|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98% Sarcastic. 100% Overthinking things and making up reasons for buying a new firearm.
And if the top two rounds don't cross up and keep you from loading it with the bolt forward.
I had it happen AGAIN this weekend with two Gen M3 20s. They have about 250 rounds apiece through 'em. They started doing it almost at the same time.
After going through this back in early '13, and now again, I'm not going to be convinced that Gen M3 mags are a good mag. I've had more problems with Gen M3 Pmags than any other magazine I've ever used, 1911 mags included.
I'm going to see if Magpul will replace 'em. If they do, they're sold, if not, they're trash, and I will never own another POS Magpul Gen M3 mag. I'll run my M2 MOEs for training, but there will be an NHMTG 20 or 30 in the gun when it matters.
At this point, after six years experience with Pmags, I'm of the opinion that plastic does not make a good AR magazine. I'm done for good this time.
Weird that the same few people keep having the same issue over and over. I haven't been able to shoot nearly as much in the last year but I've yet to have any issue with any PMAG.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sic semper tyrannis.
At a fundamental level it comes down to one of two choices.
Use Gen3 PMags if you have a Colt. Avoid them if you don't.
It appears that when MagPul designed the Gen3 mags and their over-insertion tab they referenced Colt's mag well and related dimensions.
Okay, Colt has the TDP so they set the standard, and the mags should be good to go with every receiver.
Problem is: there are many, many manufacturers of lower receivers out there, some of which have the "relevant" portions of the TDP but not the whole thing. Others don't even have the basics of the TDP and have simply reverse-engineered their lowers or are following some other standard.
BCM would not replace the lower because the lower specs correctly to the relevant portions of the TDP, i.e., it works with regulation USGI magazines.
Since the Pmags are aftermarket and therefore by definition not mil-spec, a manufacturer that builds to the military dimensions is not obligated to make their receiver fit any aftermarket mag that may come along.
No matter how much a user might love Pmags, it is not reasonable to expect a receiver manufacturer to revise his lower dimensions to accommodate what amounts to "the new kid on the block." This would mean that every time a manufacturer offers a new magazine design that won't work in every receiver, it would obligate receiver manufacturers to change their product to make it fit the new mag.
Conversely, a magazine manufacturer that expects to sell gazillions of units should necessarily want to manufacture their magazines to fit any receiver within reason, given that whatever lower receiver a person possesses, it may at some point be called upon to use the Gen3 Pmag, and that magazine may not fit or work reliably.
Verdict: MagPul needs to modify the design of the mag just slightly to accommodate receivers that do not 100% follow the TDP (but do follow the "relevant" portions as quoted by BCM).
Just as a practical reality, I will not be using Pmags anymore. Even though I own a Colt, I also own more than one BCM, and frankly, it's cheaper to continue to purchase mags that I know will work instead of taking a chance on being stuck with mags that will work in one receiver but potentially not another.
Last edited by Doc Safari; 07-06-15 at 18:02.
These are light use mags. They're in an SPR that gets loaded laying on the ground. These aren't 30s that get dropped and slammed in doing emergency reload practice, they've been used for lay on the ground accuracy shooting.
I called Magpul and the service guy knew exactly what I was talking about, said some of 'em did that, they had a revision, he wanted to look at the mags, the told me my ammo was undersize.
My ammo is undersize?? MK262 in WCC brass was what I was using when it started, then I finished the day with IMI Razor Core.
Whatever.
Pmags are no longer recommended by me. I have Colt 20s that have fed all of this exact same ammo, in the exact same gun, in the exact same conditions, with exactly zero issues whatsoever.
Weirder still: my entire agency (1200 LMT patrol carbines and counting) uses gen 3 pmags exclusively without issue. Our 1500-or-so colt 1033 program 20" M16A1's also functioned without issue using the gen 2 & 3 pmags, before we returned them to Uncle Sam.
Logic dictates that some other variable is at play.
Last edited by BufordTJustice; 07-06-15 at 20:12.
"That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892
"The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."
It seems like this could have been avoided if Magpul had done more extensive testing with other lower receivers. I can't help but wonder if they focused on testing with Colt and FN lowers and didn't pay as much attention to the BCMs of the world.
Bookmarks