G&R Tactical
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75

Thread: Magpul Gen2 vs Gen3 PMAGS

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    68
    Feedback Score
    0
    It just isn't worth the effort. .There is not a darn thing a PMag can do that a USGI can't do better and cheaper. I am not trashing on PMags but for 7 to 8 dollars you can get a USGI mag with an anti-tilt follower and be good to go. You won't have to deal with wondering if the bolt is going to lock back on all your rifles....they just work and in a rifle isn't that the bottom line?


    Quote Originally Posted by SHERWINVILLARETE View Post
    Oh dude.. check this link

    https://www.ar15.com/forums/industry...00/124-157733/

    Very old thread. The same problem as the Gen3 I have. The followers are undersized! Giving it that gap, extra height and tilt. I got them new followers and now they work, better than the gen 2s as advertised. I also did some side by side comparison, the good follower is longer! I just wish I looked at the followers sooner, now I have one extra bolt catch.

    Man, I just love the way Magpul looks its hard give up on them lol.

    This batch of mags with BAD followers were dated at 10/18 pretty new. So disappointing

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    68
    Feedback Score
    0
    You sir win the thread. The only thing I would disagree with is the conclusion that the TDP is wrong. The TDP is fine. The TDP was set up for the USGI mags, and even with tolerance stacking it doesn't effect them. Sounds like MagPul needs to come out with an "Enhanced Reliability" bolt catch to use with their PMags to "band-aid" the fatter body.

    Either way, excellent work putting in the time and effort to truly problem solve and not just spread BS gun forum garbage information.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrbieler View Post
    I don't think the issue is with the PMags, even with the short follower, or with the bolt catch. I think the issue is with the TDP itself.

    Looking at the drawings, I see that that bolt catch body can be +/- .003" thick but I don't see a tolerance spec for the length of the foot or tooth of the catch.

    The bolt catch slot has a tolerance of +/- .003" in terms of front to back location from the front pivot and +/- .003" in terms of thickness/width.

    If the slot is at max, the width is at max, and the bolt catch is at min, you can have an off set of .009".

    Not much, but this weekend I added a bolt catch that was .011" longer than the one originally in my carbine. This is what .011" can look like:

    Short length


    .011" longer


    Now take in account that before you even add up the bolt catch length tolerances, a polymer mag is any where from 0.013~.016" thicker that a GI mag in terms of the actual mag body. By default, that is going to mean the follower is 0.013~0.016" further forward before you look at anything else.

    GI mags will work. Even at the worst case scenario, the bolt catch's .009" potential offset is good enough to grab a GI mag. That link to the AR15.com thread shows it too.

    But when you add another 0.013~0.016", things can get sideways.

    I would contend that a polymer mag, even if made perfectly, can fail in an "in spec" lower.

    My understand is that the most recent TDP update for this area is 2006, before Gen1 PMags came out. My belief is that the that TDP spec has not been adjusted to account for the polymer mags and even if manufactures strictly adhere to TDP, this issue will continue.

    Judging by the posts on this and other forums, it's fairly common. It's also mostly blamed on out of spec parts and/or poor magazines which are easy things to point too and for the most part are correctible if you get enough parts to sample with.

    I wouldn't expect Colt or FN to change the TDP to adjust for polymer mags unless the military/government starts using them as a basis of design and functionality. But I think aftermarket bolt catch manufactures might want to take a look at this. The mags can't change. Polymer mags are simply thicker by the nature of the material.

    All the above being said, I'm just a hack with a laptop.
    Last edited by TomPenguin5145; 07-14-19 at 01:10.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    40
    Feedback Score
    0
    Replaced the followers with the ones Magpul sent. Problem solved. From what I could tell the actual body of the follower is longer up and down wise then the ones that weren't engaging bolt catch

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    26
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gtorq21 View Post
    Replaced the followers with the ones Magpul sent. Problem solved. From what I could tell the actual body of the follower is longer up and down wise then the ones that weren't engaging bolt catch
    I'm glad that worked out for you! I hope this thread will help more people in the future instead of blaming their lowers and catches right away. By the way, what gen and color mags gave you problems?
    Last edited by SHERWINVILLARETE; 07-17-19 at 12:16.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    40
    Feedback Score
    0
    Gen2 black

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

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
  •