View Full Version : The "Enhanced Performance Magazine"
Looking at this presentation, this new mag appears to be a Coyote Brown-ish color. Is that indeed the case for production mags or is this just a picture of a prototype?:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015smallarms/Russell.pdf
The Army is replacing the current M4 and M16 magazine
with the Enhanced Performance Magazine (EPM)
- EPM improves the overall system reliability when firing M855A1 EPR
- Developed by ARDEC and ARL, the EPM features an increased angle on the
feed lip and an extended front wall height
Benefits:
- Eliminates weapon wear
- Increases reliability and durability
- Improves mean time between
stoppages
98.32% Probability of completing a
209 round mission without failure
(Reliability – 13,973 MRBS as a system)
Manufactured by Center Industries, Wichita, KS
Fielding:
- Seven (7) magazines for every rifle/carbine
- Fielding with current production will commence in FY16
- Will be available for Units to requisition from the supply system this summer
Probably a little early to say exactly what color...
But, they will most likely be visually identifiable from the old tan follower magazines.
Can't answer the color question but this appears to be a fix for that POS M855A1 round, "the EPM features an increased
angle on the feed lip and an extended front wall height" to keep the tip from digging into the feed ramps. But hey look at the bright side, you have a "98.32% Probability of completing a 209 round mission without failure" all to allow the Army to say look at us we use a "green" bullet. I hope the Marines don't bow to PC pressure and adopt the A1, the MK318 makes so much more sense.
Some of the USMC is using Gen M3 Pmags right now.
Which makes more sense..
turnburglar
01-20-16, 13:05
Some of the USMC is using Gen M3 Pmags right now.
Which makes more sense..
I wonder how many tax payer dollars got wasted trying to reinvent the pmag.
Can't answer the color question but this appears to be a fix for that POS M855A1 round, "the EPM features an increased
angle on the feed lip and an extended front wall height" to keep the tip from digging into the feed ramps. But hey look at the bright side, you have a "98.32% Probability of completing a 209 round mission without failure" all to allow the Army to say look at us we use a "green" bullet. I hope the Marines don't bow to PC pressure and adopt the A1, the MK318 makes so much more sense.
What makes the M855A1 a POS?
Granted the MK318 is probably better, I'm just curious as to why folks think the M855A1 is a POS.
I wonder how many tax payer dollars got wasted trying to reinvent the pmag.
You probably don't want to know.
It'll be like their "Scorpion" camo, a.k.a. Federal Gov ripoff of Multicam + untold Millions of $$ spent on b.s.
Eurodriver
01-20-16, 14:31
Some of the USMC is using Gen M3 Pmags right now.
Which makes more sense..
We were using PMAGs 5 years ago, but they did not work with the IAR.
The M3s do.
Problem solved. Why do they keep wasting money?
SomeOtherGuy
01-20-16, 14:41
What makes the M855A1 a POS?
Granted the MK318 is probably better, I'm just curious as to why folks think the M855A1 is a POS.
No firsthand experience with it. It apparently runs very high pressure, well above normal M855 and approach proof loads. That causes accelerated wear on everything. The exposed steel tip apparently also scratches up parts of the chamber or feedramps.
Mk318 has no real compromises other than cost, and to the fedgov I doubt the cost is much more than M855. In theory Mk318 might not be as good on helmet shots against early 1980's Warsaw Pact steel helmets at 600M (what M855 was designed to excel at), but I'm not sure if that matters in the real world.
This ^^^^
There was a good article from a Marine about why they really didn't want to adopt it for reasons like barrels wearing out in as few as 3,000 rounds and other parts wearing out much sooner, wish I could find it. It was a mistake to adopt it but now Big Army will spend countless millions on trying to correct the drawbacks which may or may not improve the state of the art of AR's.
lawusmc0844
01-20-16, 15:31
I wonder how many tax payer dollars got wasted trying to reinvent the pmag.
Also how much wasted reinventing the anti-tilt follower?
The Coyote finish looks cool but it uses the same reverse order POS government follower, only gray now, no thank you.
We were using PMAGs 5 years ago, but they did not work with the IAR.
The M3s do.
Problem solved. Why do they keep wasting money?
I've been using PMAGs since 2008, loved showing all the skeptics how reliable and durable they were. Before the M3 mags came out the Marine Corps banned PMAGs yet I still used them. I think IAR compatability was the main official reason but last I checked Arty units don't even rate them so it was a non issue for me.
Some of the USMC is using Gen M3 Pmags right now.
Which makes more sense..
Do you know which units use them now? I've been out a few years already.
Eurodriver
01-20-16, 15:39
I've been using PMAGs since 2008, loved showing all the skeptics how reliable and durable they were. Before the M3 mags came out the Marine Corps banned PMAGs yet I still used them. I think IAR compatability was the main official reason but last I checked Arty units don't even rate them so it was a non issue for me.
.
Interdasting. I was in a gun bunny battalion also using Gen 2 PMAGs. Maybe that's how we got away with it. Our supply ordered them for the entire Bn in early 2011 or so. Talking thousands of PMAGs just stacked up in the warehouse. :ph34r:
lawusmc0844
01-20-16, 15:40
You probably don't want to know.
It'll be like their "Scorpion" camo, a.k.a. Federal Gov ripoff of Multicam + untold Millions of $$ spent on b.s.
Not to go off topic but I'm amazed how jacked up the Army is when it comes to camo. I'm just glad the worthless stupid looking UCP (more like ICU) is starting to go away
You probably don't want to know.
It'll be like their "Scorpion" camo, a.k.a. Federal Gov ripoff of Multicam + untold Millions of $$ spent on b.s.
Civilian employees run the behind the scenes, and they can't get bonuses if they don't "invent" things or "fix" things. Between this, and mil guys who just want to work for certain manufacturers when they retire, I'm more than a little disgusted at the process.
Guess I never gave it much thought, but do PMags reliably feed M855A1?
lawusmc0844
01-20-16, 16:06
Interdasting. I was in a gun bunny battalion also using Gen 2 PMAGs. Maybe that's how we got away with it. Our supply ordered them for the entire Bn in early 2011 or so. Talking thousands of PMAGs just stacked up in the warehouse. :ph34r:
Your supply hooked it up because all of us that were using PMAGs in my Regt purchased our own. I even helped facilitate a group buy for my original platoon before we deployed.
Nobody gave a shit about my PMAGs not even the firing Btry I PCAed to for my last deployment. In country though, the Btry CO visited our POS, saw the PMAGs on my plate carrier and told me I couldn't use them anymore. "PMAGs, they're banned, you got any aluminum mags Sgt?" Fortunately he was at Leatherneck most of the time anyway and I only brought one USGI mag (w/ Magpul follower lol) so I kept using them.
Guess I never gave it much thought, but do PMags reliably feed M855A1?
Yes. That's why the gov't is buying a buuunch of 'em to hold 'em over until they get the new Centers.
Eurodriver
01-20-16, 17:18
Your supply hooked it up because all of us that were using PMAGs in my Regt purchased our own. I even helped facilitate a group buy for my original platoon before we deployed.
Nobody gave a shit about my PMAGs not even the firing Btry I PCAed to for my last deployment. In country though, the Btry CO visited our POS, saw the PMAGs on my plate carrier and told me I couldn't use them anymore. "PMAGs, they're banned, you got any aluminum mags Sgt?" Fortunately he was at Leatherneck most of the time anyway and I only brought one USGI mag (w/ Magpul follower lol) so I kept using them.
That is totally crazy! When were you at leatherneck? 10th Marines? Virtually all of 1/12 had them from May-Dec 2011.
lawusmc0844
01-20-16, 17:34
No, west coast so 11th Marines. My last deployment before EAS was back in 2012-early 13. My Btry was at Dwyer first then moved to LNK midway through the deployment. Like I said before, even with that ban, nobody really gave a shit, PMAGs still a common sight. My deployment before that in 2010 I even remember buying FDE PMAGs at the older MCX when we first got to LNK, despite bringing 6 black ones, 6 USGI w/Magpul followers and 2 Lancers with me lol.
No firsthand experience with it. It apparently runs very high pressure, well above normal M855 and approach proof loads. That causes accelerated wear on everything. The exposed steel tip apparently also scratches up parts of the chamber or feedramps.
Mk318 has no real compromises other than cost, and to the fedgov I doubt the cost is much more than M855. In theory Mk318 might not be as good on helmet shots against early 1980's Warsaw Pact steel helmets at 600M (what M855 was designed to excel at), but I'm not sure if that matters in the real world.
They fixed the overpressure issue, mostly
Various youtube gel tests have displayed impressive results
They fixed the overpressure issue, mostly
Various youtube gel tests have displayed impressive results
The M855A1 has a maximum average chamber pressure of 62,000 psi with a plus three sigma maximum of 66,000 psi.
The pressures generated by M855A1 series ammunition is 3300 psi higher than the M855, 7000 psi higher that the M193, and 12,000 psi higher than the original pressure limit of the cartridge design.
Also, because of the extremely high average pressure and the physical limits of what the rifle locking lugs can take, the standard deviation (sigma) of the ammunition's pressure levels are now 40% tighter than all previous ammunition, tighter than even match ammunition*, making the ammunition even more expensive to produce, beyond the higher cost of the bullet.
______________________________
* Note, just because the pressure variation from round to round is held to a tighter standards, it does not automatically follow that the accuracy will be better.
Yeah my understanding is there is really no way to get the performance improvements that round was sold on without higher velocity which means higher pressure. Without that it is no better than M855, just a more expensive lead free bullet.
Morning Guys, I just came across a news item concerning the US Army's latest version of the M4 magazine. Perhaps I've been out of touch lately, but I was under the assumption that the M4 magazine had been updated just a few years ago . In addition to that project, I thought that the Magpul P Mags had also solved some of the feeding issues, what gives ? BTW, the report I refer to was posted via "Kit-Up", & was dated July 2016. THANK YOU
Best, dpast32
Guess I never gave it much thought, but do PMags reliably feed M855A1?
The M3 PMag (GEN M3 PMAG BLK NSN: 1005-01-628-5106) has always run the Army's new Enhanced Penetrator Round (M855A1), flawlessly without accelerated damage to the feed ramps of the M4/M16/HK416.
The new USGI uses feeding geometry "strikingly" similar to that introduced with the original PMag M3 8 years ago but it still suffers from reliability and durability issues inherent with the ALU body. Not to mention the PMag offers round remaining feature and has a US Govt cost substantially lower than the new magazine proposed here.
40696
Straight Shooter
07-28-16, 20:04
As for follower color- somewhere I cant remember, it said they were using BLUE followers.
Don't quote me on this.
I can see where PMAG's mitigate feed-ramp damage, but what about chamber-gouging from the round settling/levering into the chamber? is this or has this been an issue?
The EPM (with blueish followers) is a mess. They have a propensity to fall out of M16A4 magazine wells if loaded above 25 rounds. They also still result in extensive chamber face (forcing cone) damage with M855A1.
The M3 PMags (black, sand, etc) pass all tests to include cold weather drop tests. They have proven to be far and above more reliable and long-lasting than any other mag tested (M4/M4A1, M16A4, and M27) with any ammunition fed.
M855A1 for the Corps is probably happening. While the formulation has changed, chamber pressures dropped to 54,206 PSI and the M4 gas port pressures dropped to 16,709 PSI. Although it has lower terminal effectiveness than the original M855A1 lots, it is a superior bullet to the SS109/M855. So at this point, while Army mismanagement and overspending is through the roof, adopting M855A1 will no longer be a problem - IF it is fed from M3 PMags.
S/F
The EPM (with blueish followers) is a mess. They have a propensity to fall out of M16A4 magazine wells if loaded above 25 rounds. They also still result in extensive chamber face (forcing cone) damage with M855A1.
The M3 PMags (black, sand, etc) pass all tests to include cold weather drop tests. They have proven to be far and above more reliable and long-lasting than any other mag tested (M4/M4A1, M16A4, and M27) with any ammunition fed.
M855A1 for the Corps is probably happening. While the formulation has changed, chamber pressures dropped to 54,206 PSI and the M4 gas port pressures dropped to 16,709 PSI. Although it has lower terminal effectiveness than the original M855A1 lots, it is a superior bullet to the SS109/M855. So at this point, while Army mismanagement and overspending is through the roof, adopting M855A1 will no longer be a problem - IF it is fed from M3 PMags.
S/F
Are you saying current ammo is this lower pressure, or it WILL be lowered?
What about chamber wall damage between the forcing cone opening area and the shoulder, from the tip levering in, mid chamber?
The current ammo is the lowered (54,206 @ neck/16,709 port) figures I posted above.
Between the forcing cone and the shoulder, I personally haven't noted any wear patterns there.
S/F
The current ammo is the lowered (54,206 @ neck/16,709 port) figures I posted above.
Between the forcing cone and the shoulder, I personally haven't noted any wear patterns there.
S/F
For comparison, what are the chamber and port pressures for M193 and M855?
Is this possibly the start of a series of optimized barrels possibly?
pyrotechnic
10-29-16, 02:10
Is this possibly the start of a series of optimized barrels possibly?
While I see the commercial sector optimizing barrels for specific ammunition, I really doubt military following suit for a while. With hundreds of thousands of existing weapon systems in armories, it should be more practical to vett new ammo in those systems vs optimization an existing platform to function better with said ammo.
While I see the commercial sector optimizing barrels for specific ammunition, I really doubt military following suit for a while. With hundreds of thousands of existing weapon systems in armories, it should be more practical to vett new ammo in those systems vs optimization an existing platform to function better with said ammo.
I should have clarified. I meant as in more offerings from Clint and BRT.
Salient points though.
Is this possibly the start of a series of optimized barrels possibly?
While I see the commercial sector optimizing barrels for specific ammunition, I really doubt military following suit for a while. With hundreds of thousands of existing weapon systems in armories, it should be more practical to vett new ammo in those systems vs optimization an existing platform to function better with said ammo.
I should have clarified. I meant as in more offerings from Clint and BRT.
Salient points though.
Crap. I just realized this didn't post in the BRT barrel thread. Mods any chance y'all could move my responses?
SeriousStudent
10-29-16, 12:33
Nope, but you can repost them there, and I'll delete them here.
Otherwise we have to merge, and then try to duplicate/copy threads, and that usually fails spectacularly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.