Magpul Gen2 vs Gen3 PMAGS

[Gtorq21]

Let us know if that fixes the issue.

I will give y'all an update

[TomPenguin5145]

Hello guys, I was wondering if anybody else are heart broken by their Gen3 pmags? For some reason the gen 3 are a bit more loose in the magwell and the follower sometimes would miss the bolt catch just by putting the mag in without an upper. If I give the Gen3 a slight cant forward when inserting, it will miss the bolt catch. if I do the opposite, it will catch. I noticed the follower is a bit higher compared to the gen2s. Never had this issue with gen 2s. I run a spikes complete lower. Could it be my bolt catch is out of spec or gen3s are bad? Going to be replacing my bolt catch tonight with another milspec and hope for the best. If it's not good, I guess I'll have to do the 9mm catch mod

https://youtu.be/rZsMI-OaYRY

Made a quick YouTube video

I have had the same issue with my G2 PMags. I only noticed it b/c I had two that refused to lock the bolt back. I did some troubleshooting and found that the follower was not lifting the bolt catch for the same reason as you. I don't bother with Pmags anymore in my AR. I use Alum GI mags, they are cheaper and never have given me an issue. I do use the Glock PMags for training tho as they are much cheaper.

I did speak with MagPul and they offered me new mags, but it just wasn't worth it. I gave them away as I only had 5 of them.

[SHERWINVILLARETE]

I have had the same issue with my G2 PMags. I only noticed it b/c I had two that refused to lock the bolt back. I did some troubleshooting and found that the follower was not lifting the bolt catch for the same reason as you. I don't bother with Pmags anymore in my AR. I use Alum GI mags, they are cheaper and never have given me an issue. I do use the Glock PMags for training tho as they are much cheaper.

I did speak with MagPul and they offered me new mags, but it just wasn't worth it. I gave them away as I only had 5 of them.

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

[mrbieler]

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.

[SHERWINVILLARETE]

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.

There is no doubt that the length of the tooth differs across many manufacturer and a lot of them would say their lowers and catches are in spec, made for USGI mags. So yeah you're right.

Magpul knows that their mag bodies are thicker, I just wished they put an emphasis on this problem on quality control.

The bolt catch I have on right now is a hair longer than my original one so I'm keeping it. Although the old shorter one was just fine given the mags are not too out of spec.

[Diamondback]

So that suggests an aftermarket idea, a "Longnose" bolt catch with a tooth .015" to .020" (just pulling numbers out of my ass) longer than TDP. Maybe .025 to account for Worst Case Tolerance Stack, or .030 to have a little "insurance" and "file to fit if needed" room.

[mrbieler]

I hear you, but I also think many do and will continue to have issues even if Magpul was 100% all the time.

There is no doubt that the length of the tooth differs across many manufacturer and a lot of them would say their lowers and catches are in spec, made for USGI mags. So yeah you're right.

Magpul knows that their mag bodies are thicker, I just wished they put an emphasis on this problem on quality control.

The bolt catch I have on right now is a hair longer than my original one so I'm keeping it. Although the old shorter one was just fine given the mags are not too out of spec.

[SHERWINVILLARETE]

So that suggests an aftermarket idea, a "Longnose" bolt catch with a tooth .015" to .020" (just pulling numbers out of my ass) longer than TDP. Maybe .025 to account for Worst Case Tolerance Stack, or .030 to have a little "insurance" and "file to fit if needed" room.

Yup!! Someone needs to just make aftermarket one that's longer so people wouldn't need to do the 9mm catch mod.

[SHERWINVILLARETE]

I hear you, but I also think many do and will continue to have issues even if Magpul was 100% all the time.

That catch you replaced it with, which brand? It looks significantly longer than the older one

[mrbieler]

That catch you replaced it with, which brand? It looks significantly longer than the older one

forward controls design ABC/R v2. Roger was gracious enough to spend time with me going through his inventory to find one that works. the original part was in spec, just too short. Most folks won't have access to a couple of bins with dozens of samples to plug and play. I was fortunate.

It's a kick ass part to boot which is an extra large cherry on top.