View Full Version : Steel/stainless steel mags: Faster wear to aluminum parts of AR15?
shadowspirit
02-16-24, 02:03
I've asked around about steel and stainless steel AR mags in the past. One person opined that steel/stainless steel may wear out the aluminum parts of the AR15 that it touches at a faster rate than aluminum or polymer mags.
Is that true?
The only aluminum part it's going to come into contact with is the mag well of the lower receiver and I doubt it would cause any significant wear there. The mag catch is steel so that shouldn't be a problem.
What about all the steel parts inside the AR coming into contact with aluminum parts?
CrowCommand
02-16-24, 05:55
Slow down those mag changes, you’re gonna scratch it!
bamashooter
02-16-24, 07:07
I've asked around about steel and stainless steel AR mags in the past. One person opined that steel/stainless steel may wear out the aluminum parts of the AR15 that it touches at a faster rate than aluminum or polymer mags.
Is that true?
Perhaps another person has "opined" that the aluminum parts contribute to a longer life span of the steel/stainless steel magazines. :blink:
Damn. This is ARFcom subject matter from 2005! :sarcastic:
titsonritz
02-16-24, 09:49
Wearing out a lower receiver with mag changes? Must be a real stud.
ViniVidivici
02-16-24, 11:03
No OP, that is a completely idiotic assessment that person made.
Only reasons I see not to use them is greater weight, and likely higher price.
No OP, that is a completely idiotic assessment that person made.
Only reasons I see not to use them is greater weight, and likely higher price.
Bingo. Put 3 of those suckers in an old Deuce Gear pouch, and WOW! The weight really becomes real.
I'm going to admit to being a polymer mag whore for many years. And they certainly have their place. But these last few years I have been buying only Duramag stainless or aluminum depending on which is on sale. The weight difference is real. Holy crap. 3 or 4 on a chest rig running a CGB stage and you notice it. Then again, step on an aluminum mag that you dropped and step on a steel one. The aluminum one may not fair as well.
No OP, that is a completely idiotic assessment that person made.
Only reasons I see not to use them is greater weight, and likely higher price.
bingo
The idea steel would ware faster than aluminum or especially polymer seems very reasonable to me.
How much if any difference it makes in the long term life of the gun. Those steel trigger pins are going to do in a lower way sooner than the steel mag.
Wouldn’t the aluminum oxide of the Class III anodizing vs type of stainless steel and steel temper/heat treating minimize wear? I don’t know the stainless steel used in my HK mags, but it’s a little more complicated than “steel vs aluminum.” Alloys & related heat treatments would need consideration, but I have no idea where to obtain the relevant info. I’m not sure of the coating on the HK steel mags, but that too, will act as a buffering layer.
Where’s a material scientist when you need one….?:confused:
ETA: I owned an FS2000 that was extremely fussy with STANAG mags. Polymer & aluminum mags were hit or miss, and somewhere online someone recommended HK mags, which was why I purchased them. I seldom use them since selling the FS2000, but my above statements are based on physically examining the components and noting variables.
The idea steel would ware faster than aluminum or especially polymer seems very reasonable to me.
How much if any difference it makes in the long term life of the gun. Those steel trigger pins are going to do in a lower way sooner than the steel mag.
Sand ground into the surface of polymer will cause more wear than smooth steel will. I don't see why polished and lubricated trigger pins would cause much of any wear at all. I think dirt is the enemy here.
This thread is going full mongo. I have 30 year old lowers that used to see a regular diet of those British steel 30s which were my range mags. There's nothing to remotely be concerned about.
This thread is going full mongo. I have 30 year old lowers that used to see a regular diet of those British steel 30s which were my range mags. There's nothing to remotely be concerned about.
This. I really did used to believe and worry about a LOT of stupid shit. Had to be true, I read it on the internet. Then one day I remembered my HK91 mags are steel and the receiver is stamped. I've got a pile of steel Sterlings somewhere in my magazine stash.
Wouldn’t the aluminum oxide of the Class III anodizing vs type of stainless steel and steel temper/heat treating minimize wear? I don’t know the stainless steel used in my HK mags, but it’s a little more complicated than “steel vs aluminum.” Alloys & related heat treatments would need consideration, but I have no idea where to obtain the relevant info. I’m not sure of the coating on the HK steel mags, but that too, will act as a buffering layer.
Where’s a material scientist when you need one….?:confused:
ETA: I owned an FS2000 that was extremely fussy with STANAG mags. Polymer & aluminum mags were hit or miss, and somewhere online someone recommended HK mags, which was why I purchased them. I seldom use them since selling the FS2000, but my above statements are based on physically examining the components and noting variables.
From the early 90s to present I've been running several select fire HK G3 rifles with both steel and aluminum mags and after thousands and thousands of rounds I don't think it's made a bit of difference. Bolt carrier buffers and carry handle mounts are far more treacherous to HK finishes for G3s, 33s, MP5s and 90 series.
If I wasn’t clear—I never noticed a difference & listed why that might be rather than “stainless steel vs aluminum” and have personally used said items.
If I wasn’t clear—I never noticed a difference & listed why that might be rather than “stainless steel vs aluminum” and have personally used said items.
I might have read it wrong, a cold has been kicking my ass last few days.
Damn. This is ARFcom subject matter from 2005! :sarcastic:
It is, but just in case someone has a serious concern, the answer is no, it is not an issue. The Brits used steel magazines for a long time, and while their platform was garbage, I've never heard of the magazines wearing anything out.
I have a few British steel mags that I've retro fit with Magpul guts, and use them on a regular basis.
Honest Abe
02-19-24, 20:31
Speedy recovery on your case of COVID!!!!!!!
2nd reply summed it up nicely.
If a steel bcg cycling in an aluminum upper doesn't cause wear issues, no steel mag will cause wear issues inside the magwell.
FWIW I run a mix of steel, aluminum & polymer mags. Most of the steel mags are painted or anodized. None of them seem to show any wear except for a few right around the mag catch cutout.
If there's not enough wear for the aluminum magwell to put a dent in a painted/anodized finish then there's no serious steel to aluminum contact going on.
shadowspirit
02-20-24, 03:14
No OP, that is a completely idiotic assessment that person made.
Only reasons I see not to use them is greater weight, and likely higher price.
Bingo. Put 3 of those suckers in an old Deuce Gear pouch, and WOW! The weight really becomes real.
I'm going to admit to being a polymer mag whore for many years. And they certainly have their place. But these last few years I have been buying only Duramag stainless or aluminum depending on which is on sale. The weight difference is real. Holy crap. 3 or 4 on a chest rig running a CGB stage and you notice it. Then again, step on an aluminum mag that you dropped and step on a steel one. The aluminum one may not fair as well.
I'd imagine the weight difference between typical steel mags and aluminum or polymer makes a difference. OTOH, I'm a bit surprised by what Dutch said. C-Products/Duramag claims their stainless steel mags are a little heavier than their aluminum (or something to that effect) but are substantially stronger than aluminum mags.
I have several steel Korean mags somewhere in the house that I picked up on sale. I haven't tried them yet. It also never occurred to me to load up a few or several and compare the weight to a few or several loaded aluminum mags.
If I grab some more non polymer or aluminum mags, it'll be the stainless Duramag ones. I know C-Products had a bad rep in the past but I've read good things about their latest offerings.
shadowspirit
02-20-24, 03:16
Damn. This is ARFcom subject matter from 2005! :sarcastic:
I think that is where I got it from. LOL.
I guess another way to look at this is I use steel mags in my HK45 and have noticed zero excessive wear compared to my Glock mag well’s which see polymer on polymer. And I am not gentle on them. So I certainly wouldn’t expect a steel AR mag to cause excessive wear on an AR lower.
If I grab some more non polymer or aluminum mags, it'll be the stainless Duramag ones. I know C-Products had a bad rep in the past but I've read good things about their latest offerings.
They are coming out with their aluminum mags with polymer base pads from a post recently on X. They said they will also sell the base pads separately. I think Duramag bought out C-Products IIRC.
shadowspirit
02-22-24, 21:16
They are coming out with their aluminum mags with polymer base pads from a post recently on X. They said they will also sell the base pads separately. I think Duramag bought out C-Products IIRC.
I wonder why polymer for a base pad.
I wonder why polymer for a base pad.
My guess would be a little more durable when dropping mags on a hard surface.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.