tastes Great, Less Filling"?
halfmoonclip
09-09-20, 12:38
So, "Tastes Great, Less Filling"?
Hate to compare anything worthwhile to 'water in a can'. :) :) :)
Rereading The Black Rifle, and was reminded that there was an issue getting 30 round mags to fit in all AR magwells; they weren't initially designed for the curved mags.
Still like 20s in retro ARs; the loaded 20s in the safe are 55s, and the 30s are green tips.
Moon
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.