View Full Version : Lancer Systems L5 Smoke Magazines
I just recieved some of the Lancer mags to T&E. I have not used them yet but from what I see so far I like.
The polymer if very sturdy.
The metal feedlips are strong with a anti-corrision process.
Includes rubber baseplate is a great fetaure.
Easy to see rounds with no glare and are easy to see and are nrea horizontal reinforcement lines.
Round count markers on the sides of the mags.
With the metal feelips they are able to be stored
I also hand cycled the mags full through 4 different AR's with no problems. I do still need to test them in different situations and loading on a closed bolt and shoot with them.
Im not able to get the pics to load on this site but will try again.
Do you know what there price will be on these?
I think that is still in the works. I may become a dist for them for this side of the country.
AnchorArmament
02-25-08, 07:38
Retail is $25 ea.
Compare it to a Tmag @ $21 + a $5 ranger plate and the Lancer is $1 cheaper.
Street price for advanced orders is $21 ea.
We have run several drills and drop tests side by side with Pmags, USGI and H&K. It holds it's own against the big three.
The H&K was dented during loaded drop tests, but the Pmag and Lancer looked as good as new. The Lancer only let one round pop out and it was about 50% of the time. The H&K and USGI also let 1 round pop out. The H&K was closer to 75% and the USGI was also about 50%. The Pmag didn't pop a round with the cover off.
The Lancer mag seems like a solid, quality product. I look forward to seeing the production mags.
Im still running my test mags through there paces. They have so far been very reliable and tough. The advavantage of these to the smoke of clear Pmags is that these are made for real use. My test mags varied slightly from what the real mags will be.
The test mags differences are
"Minor differences in the bottom and feedlips…production bottom will be co-molded with a mechanical lock…T&E are epoxy bonded…
production feedlips will be PTFE coated…T&E are magnesium phosphate coated…."
AnchorArmament
02-25-08, 13:24
My T&E mag has the PTFE coating on the feed lips, but still has the T&E rubber base plate. The new base plate should also have a small lip where the joint is, I think.
I have put the test mags through the ringer and im somewhat impressed. I had zero magazine caused failures and ran the mags through 4 different weapons for a total of 2000 rounds.
I had one mag that I left as is and one I beat up somewhat and both functioned fine. From what I have found the feedlips are more durable than USGI feedlips and are attached very strongly to the polymer.
The only problems I have found is that the Lancer mag needs to be downloaded to load on a closed bolt.
I was able to go get some more time behind the trigger from my initial report with the T&E mags and discovered a few things. I went out with a variety of rifles this time for the tests.
1. The ridge on the mags that sits right below and circles the magazine should be moved slightly lower. This ridge was a problem on Sundevil lowers as I was only able to get 25 rounds to load on a closed bolt and really had to slam it home to get it to lock in. This is also a problem on the older S&W lowers that were made inhouse by S&W. Stag lowers and the older S&W made by Stag are fine with this
2. Increased length of the magazine to allow easier loading on a closed bolt with a higher variety of lowers.
The advavantage of these to the smoke of clear Pmags is that these are made for real use.
"...made for real use" as defined by what/who? The TMAG hasn't reached production status, so making that comparison is jumping the gun, I think. The Magpul claim of "training only" is based on our assessment of translucent polymers, and has nothing to do with magazine design or build quality. Depending on the final result, some may deem the TMAG suitable for duty use. Who knows, Magpul may even get rid of the "training only" recommendation.
The Lancer appears to be a quality product - I've played with them a little, but haven't done any real side by side comparisons. Either way, it doesn't much matter - I'm sure the quality of the L5 product will speak for itself, and I sincerely wish Lancer the best of luck. Competition in the market is good for everyone, consumers and manufacturers alike. It keeps quality high, prices low, and drives innovation. Judging by their very professional presence on the forums so far, I think Lancer would agree. With any luck maybe we can prevent these threads from deteriorating into PMAG vs. Lancer pissing matches like I've witnessed on the other forums.
Cheers, gentlemen, and congratulations on your successful release. :)
"...made for real use" as defined by what/who? The TMAG hasn't reached production status, so making that comparison is jumping the gun, I think. The Magpul claim of "training only" is based on our assessment of translucent polymers, and has nothing to do with magazine design or build quality. Depending on the final result, some may deem the TMAG suitable for duty use. Who knows, Magpul may even get rid of the "training only" recommendation.
The Lancer appears to be a quality product - I've played with them a little, but haven't done any real side by side comparisons. Either way, it doesn't much matter - I'm sure the quality of the L5 product will speak for itself, and I sincerely wish Lancer the best of luck. Competition in the market is good for everyone, consumers and manufacturers alike. It keeps quality high, prices low, and drives innovation. Judging by their very professional presence on the forums so far, I think Lancer would agree. With any luck maybe we can prevent these threads from deteriorating into PMAG vs. Lancer pissing matches like I've witnessed on the other forums.
Cheers, gentlemen, and congratulations on your successful release. :)
Nick I think you need to relax alittle bit im simply going by what is being advertised.
The TMAG or training mag is being advertised as that a training mag. If you guys want to update their status than do it but dont get your panties in a bunch when someone says the Tmag isnt for real use when its advertised use is well training.
Im a Magpul dealer and sell a hell of alot of PMAGS as of yet I do not sell the Lancers but may in the future.
I wasnt trying to start a pissing match of any type and you normally make good posts but this time I think you need to rethink things.
Nick I think you need to relax alittle bit im simply going by what is being advertised.
The TMAG or training mag is being advertised as that a training mag. If you guys want to update their status than do it but dont get your panties in a bunch when someone says the Tmag isnt for real use when its advertised use is well training.
Im a Magpul dealer and sell a hell of alot of PMAGS as of yet I do not sell the Lancers but may in the future.
I wasnt trying to start a pissing match of any type and you normally make good posts but this time I think you need to rethink things.
Nothing needs re-thinking. I'm sorry you misunderstood my post - nothing I said was intended as anything other than clarification. Let me try again:
The TMAG has not reached public hands outside of a select few beta testers. Of the magazines which have been released, none are final production magazines. Our claim that the TMAG is for "training only" is a judgment based on the material properties of translucent polymers relative to the PMAG polymer, aluminum, and steel. Comparatively speaking, the clear plastics we have evaluated so far are inferior to the opaque PMAG polymer when it comes to duty applications.
That said, I'm simply asking you to reserve your judgment and performance comparisons until you actually have a production TMAG in hand. Perhaps I'm a bit weary of internet rumors in their infancy, but we're still fighting the rumor that the PMAG dust/impact cover has to be kept on at all times or the feed lips will splay open...
The "pissing match" comment was a general comment about threads I've seen on other forums, and certainly not directed at you. I've seen more than enough of your posts to know your style - I assumed you knew mine as well, but I'll try to be more clear in the future. My point is simply that the Lancer folks seem to be stand up guys who are making what looks to be a pretty damn good product. Again, I see a PMAG/Magpul vs. Lancer internet rivalry in the makings, none of which is either company's doing, and I want to extend the olive branch before the rumor mill gets out of control.
See? No reason to get upset...I'm certainly not. :)
Chris-
I'm glad to hear from Nick that they were indeed advertised as for training because had that come only from you, I would have given you a :confused: for sure.
I can see why Magpul advertises their smoke mags for training only- someone will undoubtedly put them against a Pmag or steel mag in "testing" and determine they are inferior only because they don't stack up to quite as much abuse as the standard Pmag but remember the Pmag goes way beyond what it really should...
I'm sure the smoke Pmags are good enough for training, couch commando and civilian use as well...
variablebinary
03-31-08, 03:54
I am very impressed with the L5 thus far. Very well thought out all in all.
Nothing needs re-thinking. I'm sorry you misunderstood my post - nothing I said was intended as anything other than clarification. Let me try again:
The TMAG has not reached public hands outside of a select few beta testers. Of the magazines which have been released, none are final production magazines. Our claim that the TMAG is for "training only" is a judgment based on the material properties of translucent polymers relative to the PMAG polymer, aluminum, and steel. Comparatively speaking, the clear plastics we have evaluated so far are inferior to the opaque PMAG polymer when it comes to duty applications.
That said, I'm simply asking you to reserve your judgment and performance comparisons until you actually have a production TMAG in hand. Perhaps I'm a bit weary of internet rumors in their infancy, but we're still fighting the rumor that the PMAG dust/impact cover has to be kept on at all times or the feed lips will splay open...
The "pissing match" comment was a general comment about threads I've seen on other forums, and certainly not directed at you. I've seen more than enough of your posts to know your style - I assumed you knew mine as well, but I'll try to be more clear in the future. My point is simply that the Lancer folks seem to be stand up guys who are making what looks to be a pretty damn good product. Again, I see a PMAG/Magpul vs. Lancer internet rivalry in the makings, none of which is either company's doing, and I want to extend the olive branch before the rumor mill gets out of control.
See? No reason to get upset...I'm certainly not. :)
I hope that the smoke mags do hold up as I would like to use them. I haven't read anything over at TOS about the T-mag vs. Lancer debate and the thread comment here that had you in a uproar was dated 2/25/08 which is probably before all of that started there anyhow. The bottom line is its advertised as a T-raining Mag and I stated Magpuls advertised usage.
LancerSystems
04-01-08, 06:53
I was able to go get some more time behind the trigger from my initial report with the T&E mags and discovered a few things. I went out with a variety of rifles this time for the tests.
1. The ridge on the mags that sits right below and circles the magazine should be moved slightly lower. This ridge was a problem on Sundevil lowers as I was only able to get 25 rounds to load on a closed bolt and really had to slam it home to get it to lock in. This is also a problem on the older S&W lowers that were made inhouse by S&W. Stag lowers and the older S&W made by Stag are fine with this
2. Increased length of the magazine to allow easier loading on a closed bolt with a higher variety of lowers.
Thank-you for your evaluation. We have not had the opportunity to try out Sundevil lowers. So your input is very helpful. The ridge that seems to be causing you some issue was designed specifically for the weapons that are currently fielded in the military...so the L5 is not completely universal. The HK416, FS2000 and SA80 are three that are known to us. The magwell opening is at a different angle that causes the interferrance. In some instances we have had users download to 29 if they need to load with the bolt fwd or they have filed down the middle leg of the follower slightly.
Again, thank-you for your feedback.
Greg
www.lancer-systems.com/L5.html
I've been trying a couple out. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/AR15forme/Lancer/IMG_31011.jpg)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/AR15forme/Lancer/IMG_31011.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.