Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: ETS AR Mags

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,070
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SPQR476 View Post
    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.
    Out of curiosity, have you tested the ETS mags using similar testing of Pmags to know if the ETS are inferior?

    As a manufacturer I'm sure you have inside info on what materials and processes work well for magazines. I use many different types of AR mags, primarily Pmags, but also have used transulcent Lancer AWM's without any issues.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,221
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    We test everything that comes on the market for a variety of reasons. First, we review the design against our IP. Love or hate the patent system, we've spent a lot of time, effort, and money developing what makes a PMAG work, and using aspects of our designs to shortcut development of a competing product isn't cool.

    Understanding the capabilities of other products is another reason, and we do abbreviated versions of our rough handling and drop testing, field testing, dust and environmental testing (hot, cold, wet, etc.), various platforms and rifle variants, ammunition types, various bolt speeds, etc., and endurance testing with known good rifles/setups, although if we see enough stoppages in the first few thousand rounds, we'll stop the endurance portion instead of beating a dead horse, and that's the case with many. It makes sense to continue if it even comes close to even USGI reliability, but otherwise it's wasting ammo. Then we figure out why.

    That brings us to another reason, and that's to evaluate design characteristics and material characteristics to validate what we know, or think we know. Forensic examination after the test results, if you will. We high speed the feeding cycle to identify cartridge path, presentation height and angle, release point, stack rise, etc., under various conditions to see what's up, and identify design or material characteristics that cause it. It gives us more data points for what does or doesn't work and why, and in many cases validates what we already know...because we've tried a lot of stuff to find what works and what doesn't.

    Of course, we spend a lot more time testing our own stuff. We're constantly testing material formulation variations, other new materials, design and geometry, advances in additives in a broad spectrum of materials, etc., in addition to the normal validation and QC/QA testing, and we get feedback from our OEM partners' testing, and other third party testing. And, our CORE guys, which are also our product management team, use the stuff. A lot. As do a bunch of contributors from every aspect of shooting activities, and we welcome feedback.

    We generally don't talk specifics about what we find in our testing because, obviously, the perception of bias when presenting data about other products means it would be minimize any benefit of sharing the results. We are generally fine with talking about the USGI, since it's kind of a nameless/faceless entity. There are very good and very bad USGI variants out there, but good ones actually feed relatively well with conventional ammunition types in new mag/endurance test type settings, and the vast majority of other aftermarket mags don't even get near USGI reliability, let alone GEN M3 reliability. The other thing is that if we identify the issues that we find, it may give those other manufacturers guidance on product improvement on our dime.

    The third party testing of our stuff...we'd love to share, but it's not releasable. Anyone in a DoD activity that wants eyes on can contact me directly, and I can point you in the right direction to see some of the data.
    GEN M3 PMAG BLK NSN: 1005-01-628-5106

    I say all this not to be arrogant or condescending, but just to say that we take magazine function very seriously, for whatever firearm system it is intended for. Anything that's recommended as being suitable for defensive or professional use should probably hit certain criteria, or to us, it's irresponsible to recommend it as such. Not everyone demands the kind of reliability we hold so dearly, so I get that, too. If the BUYER is happy with a product's performance, then great. I'd never say that someone is wrong to be happy with a purchase, as long as it meets their threshold for being a good value for money. There's also a tendency to pronounce a new thing as good to go, however, and I'm sure we benefitted from that in the early days. Now, I think some people see us as some sort of corporate machine and LOVE to find any flaw they can, but I can assure you, it's still drift carts, Viking helmets, and NERF guns around here despite the lab coats and thermotrons. And, the scrutiny just makes us better.
    Duane Liptak, Jr.
    Executive Vice President
    Magpul Industries

    info@magpulcore.com

    This is a personal account linked to a personal e-mail. Company affiliation and titles are provided purely for transparency requirements of the host site. Although factual company information may be shared through this account, any opinions expressed are solely those of the account holder, and not necessarily those of Magpul Industries or subsidiaries.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,070
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Thank you for your reply and explanation. You guys at Magpul do some great work and make some of the best products in the AR/AK market without a doubt. I think we all know that here already

    I've seen some of your Pmag testing videos on youtube and it shows how well-made your mags are. Although for some of us in the civilian market, we also are happy to have other options to play with for casual range use.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,663
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    Not necessarily. I do not do press checks. Every mag I own has the dummy round on the right side. That means I get the same result everytime and all mags are loaded the same way. It's also a reason I won't buy those new GI mags or TangoDown.
    Similarly I prefer this method. However, I can't always trust to have exactly X rounds loaded (be it a class or a competition or otherwise and using partials) so I touch/observe before insertion.

    It does dick me up sometimes when I have filled mags laid out though ("wait, are there 29 in this mag? Did I miss something.....?")
    Dave Merrill
    Terrible Technical Writer. Awful Photographer. Lazy Instructor. Kind of a dick.
    Loves Tacos.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    2,740
    Feedback Score
    52 (98%)
    I always make sure I'm using a set of mags that are all identical.

    I have g.i. tan follower mags, Gen M2 and M3 Pmags, and Tango Down mags that I use. I keep a set of six of each type, and I use them as a set so I don't have a bunch of different magazines on me. It's pretty simple to look at a mag and know which side the 30th round should be on.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Oh, Dah Nord Minnersoda.
    Posts
    1,338
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    With this comment, you've earned another sale. Ive been using the AR platform for a little over a year, but only had experiences with cheap clear poly mags, no mames from a friend, that functioned at 20 or less loaded. Full load caused misfeeds. My metal mags, aluminum I believe (also USGI if the title was accurate on purchase), have the tan followers. Those work reliably without any issues.

    Not only will I be ordering a set of 6 magpul mags, after such a great message, but will pick up a couple of these ETS mags to have some fun stacking them for some plinking range practice mags. Will throw in my two cents if I can get them fast enough to do a decent review.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPQR476 View Post
    We test everything that comes on the market for a variety of reasons. First, we review the design against our IP. Love or hate the patent system, we've spent a lot of time, effort, and money developing what makes a PMAG work, and using aspects of our designs to shortcut development of a competing product isn't cool...
    Last edited by HeruMew; 01-13-16 at 17:29. Reason: Add quote

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by samuse View Post
    I always make sure I'm using a set of mags that are all identical.

    I have g.i. tan follower mags, Gen M2 and M3 Pmags, and Tango Down mags that I use. I keep a set of six of each type, and I use them as a set so I don't have a bunch of different magazines on me. It's pretty simple to look at a mag and know which side the 30th round should be on.

    Why confuse things with followers that place the round on the opposite side? Do you press-check?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    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.
    This, as I've said before. Press-checking is a good way to get a 'click' when you need a 'bang.' It's just too easy to induce a malfunction.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    287
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    I bought 4 to give a try. I was looking for a set of mags to only load 300 blk out in. They seem to be impossible to feed full on a closed bolt. Other than that I havent had any problems with them. When I get more rounds through them Ill update.
    Quote Originally Posted by aaron_c View Post
    I'd relate NCSTAR more to an incurable STD. Sure, you can get rid of the evidence that you ever owned it, but you will spend the rest of your life praying nobody finds out what you did (bought).

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    2,740
    Feedback Score
    52 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 7.62NATO View Post
    Why confuse things with followers that place the round on the opposite side? Do you press-check?
    I very seldom press-check. If I do, it's always followed by the forward assist and a visual of the carrier if possible. I usually send the bolt home and check to see which side the top round is on.

    After chambering with a Pmag, it should be on the left. G.I. or TD, it's on the right. How complicated is that??

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •