View Full Version : Honest Assessment of AR PMags
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 15:10
No product is perfect. MagPul PMags are considered to be very reliable and are therefore very popular.
But in the long term, are they durable? I am NOT talking about spring failure, but the eventual fatigue and cracking of the spine of the mag body itself. I have no doubt that MagPul springs are as durable or possibly better than USGI springs. I am having my doubts about the long-term durability of the mag body itself.
I want to discuss the durability of PMag AR magazine bodies when left loaded for a long period of time without using the dust cover.
It is interesting to note that MagPul supplies a cover with each mag to take tension off the feed lips, and in this scenario a PMag should last a long, long time even fully loaded.
However, dust covers get lost, broken, accidentally knocked off the top of mags, etc., and so the bottom line is: How durable are PMag bodies when left loaded for a long time without the dust cover to take tension off the feed lips? I want to be as objective as possible, without simply posting link after link showing both sides of the durability argument. I've picked a handful of sources that appear to illustrate the two extremes.
https://youtu.be/iZE2jEhOPQY
Underneath the video, the person who uploaded it stated that MagPul's apparent response is that the mags are probably simply defective:
Magpul magazine failure. All the mags that have failed are Gen 2. 10 mags out of 12 that I bought one year ago have failed. I did send a email to Magpul they said "broken or defective PMAGs are actually extremely rare; however, defective ones do pop up now and again". They said if I send the defective mags back they would send me new ones.
Larry Vickers gave his opinion of polymer mags in an old post right here on M4C (and he isn't even talking about leaving them loaded):
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?145532-Now-is-the-time-to-stockpile-magazines&highlight=pmag
Polymer mags are the ones you are using now for everyday use ; the metal mags are the ones that will last for decades
Yes I am talking about your beloved Pmags; don't expect them to be 'like new' years from now when you break them out of the wrapper
All plastic deteriorates over time - the USGI spec metal mags however can last a very long time as evidenced by the number of Vietnam era 20 round mags you still see in use
A word to the wise
On this forum, the person posting claims to have gotten an answer from MagPul on this question. I am assuming he his reporting the response accurately:
https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/i-finally-got-an-answer-from-magpul.125306/
Regarding the question of how long, we’ve had magazines fully loaded for over four years now with no Impact/Dust Cover on and have experienced no feed lip or spring issues. With the cover installed storage life is considered indefinite. There have also been PMAGS reportedly tested to hundreds-of-thousands of rounds (military vetting), and we know positively of ones that have gone tens-of-thousands, so usable life is quite excellent too.
The Magpul Team
Of course, we all know that the Marines finally approved the official use of PMags for duty:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/01/08/marines-approve-magpul-s-signature-polymer-ammunition-magazine/
The Marine Corps has approved Magpul Industries Corp.'s signature polymer ammunition magazine for use in combat and training, according to a Magpul press release.
"The Magpul GenM3 PMag was the only magazine to perform to acceptable levels across all combinations of Marine Corps 5.56mm rifles and ammunition during testing. That magazine has, therefore, been approved for use for both training and combat," Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) told Military Times.
Based out of Austin, Texas, Magpul’s polymer-based magazine, commonly referred to as the PMAG, has become a favorite of combat veterans and members of the special operations community since its inception in 2007.
Its rugged dependability has made it a top performer among private competitors in the small-arms accessory sector.
"The PMAG is a great product … lightweight and durable. I have seen numerous special ops teams from all services pass through here, and they all use PMAGs. Also, a large amount of Marine infantry here use PMAGS, including their Force Recon elements," said an Army infantryman deployed to Afghanistan.
The purpose of this thread is not to "start a flame war" or to give a bad review to what may very well be a durable product. The purpose of this thread is an honest discussion of what appears to be a contradiction in the assessment of MagPul PMag durability when left loaded without the dust cover.
So, were the mags in the video simply defective?
Have any of you experienced "mag body fatigue" in PMags that have been left loaded for a long time without the dust cover?
Is the dust cover an essential piece of kit for a PMag, and should be considered "the one thing" that keeps the mag working even after years of being loaded?
Do we accept that the mag bodies can fail from the tension of being loaded long-term?
If so, do we concede that a MagPul AR PMag should only be left loaded for a long time if the dust cover is used?
If we do accept that this is a limitation of an otherwise fantastic product, do we simply consider the fatigue problem a "reasonable limitation" and rock on?
In comparison, a metal mag body is prone to dents and a PMag is not. Do we call the limitations of each type of mag acceptable for its particular configuration?
Or do we view the potential to fail just from being loaded in storage an unacceptable weakness of the PMag, since a dent in a metal mag is largely due to misuse or abuse?
In other words, do we disallow fatigue failure of the PMag because the failure may occur even if the mag isn't being used?
My take:
Full disclosure: Although I really love Glock PMags, I do have a bias against AR PMags. I think they are bulky, don't fit a lot of vest pouches, and in general I've had enough good experiences with USGI mags to make me not "need" PMags. I probably have less than 20 of them.
I'm also more of a "prepper" and not an operator. I'd have to defer to those who shoot for a living for opinions on anything but long-term storage.
I also have to allow for the possibility that I missed MagPul possibly having a "bad batch" or "bad run" that resulted in the video above.
But the bottom line is: I have to agree with Larry Vickers' assessment above.
Although PMags may be great allowing for limitations that every product has, to my mind even the possibility of mag body fatigue just from being loaded in storage is unacceptable to me.
What's your take?
If Jesus were to use an M4... he’d use PMAGs.
Mags are consumables. Pmags may (debatable) not be the best long term storage option (I have 6 m3’s that have been loaded for 4 years and no signs of cracking) but for actual usage imo they’re the best you can buy. They have passed gov testing with flying colors, I think in one test they didn’t experience a single malfunction (I’m sure the Magpul guys on the forum can chime in)
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 15:22
(I’m sure the Magpul guys on the forum can chime in)
I'm actually hoping they will, too. To my mind, the question creates enough doubt that a good, supportable rebuttal is more than welcome. I'm literally asking to be proven wrong.
HK mags are the only mags i trust in a go bag
I’m really starting to like the Israeli Fab Defense - Ultimags.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Do we call the limitations of each type of mag acceptable for its particular configuration?
I'd say that is fair.
Worry about long term storage without covers is probably less fair. Storage is not an activity where one can expect to loose the covers. Just taking the covers off mags before they go into the range rotation will keep them from being lost.
Expecting plastic mag bodies to disintegrate over time while the plastic follower in your metal mag does not, seems a little short sighted to me.
I also wouldn't worry about needing pmags if you prefer GI.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:07
Expecting plastic mag bodies to disintegrate over time while the plastic follower in your metal mag does not, seems a little short sighted to me.
Is it?
Are they the same material?
Are they the same thickness of material?
Are they subjected to the same stresses?
Apples and oranges, I think.
Defaultmp3
05-03-19, 16:14
Is it?
Are they the same material?
Are they the same thickness of material?
Are they subjected to the same stresses?
Apples and oranges, I think. Except Vickers's statement was directed at "all plastics" in general, to include the degradation of NIW polymer magazines.
Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices.
The “Job” of a Magazine
In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles.
The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time…you’ll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability.
Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring.
It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in.
Materials
Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction.
If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips…or the side wall. Not a crack…but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures.
Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions.
If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You’ll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling.
So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features.
The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is “resiliency”. This is a “spring” effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums.
After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material.
A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here.
So…can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases–however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack…but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables.
The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages.
So…material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum.
The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested.
Construction
After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can.
An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function.
All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit.
Feed Lip Stability Over Time
There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues.
As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover.
Testing These Criteria
Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed.
We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations.
We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops.
Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments.
All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping.
All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available.
Service Life and Deadline Criteria
As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops.
Cost
This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with existing USGI aluminum magazines.
Manufacturing Capacity
Magpul fulfilled its contract with the British MOD, delivering over 1.1 Million magazines, in just a few months—ahead of schedule and with the capability to have delivered even faster. Since that time, manufacturing capacity has increased several fold. Magpul Industries is entirely capable of meeting peacetime sustainment needs, higher demand cycles during periods of global activity, and can surge operations to provide massive quantities of all products, with the same QC and production standards, with very short lead times.
Features and Improvements
The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed.
The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability.
The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod.
The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance.
The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure.
The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round.
The GEN M3 PMAG is currently shipped in Black, Sand, and Medium Coyote Tan for better IR significance performance without paint, or dye process color matching.
The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly.
The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:16
Except Vickers's statement was directed at plastics in general, to include the degradation of NIW polymer magazines.
Yes, I thought I had noted that in my first post, that his statement wasn't about stresses from being left loaded per se.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:21
Quoting the above:
There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues.
Then why the cracked mags in the video in my first post?
Is there that much difference in quality between Gen 2 and Gen 3 mags?
Were the ones in the video a manufacturer defect and not typical?
Defaultmp3
05-03-19, 16:23
Yes, I thought I had noted that in my first post, that his statement wasn't about stresses from being left loaded per se. The point is that his statement is meaningless in this context and arguable erroneous. Sure, all polymers degrade over time, but on what time scale? Feed lip spread can result in metal mags, too, so an erroneous blanket statement about polymer magazines has no purpose. I've heard of early production AUG magazines still working fine, and those are from the late 1970s.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:25
The point is that his statement is meaningless in this context and arguable erroneous. Sure, all polymers degrade over time, but on what time scale? Feed lip spread can result in metal mags, too, so an erroneous blanket statement about polymer magazines has no purpose. I've heard of early production AUG magazines still working fine, and those are from the late 1970s.
I have never heard of feed lip spread in metal mags. Is this really prevalent? I tend not to store mags loaded no matter what type, but it would be good to know the specs on metal mags and feed lip spreading.
I have Pmags that have been loaded for years. Left in a car. Baked in the summer. Frozen in the winter.
I believe Vickers comments were rebutted fairly well by materials science types when that thread happened. He’s also been known to push the products of the people who pay him (looking at you Tango down mag). I don’t look to Vickers to impartially speak about product. Disclosure: I’m a very happy user of two VCAS slings.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:32
I have Pmags that have been loaded for years. Left in a car. Baked in the summer. Frozen in the winter.
I believe Vickers comments were rebutted fairly well by materials science types when that thread happened. He’s also been known to push the products of the people who pay him (looking at you Tango down mag). I don’t look to Vickers to impartially speak about product. Disclosure: I’m a very happy user of two VCAS slings.
My one caveat on Mr. Vickers' post is that he probably has the same bias a lot of us have: He's "old school" and prefers what he served with and what works, and mistrusts new innovations to a certain extent. I have that bias on occasion also.
So, why did the PMags in the video I posted crack at the spine?
Defaultmp3
05-03-19, 16:36
I have never heard of feed lip spread in metal mags. Is this really prevalent? I tend not to store mags loaded no matter what type, but it would be good to know the specs on metal mags and feed lip spreading. The H&K Maritime steel magazines had a reputation for feed lip spread from simple loaded storage.
lSo, why did the PMags in the video I posted crack at the spine? Who knows. I'm inclined to think that they were defective; regardless, without a large sample size and detailed analysis, there's no way for us to divine what went wrong. You either trust Magpul's in-house analysis or you don't.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:37
The H&K Maritime steel magazines had a reputation for feed lip spread from simple loaded storage.
Do you have a link to this? I'd like to study this subject further.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:53
I literally found this just a few seconds ago:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/05/03/steel-vs-polymer-magazines-whats-more-reliable/
The biggest advantage of metal mags is having metal feed lips. The feed lips are the most problematic area of polymer magazines and over time they have the ability to thin and crack from use. Some of the most popular metal magazines are HK’s steel magazines designed for the 416 and AR variants. They are some of the most robust metal magazines on the market but are much heavier than other options. I’ve had very good luck with metal mags with a few exceptions.
The biggest downside to polymer magazines is durability over time. I’ve had a few different polymer magazines break on me either at the range or even while loading if they are cheap magazines. I have broken a few different Magpul 308 P-Mags whether it’s the feed lips or the actual structural defects.
There are a few different types of hybrid magazines on the market today. One of the most well known hybrid styles would be the Lancer magazines. I call them a “hybrid” magazineս because they are polymer magazineս but haվե metal feed lips. This brings the best of both worlds together with the lightweight polymer magazines and the reliability of metal feed lips. I’ve run a few different style Lancer magazines and I have had really good luck so far.
IIRC the makers of polymer AK magazines discovered the all-polymer design to be inadequate and recommended the "hybrid" mags. Of course, the AK magazine is a different animal to a certain extent and uses a locking tab on the mag itself. But the point is that metal reinforcement of polymer mags seems to be a reasonable "fix" for the inadequacies of all-polymer mags. If that's not the reason for "hybrid" mags--then why do they exist?
Let’s not stray too far from the “mags are a disposable item” idea. Metal mags problems are that the feed lips may spread and then it’s f’d They were designed to used 8 times. Polymer gives the feed lips some elasticity and they may be used longer as a result.
The bottom line is main brand mags are going to be quite serviceable for a long time. And also, ANYTHING in the current mass production marketplace will have bad apples. Don’t read too much into it.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 16:59
They were designed to used 8 times.
Metal mags can only be used 8 times? Where are you getting this?
Lancers do run well but are less forgiving when the feed lips get fouled/dirty.
I literally found this just a few seconds ago:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/05/03/steel-vs-polymer-magazines-whats-more-reliable/
IIRC the makers of polymer AK magazines discovered the all-polymer design to be inadequate and recommended the "hybrid" mags. Of course, the AK magazine is a different animal to a certain extent and uses a locking tab on the mag itself. But the point is that metal reinforcement of polymer mags seems to be a reasonable "fix" for the inadequacies of all-polymer mags. If that's not the reason for "hybrid" mags--then why do they exist?
Metal mags can only be used 8 times? Where are you getting this?
Designed. Not “can”.
Doc Safari
05-03-19, 17:06
Designed. Not “can”.
Again, where are you getting this? Not saying you're wrong but I've never heard this before.
Cost, availability, durability...Pmags still come up on top.
If Jesus were to use an M4... he’d use PMAGs.
FFPNI
Still amazed at people questioning PMAGs. I can count on one or two hands the number of stoppages I've had using PMAGs for over a decade, across dozens and dozens of various gens, colors, sizes, and now even calibers.
My favorite are Lancer but when you look at the whole picture including cost Pmags would be hard to beat.
Again, where are you getting this? Not saying you're wrong but I've never heard this before.
I believe from Pressburg on one of the early P&S modcasts.
I have Israeli Orlites from the 80's that definitely aren't too notch, but still work.
I don't fully trust polymer pistols or magazines long term from experience with other polymer items being exposed to heat, cold, chemicals, and so on without issues then seemingly instantly crapping out overnight (brittle, dissolving, etc.) with nothing new getting tossed in the mix.
That being said, metals can get screwed up from environmental conditions too.
I think the biggest thing with polymer magazines vs Metal is that the polymer magazines are usually going to be functioning fine so long as there is no visible damage while a metal magazine can get a slightly bent feed lip that can go unnoticed until malfunctions pop-up.
I know squat about materials engineering, but aren't there M16 plastic furniture sets from the 1960's that are still going strong? And that plastic probably wasn't up to today's state of the art.
The only issue I’ve ever seen was putting 31 rounds in the PMAGs is easier to do. But they’re easier to insert when loaded with the appropriate 30 round magazines.
I bought metal magazines for longevity (back when Obama was in office).
I’d trust Lancers, PMAGs, and Aluminum - in no order.
God Bless,
Brandon
I know squat about materials engineering, but aren't there M16 plastic furniture sets from the 1960's that are still going strong? And that plastic probably wasn't up to today's state of the art.
Some, but it is fairly common for triangle forearm vent hole webs to snap off and the A1 trap door butts to get cracks. Don't think I have seen a pre A2 grip with damage from being brittle, but that is a thicker part. I assume those are some sort of fiberglass based on zero success stippling an A1 grip while the later A2 furniture is nylon.
I have Pmags that have been loaded for years. Left in a car. Baked in the summer. Frozen in the winter.
Same here.
I believe Vickers comments were rebutted fairly well by materials science types when that thread happened. He’s also been known to push the products of the people who pay him (looking at you Tango down mag). I don’t look to Vickers to impartially speak about product. Disclosure: I’m a very happy user of two VCAS slings.
Yeah. I take nothing Vickers says seriously.
So, why did the PMags in the video I posted crack at the spine?
Could have been bodies made on different equipment FAR away from here.
I have had PMAGs loaded for awhile, zero issues.
If we take this guy at face value, either he's doing something wrong or got an unluckly defective lot.
Even then, my guess is his mags would function fine - if you look at videos of damaged PMAGs, as long as they hold rounds and get inserted into a magazine well, they seem to work.
Back to your regularly scheduled measuring with a micrometer, cutting with a chainsaw, overthinking it thread. ;)
The_War_Wagon
05-03-19, 19:03
My first PMag, was a first generation BLK one, that came with my POF-415 in June, 2008. I got rid of the POF in 2012, but that mag is my top range mag. It sees more use, dirt, oil, heat, cold, loading & reloading, than than any other mag - and without the dustcap. It's still running strong.
I JUST upgraded my vests, chest rig, and belt, with all new M3 mags last fall. If the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies come marching up from Mexico, I know I'm GTG.
https://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/Wolverines_zps938ed9cc.jpg
Ive had a pmag fail from repeated drops on concrete.
Ive had Al mags do the same. Split spine or deformed feedlips - its garbage at that point either way.
I like pmags and use them.
I stock Al mags because they are cheap, as a contingency.
My one caveat on Mr. Vickers' post is that he probably has the same bias a lot of us have: He's "old school" and prefers what he served with and what works, and mistrusts new innovations to a certain extent. I have that bias on occasion also.
So, why did the PMags in the video I posted crack at the spine?
Or maybe BCM was having a sale on mags that week and he wanted to get everyone hyped up to buy their aluminum re branded D&H mags? (*cough* tango down, fireclean, DD, bcm, *cough*) Anytime he starts a sentence with, "Listen up Home slice..." I tend to tune out.
The answer is... no one on this board knows. Plastics are different.
Vickers may know a lot about a lot of things, but I wouldn't go to him for a comprehensive long term analysis of the breakdown properties of modern polymers.
I was just taking to my oldest son, who is a Marine Combat Engineer, and he has a strong distrust of PMags and greatly prefers the tan follower metal mags. He says the PMags have problems with sand where the metal mags run just fine.
Sample of one, of course, but I thought it was interesting.
I have easily 10x more PMags than GI mags, I guess you could say I am a fan.
The only recent mag related issue I have had is a lightly used metal/surplus magazine that is apparently bent somewhere, the (Magpul) follower sticks with six or so rounds in the mag. I have marked it and will try it one more time before drive over it and flatten it.
I have 8 tan follower mags that have been checked out as OK that I am including with the "M4" I am giving him this month when he EASes.
Andy
Gunnar da Wolf
05-03-19, 20:46
We issued three 30 round Gen 2 P Mags to the 80 plus patrol, detectives, supervisors and as far as I know they’re still running around with them five plus years later. They get emptied once a year and we strongly suggested that they use the mag covers. I had one detective (former Marine) who brought me his spare mag that was cracked like in the first post. The best we could determine he was carrying it rounds downward sans cover in the door pocket of his issue vehicle. As the magazine bounced around the rounds pounded it into submission. That was the only failure I saw prior to retirement.
We had two dozen range P Mags that get abused at every range session, dropped, stepped on, ground into mud. The last time I shot my LEOSA qual those pitiful looking magazines were still sitting on a shelf in the range house waiting to go out and play.
FWIW I have P Mags that have ridden in my truck fully loaded for years and they have been 100% every time I’ve used one. AND I have aluminum 20 and 30 round GI mags loaded with .300blk that still work after years of being loaded.
Anything made by man can fail. Why would P Mags be exempted?
I am deep in Pmags of all gens & both in variations and capacity, I have never been disappointed. I also have boxes of Brownell's labeled mags and have never had problems with them either. I am personally very satisfied with OKAY Surefeed Mags, the OKAY Surefeed E2 Mags are my most recent purchase and are still being used and evaluated. I will state I am not a hard used type of shooter I am old & slow and I would consider all of my mags disposable item if I ever found myself shooting on a two way range :help: .
You guys talking long-term durability of PMAGS.....what if they are unloaded while stored? i.e. left in the wrapper.
I think that the fact that we are discussing the durability of what was originally intended as a 1-time-use item in terms of "years" as a testament to how durable the PMAG truly is.
I gave a young war fighter 3 Pmags and 3 Okay mags and he was most appreciative of both. He keeps saying, Ive never had a malf on my Pmags. Interesting thread we have here. I loaded my bug out vest with Okay mags, maybe dumb luck, maybe Im dumb.....???
PB
You guys talking long-term durability of PMAGS.....what if they are unloaded while stored? i.e. left in the wrapper.
That's my situation - lots of Pmags in original packaging and stored. I don't keep more than two or three magazines loaded at any one time, and every month or so I remove the ammo and reload them again. I am not expecting a prolonged fire fight any time soon, so my 60 rounds loaded will suffice. I guess keeping dozens and dozens of magazines loaded for the long term is indicative of a well prepared person. I guess I'm a slacker.....:sad:
Again, where are you getting this? Not saying you're wrong but I've never heard this before.
I just quickly skimmed through Black Rifle and couldn't find anything specific about a design spec that required the ability to be reloaded eight times. Found a couple of articles, nothing that points to a TDP saying they are disposable or have a limited lifecycle, though. Silly me, I always thought the 'disposable' nature of the magazine was self-evident, I guess people need to be told.
Feeding Frenzy: Charting the History of AR Magazines
Charting the course of AR magazines, from original aluminum mags all the way up to today's polymer feeding machines.
https://www.tactical-life.com/gear/ar-magazines-history/
AR-15/M16/M4 Magazines The Key To Reliability
By Christopher R. Bartocci
The AR-15/M16-type magazine was designed to be disposable and not used over and over again. This was the reason for using lightweight aluminum alloys. The original AR-10 was designed with “throw away” magazines enabling the soldier to carry preloaded magazines and drop empty magazines from the weapon and load a new one into the weapon and return to the firefight.
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1372
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."
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?102004-When-and-why-did-the-30rd-mag-come-about/page3
ramairthree
05-04-19, 01:45
HK mags are the only mags i trust in a go bag
And HK “high reliability” and the number money shot spurting of ammo magazine I see when bounced around or dropped.
Must have been a slow day in Zanzibar.
Ian on board with all mags are disposable item, if they last a long time then icing on the cake. I buy several of PMags and Al mags every year just to spread out aging issues. But after 30 years I have not had either mag fail by material fatigue or dimension change. A few have gotten banged up too much. Most of my mags are stored filled. About 2/3 of PMags still have the dust cover. I tend to buy more of whichever is cheaper that year. Some years the Okay mags were much more than even window PMags. Right now Okay mags are very cheap. I tend to buy more 20-rd AL mags and 30-rd PMags. I have one Vietnam era 20-rd mag that sees use every year and still works great, though I am pretty careful not to mag drop on concrete with it. Since they have lasted 30 yrs my stockpile has really grown. But I don’t depend in decades of use. If I get 5-10 years per mag I am thrilled. I have replaced springs and followers in most.
Why limit yourself to one type? Both have advantages and being cheaper than most pistol mags why not stock up on both? For strictly long term storage I would go with Okay mags since they are narrower at the base plate and you can stuff more into an ammo can. I think I can fit 15 PMags per .50 cal fat can or about 20 Okay mags. Makes a big difference.
I still have my 12 yo pmags and use them.
This is a non issue. I have some GI mags as putaways but never have I really navelgazed over pmags
AUG mags are 40 years old and not as well made. Same for SG 55x mags
And HK “high reliability” and the number money shot spurting of ammo magazine I see when bounced around or dropped.
That is a true statement
All mags will fail when and if actually used. I've seen all types fail, all brands and various issues. Metal mags will have the seam break, the tops will crack and in absence of cracks or breakage, the feed lips will fatigue and spread enough to cause issue. I've seen Pmags crack, normally on the right side, they still worked. I also have seen on occasion, a Pmag mag catch wear enough that it would over insert and cause excessive bolt drag.
One thing that was overly obsessed with was the big CS spring craze, mainly to peddle products, nothing wrong with SS ones at all. Thing is, if you actually use the magazines, I mean use them they will wear out. My take is if you can afford to do that or fortunate to have an entity enabling that, keep buying replacements.
My opinion anyhow
Straight Shooter
05-04-19, 06:49
When Glocks FIRST came out, not long after...I distinctly remember reading in several different places, a concern over how long the polymer body would "last".
Obe article said something to the effect of "What about in 30 years from now? Youll be left with a slide and not much else as the plastic will have long become un-useable". This CRAP was one of a few other things that skewed me on Glocks untill I saw the light in 2005 or so, and went ALL Glock for my SD/SHTF ect guns.
Ive never regretted it...but that same unfounded concern is what Im seeing here now over these mags.
New in wrap? Your grandchildren will be using them in their old age. Loaded and kept in a safe? Theyll be there for very many years, like some of mine are, & have been.
They arent freakin heirloom items to hand down like old watches or old guns or something. For those that shoot a hundred rounds a year..you are GTG forever.
You keep on droppin them on concrete, expect something to happen. But this crap about Lancers, ETS, Magpuls & other quality mags deteriorating, breaking down, blah blah, just hasnt been seen in mags or guns yet.
Pay attention. What is the one magazine tested under all environmental conditions and approved for combat use by the USMC with M855A1, 'nough said.
I found this some time ago, pretty interesting. End decision was the price per round could not be obtained without re-using the magazine.
http://i.imgur.com/DRb6cbO.jpg?1 (https://imgur.com/DRb6cbO)
Let’s not stray too far from the “mags are a disposable item” idea. Metal mags problems are that the feed lips may spread and then it’s f’d They were designed to used 8 times. Polymer gives the feed lips some elasticity and they may be used longer as a result.
The bottom line is main brand mags are going to be quite serviceable for a long time. And also, ANYTHING in the current mass production marketplace will have bad apples. Don’t read too much into it.
No, just no.
According the the military specification, in order to demonstrate durability and reliability of a production lot, 40 magazines selected from the lot at random shall each fire 750 rounds (that is 25 reloads), for a total of 30,000 rounds. No single magazine can exhibit more than 1 magazine related malfunction, and more more than 5 magazine related malfunctions are allowed.
The design is was never limited to any set number of cycles.
The Army has tested PMAGs (GEN 3) and they met most of the requirements, One test in the rough handling test was the major problem, when fully loaded, inserted in an M4, and dropped 5 feet onto a flat concrete surface so that the magazine base hit first they had a tendency break the floor plate and eject the rounds. But that was the only problem and for the entire "rough handling test" the PMAG got a "partially met" grade.
The Army gave the the PMAG a "met" grade of the long term storage test, but, you have to remember the Army only requires a magazine to remain fully loaded for 30 days without undue effects.
(The Army did not recommend PMAGs for use only because of incompatibility with M855A1 ammunition. A problem few here will ever have to worry about.)
(The Army did not recommend PMAGs for use only because of incompatibility with M855A1 ammunition. A problem few here will ever have to worry about.)
I thought the Gen 3 PMAG was designed to be compatible with M855A1?
The H&K Maritime steel magazines had a reputation for feed lip spread from simple loaded storage.
Who knows. I'm inclined to think that they were defective; regardless, without a large sample size and detailed analysis, there's no way for us to divine what went wrong. You either trust Magpul's in-house analysis or you don't.
Do you have a link to this? I'd like to study this subject further.
3/75 issued HK maritime mags briefly in 2005. In comparison to regular aluminum mags, we found them to be heavier than necessary, susceptible to feed lip damage when dropped, susceptible to producing ammo fountains when dropped, and they sometimes stacked the rounds improperly when using speedloaders. And they are expensive. Some guys loved them; most of us went back to aluminum mags; many later went with PMags. I still have a dozen or so HK mags that I will sell to a sucker during the next AWB, if that happens.
And HK “high reliability” and the number money shot spurting of ammo magazine I see when bounced around or dropped.
Gray mags are fine. Surefeeds are fine. PMags are fine. Vet your mags, and cull them mercilessly. I’ve got PMags that have been loaded for several years. I’ve got gray mags that have been loaded for several years. They’re fine.
I have a preference for aluminum.
And HK “high reliability” and the number money shot spurting of ammo magazine I see when bounced around or dropped.
I've heard of their translucent polymer ones cracking from being left loaded too. I have like 10 or so but never used them enough to see it first hand.
I basically use Gen 3 Pmags and Okay aluminum GIs interchangeably as my "ready" magazines at the moment. With Gen 2 Pmags being mostly just range mags now, not due to any overall issue with them, I just phased them out in favor of Gen 3s. Some other mags - the HK polys, ETS mags, a few Bulgarian made MWG 40 rounders, round out the collection but are mostly just curiosities at this point.
I keep 15 loaded M3s in one of those MTW mag cans, the first four are stored with no caps, but I leave the caps on the rest for the hell of it.
I do find I'm more suspicious of GI aluminum mags though. Because I have so many mags I'm quick to pull them from rotation if I suspect there's an issue or *could be* an issue. Not long ago I dropped a loaded Okay on to a concrete floor by accident and afterwards it wouldn't seat in the magwell of the rifle it had just been in. I unloaded it and stuck it on a shelf and have yet to get around to actually function testing it. I also once had what appeared to be a double feed with a Gen 2 Pmag (although there may have been some other issues with the gun going on, and it was during a snowstorm in frigid weather so my interpretation of the situation may have been incorrect at the time) and that mag got pulled as well and sits on the same shelf.
The reason I still buy GIs is mostly because of the notion that has been raised that perhaps the polymer is more prone to degradation over time, whether left loaded or not. Or maybe it's not, I have no idea. Either way I'll be covered because I have a lot of both. But my real gut feeling is that while an Okay aluminum GI mag is indeed a very good mag a Gen 3 Pmag is just objectively superior. But that certainly isn't based on any first hand experience since as a civilian, none of my mags are subjected to much worse than range trips in bad weather, bouncing around in a vehicle or getting dropped on the floor when I'm being clumsy.
As a Retro head, I also just kind of like the "old school" flavor of GI mags. But I also like the Colt 6520 better than the 6720, that doesn't mean the 6720 isn't the objectively superior gun.
The Italian military steel mags sold by Beretta seem to work well, although they're a bit heavy.
Doc Safari
05-04-19, 09:40
Must have been a slow day in Zanzibar.
B F Egypt in my case. But thanks for caring. 😄
I thought the Gen 3 PMAG was designed to be compatible with M855A1?
It was a matter of plastic being incompatible....
During the 25 reload durability test, recoil set-back of the cartridges in the magazine would bounce the exposed steel nose of the M855A1 off the front wall of the magazine. After a few reload cycles, (especially near the top inch or so), the divots would get deep enough that the nose would catch and hang-up for a moment and cause failures to feed.
EDIT: And a correction, I just re-read the report.
That was not the reason the Army did not recommend use. It was a noted problem, but the estimated life-time reliability was deemed acceptable. The reason cited was the PMAG, in general, is not any better that the current standard, and in a few extreme cases, (cold weather 5 foot drop, reliability with blanks), not as good, so, why bother.
Some AR owner:
Magpul claimed metal feedlip polymer magazines were not feasible, Lancer proved them wrong.
As far as the Corp selecting them, Fitzpatrick was a Marine and has very deep pockets.
Magpul’s response :
The contention is/was that metal feedlips provide no benefit, not that you couldn't do it. And, they don't. Metal bends and stays bent instead of deflecting and returning to proper geometry. Proper polymer can maintain correct geometry and return to that after deflection, even if cracked. Plus, the dual material construction provides a variability that is more difficult to QC, metal feedlips provide more drag on the round/strip more energy off the BCG, mechanical adhesion of the two components can fail in the drop tests, etc. The steel lancer feedlips do provide some additional resistance to bending over USGI aluminum, though. It's not a terrible magazine, it has just been tested and found wanting in durability as well as in reliability. You may use Lancers for a few hundred or a few thousand rounds on the range, in typical range conditions, and have no issues. If it works for you, great. I get it...it would just seem to make sense that the steel feedlips would provide some benefit. It just doesn't test out that way.
The TOP tests aren't the same as what most folks test in YouTube videos. There are a lot of other drops and impacts, specifically full weapons drops, that are pretty hard on mags. The dust test is also a killer for mags with softer body compositions, like the Lancer.
The USMC chose the PMAG because in multiple rounds of testing at Aberdeen over several years, it was best. In the end, the GEN M3 PMAG was the most reliable commercial or government magazine tested by a very, very large margin, and passed all TOP 03-02-045 durability and environmental tests. In the USMC tests, the Lancer L5AWM finished dead last, with multiple ammunition types in the test, not just M855A1. Those test results were published, and you can find them online. Later rounds of testing, including one round of tests that went to 250,000 rounds through PMAGs convinced Army to approve the SEP proposal and fully approve fielding the M3 with regular magazine funds. SOCOM approved as an authorized user when USMC did. AirForce adopted, as did Coast Guard and NSW. Last round of testing was over 30,000 rounds between magazine-related stoppages for the M3.
Richard or Magpul's "deep pockets" had nothing to do with selection, and he was an NCO, so he knows somewhere around zero general officers and influencers in the chain. Lancer's main business is aerospace and carbon fiber components, so their pockets are probably deeper. The USMC cared about nothing but data, and they are extremely happy with their decision.
London metro has pretty much ditched the Lancers due to reliability issues. They are now issuing 300BLK PMAGs going forward. Poland is going to M3. The Netherlands is ditching Lancer and going M3. Estonia looked at test data and chose PMAGs. The French tested and want PMAGs--although we'll see if HK strongarms them with the 416 buy. The Brits will continue with M3 after the EMAGs are gone. The data is hard to ignore, and coupled with a very satisfied USMC, and dissatisfied Lancer users, lots of folks are becoming M3 users, even if they gave Lancer a try.
There has been some confusion about MCT, also. FDE, the original tan color in magazines, provides some challenges due to the nature of the colorant in thin magazine wall stock thicknesses. It works just fine in furniture, but it was always a hair weaker than black in mags, and difficult to QC for that purpose. Every once in a while, you'd get one that was significantly weaker. That's why we discontinued it in favor of the "sand" color program. Sand uses a different material additive package to be stronger than black, and MCT, the new, darker tan, is based on the sand material. MCT is as strong or stronger than black. MCT was what was used for all of the USMC test mags, including the cold weather drops. Black was used in earlier testing. Both window and non-window variants have been in the government testing, performing identically within statistical significance. With the bulk of the USMC fleetwide fielding orders filled, and the US Army on a sustainable path for fielding, you will see MCT in other mags now, first up being the 20rd LR/SR .308 magazines.
Interesting about Lancers, since they seem to have such a strong following.
I found this some time ago, pretty interesting. End decision was the price per round could not be obtained without re-using the magazine.
http://i.imgur.com/DRb6cbO.jpg?1 (https://imgur.com/DRb6cbO)
I know someone who was in Vietnam around that time frame and had mentioned being issued some plastic magazines that were 1 time use and they were instructed to crush them after they were emptied.
My gen 2 windowed PMAGs and straight 20s have never given me any problems, still going strong.
But I always thought the ‘dust covers’ were their coolest feature. I always use ‘em. Maybe Magpul doesn’t want to imply their polymer feed lips aren’t strong enough but if it takes stress off ‘em, use ‘em. My D60 drum came with a heavy rubber boot instead of the dust cover, which probably does a better job of keeping dust out, but I use the dust cover if it’s loaded.
Now most of my mags are e-landers (heavy steel bodies, strong spring) for .300 bo and translucent Lancers for .223, with some OKAYs and D&H as well. My gen 2 PMAGs are a tight fit in all my lowers ( RRA, PSA & Anderson) even after filing them down. That was the only reason I didn’t buy more, although my D60 drum fits fine with no filing and I’ve heard the gen 3s are spec’d like the D60 so that’s probably no longer an issue.
PMAG feed geometry is hard to beat.
HK mags are the only mags i trust in a go bag
HK has produced more than it's share of turd magazines.
HK mags are and were garbage. Especially the polymer ones.
They are essentially Imperial Defence magazines with the Kraut upcharge. They were initially for SA80s hence the weird HK416 magwell.
If one wanted a steel magazine, PRI mags are good and reasonably priced by comparison.
But again, Pmags are better built than AUG mags are 40 years old and are going strong. Lets be real, M4C covers the 30-50 bracket.
I doubt many of us are going to be really caring about ARs at age 70 much less running them so hard to where a mag breaking is a real concern. And even THEN I have 1911 and AR mags my dad brought back from Vietnam that I still use and they still work.
Like grey follower Colts.
Seriously not even a blip on my radar to worry about
I know someone who was in Vietnam around that time frame and had mentioned being issued some plastic magazines that were 1 time use and they were instructed to crush them after they were emptied.
I did meet a Vietnam vet in an armorer's class that said the same thing. He explained that it had a strip that was pulled out prior to use/mission. As stated, there was
7 prototypes that were submitted. sure would be cool to see them all and surprised that aren't somewhere, have to be.
I know someone who was in Vietnam around that time frame and had mentioned being issued some plastic magazines that were 1 time use and they were instructed to crush them after they were emptied.
With all the problems with the roll out of the XM16 I find it somewhat hard to believe they would test experimental plastic magazines in combat, but who knows.
With all the problems with the roll out of the XM16 I find it somewhat hard to believe they would test experimental plastic magazines in combat, but who knows.
Have you read much about Vietnam? Lots of weapons / tech was 'used' over there well before it was beyond the testing stage. Bombs, rifles, targeting systems, etc, etc.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
With all the problems with the roll out of the XM16 I find it somewhat hard to believe they would test experimental plastic magazines in combat, but who knows.
I don't recall him saying if it was combat use or training. Would be hard pressed to be worse than unlined carbon steel barrels in an ultra humid environment at that point in time though. :confused:
Well, a whole lot of M1 Garands, M1 carbines, Thompsons, etc, with non-chromed barrels went through years of rain-drenched, high-humidity conditions in WW2. I do recall reading where Eugene Sledge ("With The Old Breed") said that all their small arms were kept heavily oiled and had little to no problems with corrosion.
BufordTJustice
05-05-19, 10:44
I've got 8 genM3 PMAGs that have been loaded to 30 since they first came out. No cover. Upon visual inspection, they are all 100%. Even when I pried the feed lips apart with my fingers (or tried to), no cracks were seen or felt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, a whole lot of M1 Garands, M1 carbines, Thompsons, etc, with non-chromed barrels went through years of rain-drenched, high-humidity conditions in WW2. I do recall reading where Eugene Sledge ("With The Old Breed") said that all their small arms were kept heavily oiled and had little to no problems with corrosion.
Went through yes, but one of the Ken Hackathorn interviews on Forgotten Weapons (think it may have been during the M1 carbine segment) mentioned what was considered reliable in the 1940's tended to have a different standard than later on.
By the 1960's the technology had been around awhile and the benefits were known.
556BlackRifle
05-05-19, 11:58
All I can say is that I've had P-Mags Gen 2 and 3 loaded and sitting in ammo cans, taken to the shoot spots, emptied, dropped on dirt, gravel and rocks, wacked on my leg to remove debris, tossed in a 5 gal bucket, reloaded and put back into storage. Never seen anything like that.
I did meet a Vietnam vet in an armorer's class that said the same thing. He explained that it had a strip that was pulled out prior to use/mission. As stated, there was
7 prototypes that were submitted. sure would be cool to see them all and surprised that aren't somewhere, have to be.
None of the plastic magazines the Army tested in the 1960's were ever issued for combat use.
However, he may have been part of the field testing program, where certain state-side units, usually company sized, would be used to evaluate item in a field problem, and be subjected to questionnaires, and interviews afterwards. Some of the first types tested did have a piece of "tape" over the feed lips. The tape idea was dropped eventually as tape that provided sufficient adhesion over long storage periods left glue on the sides of the magazine. The idea was that the fully loaded magazine would be issued in a bandoleer, so they would have to withstand years of storage.
AAI was one of the contracted companies, and many of the features of the final design are very similar to the PMAG.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although this [AAI] plastic magazine has demonstrated feasibility for use in the M16 Rifle, the magazine should be subjected to a production engineering program to minimize fabrication and assembly costs. The material (glass-reinforced nylon) used in this magazine has demonstrated a capability to withstand all environmental and handling shock normal with a rifle magazine, but many injection molding plastics are available which are lower in cost. One of these materials may meet the requirements of the magazine and could further reduce costs.
Very interesting, would you have a source for pics of any of these? I find it interesting to know the history of the system. Some of these have to be about, somewhere, somehow they have to be out there. Were there any that had a tab that was pulled from within that actually released the rounds for use?
This is the 1969 engineering report:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/860250.pdf
Likely it because he was stationed at a base in Georgia (iirc) for awhile after getting back.
This is the 1969 engineering report:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/860250.pdf
That is interesting in and of itself and(admittedly there aren't a whole lot of ways to do it) also because Ian and Karl on In Range use similar protocols in their mud, dust, and sand testing.
For those that have seen the old Armalite promotional AR-10 video. They stated the original magazines were intended to be combat disposable. Those mags were also made from aluminum. Me thinks they might have known a thing or two.
Dr. Bullseye
05-05-19, 18:53
I have never had anything associated with the AR which gave me more trouble than my one P-mag. You guys always complain about cheap crap. P-mags are cheap crap. Full aluminium USGI 30 round mags have never failed for me. Even 10 round steel USGI-type mags work just fine and take the daily dropping and beating. Magpul followers are great but the plastic mag itself---what am I missing here?
What you are missing is that you are wrong. With that said, buy and use whatever makes you sleep well at night.
I have never had anything associated with the AR which gave me more trouble than my one P-mag. You guys always complain about cheap crap. P-mags are cheap crap. Full aluminium USGI 30 round mags have never failed for me. Even 10 round steel USGI-type mags work just fine and take the daily dropping and beating. Magpul followers are great but the plastic mag itself---what am I missing here?
I have never had anything associated with the AR which gave me more trouble than my one P-mag. You guys always complain about cheap crap. P-mags are cheap crap. Full aluminium USGI 30 round mags have never failed for me. Even 10 round steel USGI-type mags work just fine and take the daily dropping and beating. Magpul followers are great but the plastic mag itself---what am I missing here?
What kind of problems have you had with your one P-mag?
I have a number of P-Mags, have shot with them quite a bit, and have never noticed any issues with them. I have a couple of GI mags as well, and they work fine, but I have not noticed any superiority with them over Magpul's stuff. JMHO
Hot take: I'd take a Pmag over a lancer.
I've had issues with the past two batches of lancer's I had. I ran into it being more difficult actually loading the magazines AND it wouldn't seat on a closed bolt on two different rifles with 28 rounds in the magazine.
Well, a whole lot of M1 Garands, M1 carbines, Thompsons, etc, with non-chromed barrels went through years of rain-drenched, high-humidity conditions in WW2. I do recall reading where Eugene Sledge ("With The Old Breed") said that all their small arms were kept heavily oiled and had little to no problems with corrosion.
They also had corrosive ammunition so a little humidity was nothing.
The Vickers thread on polymer mags was one of the most memorable since I’ve been a member here. I believe it was started right when his sponsor was trying to unload GI mags for a steep discount. :rolleyes:
It was memorable because it was the moment my opinion of Vickers changed drastically. It was also interesting to see Magpul respond directly.
I decided to split the difference and stocked up on both types 50/50. The biggest problem for me with GI mags is it’s not as easy to recommend them to friends not in the know. It’s far easier to just say “go buy Pmags” rather than trying to explain how to source a quality GI mag.
i didn't like when i pull one Pmag from a pouch (that holds two mag side-by-side), the built-in structural ridges pull the second mag out onto the ground, pretty much all the time.
yeah yeah, i'm sure someone will tell me it never happens to them. you're just luckier/better/smarter than me.
i do like the Pmag's smooth rounded bottom edge much better than sharp-edged aluminum mags, which is why i only carry one Pmag, in the firearm.
I've got 8 genM3 PMAGs that have been loaded to 30 since they first came out. No cover. Upon visual inspection, they are all 100%. Even when I pried the feed lips apart with my fingers (or tried to), no cracks were seen or felt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've got 8 gen m2 with a similar story. Loaded to 30 in storage for 7 years. Have recently started using them, no problems.
Some AR owner:
Magpul claimed metal feedlip polymer magazines were not feasible, Lancer proved them wrong.
As far as the Corp selecting them, Fitzpatrick was a Marine and has very deep pockets.
Magpul’s response :
The contention is/was that metal feedlips provide no benefit, not that you couldn't do it. And, they don't. Metal bends and stays bent instead of deflecting and returning to proper geometry. Proper polymer can maintain correct geometry and return to that after deflection, even if cracked. Plus, the dual material construction provides a variability that is more difficult to QC, metal feedlips provide more drag on the round/strip more energy off the BCG, mechanical adhesion of the two components can fail in the drop tests, etc. The steel lancer feedlips do provide some additional resistance to bending over USGI aluminum, though. It's not a terrible magazine, it has just been tested and found wanting in durability as well as in reliability. You may use Lancers for a few hundred or a few thousand rounds on the range, in typical range conditions, and have no issues. If it works for you, great. I get it...it would just seem to make sense that the steel feedlips would provide some benefit. It just doesn't test out that way.
The TOP tests aren't the same as what most folks test in YouTube videos. There are a lot of other drops and impacts, specifically full weapons drops, that are pretty hard on mags. The dust test is also a killer for mags with softer body compositions, like the Lancer.
The USMC chose the PMAG because in multiple rounds of testing at Aberdeen over several years, it was best. In the end, the GEN M3 PMAG was the most reliable commercial or government magazine tested by a very, very large margin, and passed all TOP 03-02-045 durability and environmental tests. In the USMC tests, the Lancer L5AWM finished dead last, with multiple ammunition types in the test, not just M855A1. Those test results were published, and you can find them online. Later rounds of testing, including one round of tests that went to 250,000 rounds through PMAGs convinced Army to approve the SEP proposal and fully approve fielding the M3 with regular magazine funds. SOCOM approved as an authorized user when USMC did. AirForce adopted, as did Coast Guard and NSW. Last round of testing was over 30,000 rounds between magazine-related stoppages for the M3.
Richard or Magpul's "deep pockets" had nothing to do with selection, and he was an NCO, so he knows somewhere around zero general officers and influencers in the chain. Lancer's main business is aerospace and carbon fiber components, so their pockets are probably deeper. The USMC cared about nothing but data, and they are extremely happy with their decision.
London metro has pretty much ditched the Lancers due to reliability issues. They are now issuing 300BLK PMAGs going forward. Poland is going to M3. The Netherlands is ditching Lancer and going M3. Estonia looked at test data and chose PMAGs. The French tested and want PMAGs--although we'll see if HK strongarms them with the 416 buy. The Brits will continue with M3 after the EMAGs are gone. The data is hard to ignore, and coupled with a very satisfied USMC, and dissatisfied Lancer users, lots of folks are becoming M3 users, even if they gave Lancer a try.
There has been some confusion about MCT, also. FDE, the original tan color in magazines, provides some challenges due to the nature of the colorant in thin magazine wall stock thicknesses. It works just fine in furniture, but it was always a hair weaker than black in mags, and difficult to QC for that purpose. Every once in a while, you'd get one that was significantly weaker. That's why we discontinued it in favor of the "sand" color program. Sand uses a different material additive package to be stronger than black, and MCT, the new, darker tan, is based on the sand material. MCT is as strong or stronger than black. MCT was what was used for all of the USMC test mags, including the cold weather drops. Black was used in earlier testing. Both window and non-window variants have been in the government testing, performing identically within statistical significance. With the bulk of the USMC fleetwide fielding orders filled, and the US Army on a sustainable path for fielding, you will see MCT in other mags now, first up being the 20rd LR/SR .308 magazines.
The French issue PMAGs now. This is all the proof I need that they are #1 in any drop test imaginable. Ty!
P2Vaircrewman
05-13-19, 10:00
I have Pmags that have been loaded for years. Left in a car. Baked in the summer. Frozen in the winter.
I believe Vickers comments were rebutted fairly well by materials science types when that thread happened. He’s also been known to push the products of the people who pay him (looking at you Tango down mag). I don’t look to Vickers to impartially speak about product. Disclosure: I’m a very happy user of two VCAS slings.
This, I have kept loaded gen 2 mags in my car during 98 degree summers with no caps for years. Have yet to have a problem .
P2Vaircrewman
05-13-19, 10:05
I have had PMAGs loaded for awhile, zero issues.
If we take this guy at face value, either he's doing something wrong or got an unluckly defective lot.
Even then, my guess is his mags would function fine - if you look at videos of damaged PMAGs, as long as they hold rounds and get inserted into a magazine well, they seem to work.
Back to your regularly scheduled measuring with a micrometer, cutting with a chainsaw, overthinking it thread. ;)
LOL, but true.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.