Now, please educate me here...whats the advantage or dis-advantage of the dummy round on left or right side?
Printable View
Now, please educate me here...whats the advantage or dis-advantage of the dummy round on left or right side?
If you take a new USGI or a TangoDown magazine the guide round or dummy round is on the left side. When the magazine is fully loaded to 30 rounds the last round will be on the left side feed. On other magazines like the original USGI, Magpul follower mags, etc.. the last round is on the right side.
That means when I insert a mag, chamber a round and then remove the magazine I will see the next round is on the left side (27 or 29 rounds depending on how you load) and I know I am chambered/loaded. The confusion begins if you then introduce magazines with the dummy/guide round on the opposite side and you then intermix them as you may believe a round was chambered when it wasn't.
Ive learned something new today...I APPRECIATE the answer, IG.
I got burned with the Gen 1 Tangodown mags which seemed to work great in everything except Colt's so I will have to wait and see how they shake out. Introducing a successful new mag is going to be tough in today's market.
A lot of magazines "work great" in the couple hundred round, perfect conditions range test. Not so much in high round count, dust and dirt, higher temps, pressure on the mag from working cover or artificial support, or even with the full range of acceptable TDP tolerances of the host rifle, especially with higher, but acceptable, bolt speeds. Certain materials, although very resilient, accept deformation, grit embedding, and are "sticky" in a relative sense. If magazines actually had to pass even basic mil-spec function testing in perfect conditions (which is very generous as to allowable MRBF) to be sold, there would be a lot less snake oil out there, but that's certainly not what I'm advocating. I WOULD like to see more careful analysis before saying something is the best thing since sliced bread. I obviously have a biased opinion, but I've seen every magazine on the market tested extensively in firing, drops, chem compatibility, dust, etc., and it sticks in my craw that people market products for professional or defensive use that don't even function to a basic level of reliability, and there are a lot of them.
The other thing that is rather disingenuous is reviews of said product that say "best stuff ever!" like it's a gun rag review, with about as much actual testing as we see from current gun rags. If you're pleased with the function of a product, please include what testing or even what general usage you did, in what rifles and conditions, that got you to the point that the product in question was dubbed "GTG". I'm not saying that you didn't conduct a ton of training or testing with the product in question...maybe you did. But including an honest account of that usage to qualify the glowing review would be helpful to those making buying decisions.
At first..I took what you said personally. After putting on my big boy britches...I readily admit your post is 100% correct. As you can see, I never ever said "best stuff ever"...and I did say "I like them thus far" and "my tests aint scientific"..for the record. Almost no one person has the ability to test much of anything to the degree government or a Corporation can. I got these mags to test, as best I COULD. I did the best I COULD. And, I am one of apparently the few who do not think they are a "hi-speed operator" or potential Delta Force member. I AINT.
Im a 40+ year SHOOTER, with an above average knowledge of guns, ammo & shooting. I have an idea of what makes up a "good gun".."good ammo".."good magazine", ect. My review was as "honest" as I could make it. I LIKE THESE MAGS. Need more range time with them? Absolutelty. Good experience/impressions/results first time out? Absolutely. Now, you are correct in saying a lot of stuff is put out there as being GTG that aint. But, for ME, my personal AO aint Iraq or Afghanistan or any place ending in "stan". Its North Alabama/Southern TN.
Im not Pat Rogers, or anything like him or others like him. I guess I should have said "For MY needs, so far, these seem GTG."
Magpul makes good mags. I have them, I like them, Ill buy even more of them. Is everything Magpul makes the cats ass? NO, imho.
You guys have CREATED A MARKET for more stuff than anybody else I can think of. That said, legit testing of new items is required & needed. All I did was give my initial impressions. Were the mags junk, that would have came thru in the first range session. The ETS mags seem well made, and worked fine on a cold New Years Eve day for a few hundred rounds, period.
Totally not meant to be taken personally. We've just seen too much test data fall short on various items that have been proclaimed as GTG in many places, and I think it's relevant to qualify recommendations with the parameters used to evaluate. Thanks for understanding, and for coming back with the info.
I have one of these mags. I bought 2, and gave one to Pappabear.. which never gets used.
To SPQR476's point... yeah.. the mag works great, but hasn't really had a lot of rigorous use or any sort of testing.
After they said they used a spring that is weaker than the Magpul/old g.i. spring, I wrote 'em off.
Pmags or legit g.i. is all I use....