"Classic" battle rifle mags

[Slater]

Looking at what have been called the "Classic" Cold War battle rifles - FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 - one doesn't hear a lot of complaints about mag performance/reliability (or lack thereof). With regard to the mags for these rifles, could it be said that one is/was more trouble-free/better designed than the others, or are they all about the same in that category?

[MountainRaven]

I've never heard of any issues with G3 magazines - but the factory magazines have been pretty cheap so there has never been a reason for anyone to make a cheaper and therefore probably more problematical magazine for it. But G3 magazines - and the rest of H&K's rollerlock guns - were made about like AK mags. Which is to say not necessarily bomb-proof, but very rugged.

FAL magazines can be iffy - the feed lips are pretty wimpy and can expand and deform if you load them to 20-rounds.

M14 magazines are, from what I understand, fine. So long as you're buying USGI magazines. Other makes... not so good.

[Kyohte]

There are plenty of problematic magazines available for these rifles. In the past, quality magazines for these rifles were dirt cheap, so no one bought the cheap U.S. Made or Korean made garbage. Now, garbage is more common than good magazines. Tapco, Thermold, KCI, etc are garbage for these magazines too.

I think a good deal of the reliability of the 7.62 NATO battle rifle magazines comes from being straight. The other part is that they are steel, with the exception of some G3 magazines. This makes them less prone to denting.

[mack7.62]

I think a good deal of the reliability of the 7.62 NATO battle rifle magazines comes from being straight.

I think this is a major reason why they are so reliable, look at the GI 20's not a lot of problem with them either.

[KTR03]

In terms of HK mags, I bought mine when they were 1.25 each shipped. SO when I get a bad one, I just sail it over the berm. Life is too short. That is probably why you don't here folks complaining about G3 mags. They are essentially disposable.

[TiroFijo]

I think a good deal of the reliability of the 7.62 NATO battle rifle magazines comes from being straight. The other part is that they are steel, with the exception of some G3 magazines. This makes them less prone to denting.

Why would straight magazines be more reliable? They are made that way simply because up to 20 rounds there is no significant advantage in making a curved body with a more sophisticated die.

[Kyohte]

The way I understand it is this: Think of a 30 round USGI M4 magazine. The shape consists of two parts. It has a straight top and a curved bottom. Now think of an AK magazine. The curve is constant. The lack of the angle change is what actually makes the magazine more reliable. This is why new polymer M4 magazine designs are using a "constant curve".

So it isn't truely that old magazines are straight that makes them reliable. They are missing a feature of M4 magazines that makes the M4 magazine (slightly) less reliable.

[TiroFijo]

The way I understand it is this: Think of a 30 round USGI M4 magazine. The shape consists of two parts. It has a straight top and a curved bottom. Now think of an AK magazine. The curve is constant. The lack of the angle change is what actually makes the magazine more reliable. This is why new polymer M4 magazine designs are using a "constant curve".

So it isn't truely that old magazines are straight that makes them reliable. They are missing a feature of M4 magazines that makes the M4 magazine (slightly) less reliable.

OK, now I get it. The M16 and its descendants have a mag well designed for a straight magazine, and in their infinite wisdom this never was changed when a longer mag that required some curvature was adopted.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Based on owning all three platforms at one time (not any more) and handling dozens of mags for each - 100's in the case of FAL mags - I would say:

I've never heard of any issues with G3 magazines - but the factory magazines have been pretty cheap so there has never been a reason for anyone to make a cheaper and therefore probably more problematical magazine for it. But G3 magazines - and the rest of H&K's rollerlock guns - were made about like AK mags. Which is to say not necessarily bomb-proof, but very rugged.

Agree 100%. G3 mags are excellent. The steel ones are heavy. The aluminum ones are a lot lighter and still strong enough.

G3 mags were cheap on the US commercial market because the German government had millions of them made and surplused most of them in the 90's. I doubt they were cheap to make originally. I've had new-in-wrap G3 mags marked made in 1963 and it's like a time machine brought them.

FAL magazines can be iffy - the feed lips are pretty wimpy and can expand and deform if you load them to 20-rounds.

The retaining lips on the FAL magazine aren't the critical feedlips - the critical feedlips on a FAL are a machined part of the receiver. The lips on the magazine may get slightly dinged without affecting function. I have never had a magazine feeding issue in a couple of FALs, even with ancient mags showing a lot of wear. You might be surprised at how ugly and beat-up an FAL mag can be without affecting function.

The vast majority of FAL mags are steel, and are adequately rugged but not as tough as the steel G3 mags. There are a small number of "paratrooper" aluminum bodied FAL mags also, which are functional but pretty thin. I wouldn't expect them to survive any more abuse than a 20rd M16 mag, if that much.

The small issue with FAL mags is that the front locking tab on "metric" type mags is just a tiny punch-out of the body metal, and can easily be pushed back in or otherwise damaged (not with finger strength, but with a drop on a hard surface or similar impact). The English "inch" pattern identified this issue and created mags with a separate welded-on front lug that is much tougher, but this is not compatible with the metric guns and is much less common to find.

M14 magazines are, from what I understand, fine. So long as you're buying USGI magazines. Other makes... not so good.

The M14 mags have a similar feedlip design to M16 mags, or even less metal in some designs. It works OK. All the M14 mags I know of are steel and the body seems quite rugged, in between the FAL and G3 levels. USGI contractor mags work, and all others are a crapshoot.

[Berserkr556]

FAL magazines can be iffy - the feed lips are pretty wimpy and can expand and deform if you load them to 20-rounds.

This is nonsense. I have FAL mags that have been fully loaded for over 5 years and the lips have not expanded or deformed in any way. There is no good reason to download mags. Nothing about FAL mags is "pretty wimpy" so don't spread nonsense like that. Leave it to the boobs on TOS. I have a lot of experience with the FAL.