User Panel
Thanks for your time and efforts to do this test as well as posting pics and vids on the results!
|
|
|
Thanks for this Test. Very simple winner:
#1) Lancer (not surprising given "best of both worlds" hybrid engineering with the steel feed lips on a polymer platform) This Magpul debate was interesting & not going to get in middle of a Lovers Spat, but one thing should be very clear: Magpul mags are overrated as the 'end all, be all' mag. They are just another polymer mag with the same intrinsic flaws consistent with other all-polymer mags. Although must say at least in this unscientific test, Magpul appeared the worst of it's all-polymer peers. Think eventually multi-material "hybrid" mags like Lancer will become more of the standard...they are more expensive to produce than an all-polymer, but clearly will perform the best. Peace |
|
|
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Thanks for this Test. Very simple winner: #1) Lancer (not surprising given "best of both worlds" hybrid engineering with the steel feed lips on a polymer platform) This Magpul debate was interesting & not going to get in middle of a Lovers Spat, but one thing should be very clear: Magpul mags are overrated as the 'end all, be all' mag. They are just another polymer mag with the same intrinsic flaws consistent with other all-polymer mags. Although must say at least in this unscientific test, Magpul appeared the worst of it's all-polymer peers. Think eventually multi-material "hybrid" mags like Lancer will become more of the standard...they are more expensive to produce than an all-polymer, but clearly will perform the best. Peace View Quote My final conclusion as well. I went with Lancer. As to being more expensive - not really. You can buy Lancer's for $11.50. A little more if you want the clear - I did, and got them for about $14.50. PMags aren't any cheaper. I like PMags, have had good luck with them, I just like the Lancers better. In addition to being tougher, I like how the Lancers don't have the fat floor plate, and their clear version has far better witness marks. The thing I always hated about PMags is I load them from a bag o' bullets, so I don't know how many are in it. How do I know if it's 30 or 31 rounds or 32 rounds or 28 rounds? Yea, you can figure it out and all, but with the Lancers - you can tell because they have witness marks for the bullet nose at 10,20,and 30 positions. And you can count noses because the whole thing is clear. It's just better. If Magpul comes up with a clear version with steel lips, I'd be excited to try it. |
|
|
LazyE....great price on your Lancer mags, well done! Could you please share where you got them for that price? I have only one at the moment, but would like to buy about 10 or so. Thanks in advance....
Interesting, was just on Wilson Combat site for some 1911 stuff, and see Wilson only sells Lancer mags for polymers. Bill Wilson from my experience will only sell the best. |
|
|
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
LazyE....great price on your Lancer mags, well done! Could you please share where you got them for that price? I have only one at the moment, but would like to buy about 10 or so. Thanks in advance.... Interesting, was just on Wilson Combat site for some 1911 stuff, and see Wilson only sells Lancer mags for polymers. Bill Wilson from my experience will only sell the best. View Quote Price is hot-linked to source in my post. Same vendor was having a sale on the clear, but they have since upped the price. Shop around some, they'll come down. |
|
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Price is hot-linked to source in my post. Same vendor was having a sale on the clear, but they have since upped the price. Shop around some, they'll come down. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
LazyE....great price on your Lancer mags, well done! Could you please share where you got them for that price? I have only one at the moment, but would like to buy about 10 or so. Thanks in advance.... Interesting, was just on Wilson Combat site for some 1911 stuff, and see Wilson only sells Lancer mags for polymers. Bill Wilson from my experience will only sell the best. Price is hot-linked to source in my post. Same vendor was having a sale on the clear, but they have since upped the price. Shop around some, they'll come down. Thanks LazyE. Interesting....was going to get 10 of the black ones, but then noticed the vendor has what appears to be the exact same mag for two different prices. Can't tell if one is an 'older' model than the other or if they are the same thing and incorrectly priced. That said didn't put in an order at all. You're a better man than me if can decipher their site. Thanks again! |
|
|
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Thanks LazyE. Interesting....was going to get 10 of the black ones, but then noticed the vendor has what appears to be the exact same mag for two different prices. Can't tell if one is an 'older' model than the other or if they are the same thing and incorrectly priced. That said didn't put in an order at all. You're a better man than me if can decipher their site. Thanks again! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
LazyE....great price on your Lancer mags, well done! Could you please share where you got them for that price? I have only one at the moment, but would like to buy about 10 or so. Thanks in advance.... Interesting, was just on Wilson Combat site for some 1911 stuff, and see Wilson only sells Lancer mags for polymers. Bill Wilson from my experience will only sell the best. Price is hot-linked to source in my post. Same vendor was having a sale on the clear, but they have since upped the price. Shop around some, they'll come down. Thanks LazyE. Interesting....was going to get 10 of the black ones, but then noticed the vendor has what appears to be the exact same mag for two different prices. Can't tell if one is an 'older' model than the other or if they are the same thing and incorrectly priced. That said didn't put in an order at all. You're a better man than me if can decipher their site. Thanks again! If you buy the one in the hotlink, its the newest version. |
|
|
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Thanks LazyE. Interesting....was going to get 10 of the black ones, but then noticed the vendor has what appears to be the exact same mag for two different prices. Can't tell if one is an 'older' model than the other or if they are the same thing and incorrectly priced. That said didn't put in an order at all. You're a better man than me if can decipher their site. Thanks again! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
LazyE....great price on your Lancer mags, well done! Could you please share where you got them for that price? I have only one at the moment, but would like to buy about 10 or so. Thanks in advance.... Interesting, was just on Wilson Combat site for some 1911 stuff, and see Wilson only sells Lancer mags for polymers. Bill Wilson from my experience will only sell the best. Price is hot-linked to source in my post. Same vendor was having a sale on the clear, but they have since upped the price. Shop around some, they'll come down. Thanks LazyE. Interesting....was going to get 10 of the black ones, but then noticed the vendor has what appears to be the exact same mag for two different prices. Can't tell if one is an 'older' model than the other or if they are the same thing and incorrectly priced. That said didn't put in an order at all. You're a better man than me if can decipher their site. Thanks again! It's CTD. Philosophically I actually agree with how they do business, with price floating based on demand and regional costs. Allowing you the cheapest prices at times, and constant availability during panic buy sessions. But as a customer, they are annoying because price floats all over the damned place, and the same item has 3 different prices depending on what warehouse you order from. I buy from them whey the are cheap, I laugh at them when they are not. |
|
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
My final conclusion as well. I went with Lancer. As to being more expensive - not really. You can buy Lancer's for $11.50. A little more if you want the clear - I did, and got them for about $14.50. PMags aren't any cheaper. I like PMags, have had good luck with them, I just like the Lancers better. In addition to being tougher, I like how the Lancers don't have the fat floor plate, and their clear version has far better witness marks. The thing I always hated about PMags is I load them from a bag o' bullets, so I don't know how many are in it. How do I know if it's 30 or 31 rounds or 32 rounds or 28 rounds? Yea, you can figure it out and all, but with the Lancers - you can tell because they have witness marks for the bullet nose at 10,20,and 30 positions. And you can count noses because the whole thing is clear. It's just better. If Magpul comes up with a clear version with steel lips, I'd be excited to try it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Thanks for this Test. Very simple winner: #1) Lancer (not surprising given "best of both worlds" hybrid engineering with the steel feed lips on a polymer platform) This Magpul debate was interesting & not going to get in middle of a Lovers Spat, but one thing should be very clear: Magpul mags are overrated as the 'end all, be all' mag. They are just another polymer mag with the same intrinsic flaws consistent with other all-polymer mags. Although must say at least in this unscientific test, Magpul appeared the worst of it's all-polymer peers. Think eventually multi-material "hybrid" mags like Lancer will become more of the standard...they are more expensive to produce than an all-polymer, but clearly will perform the best. Peace My final conclusion as well. I went with Lancer. As to being more expensive - not really. You can buy Lancer's for $11.50. A little more if you want the clear - I did, and got them for about $14.50. PMags aren't any cheaper. I like PMags, have had good luck with them, I just like the Lancers better. In addition to being tougher, I like how the Lancers don't have the fat floor plate, and their clear version has far better witness marks. The thing I always hated about PMags is I load them from a bag o' bullets, so I don't know how many are in it. How do I know if it's 30 or 31 rounds or 32 rounds or 28 rounds? Yea, you can figure it out and all, but with the Lancers - you can tell because they have witness marks for the bullet nose at 10,20,and 30 positions. And you can count noses because the whole thing is clear. It's just better. If Magpul comes up with a clear version with steel lips, I'd be excited to try it. The mantra on this forum used to be "The magazine is the heart of the rifle, so price doesn't matter, what's a couple of dollars more per mag if your life is on the line, blah, blah, blah...." How times have changed. |
|
|
WI57,
I have come out of LURKER mode to say this thread was a great read from start to finish. THANKS for all the time, money and effort you put into this. (I bet it was fun too ) |
|
|
God Bless Our Troops ... Especially Our Snipers.
Makers of all things LaRue - the Stealth Uppers, the OBR in 5.56 and 7.62, the PredatAR in both 5.56 and 7.62, the best QD mounts known to mankind ... and so on. |
|
Time to read through this thread again.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By brotherzoo:
If we're keeping this thread alive I can post some mag tests too, including my new SureFire 60s, if anyone is interested, and yes they have been successfully tested in my Ruger SR556 and my wife's Olympic, and will soon get worked out in my brothers' Bushmaster, POF, and hopefully in my uncle's S&W as well. Someone mentioned hearing bad things about the SureFires. Can anyone post me a link to any of those. I would kike to check those out, JIC I end up needed the knowledge at a bad time. View Quote Surefire 60 catastrophic failure |
|
|
I had a Lancer AWM let a round loose into the action when I inserted the magazine. I happened to see it happen, and didn't let the bolt close and induce a double feed. I thought it was odd, but cleared it and continued. At home, I tried to replicate it, and was able to get it to happen over and over again. I tried downloading the magazine 1, 2, and 3 rounds, and it still did it. If you are going to use Lancer magazines, I would suggest you try slapping the magazine in "with vigor," but not abusively hard.
|
|
|
Tag for future perusal.
Also OP, if you want to top your Barret finale then when the times comes, ship me the mag remains and I can apply high explosives to the mag bodies and they can . . .go away. |
|
|
Just so you guys know, this thread will not fall off and go to archive
|
|
<font size=3>IYAOYAS</font id=s3>
|
I would LOVE to see the stainless ASC magazines tested!
|
|
|
You'll have e to add that new hex mag next time.
|
|
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Psalms 91:5
|
Originally Posted By DannyDoubleO7:
Thanks for this Test. Very simple winner: #1) Lancer (not surprising given "best of both worlds" hybrid engineering with the steel feed lips on a polymer platform) This Magpul debate was interesting & not going to get in middle of a Lovers Spat, but one thing should be very clear: Magpul mags are overrated as the 'end all, be all' mag. They are just another polymer mag with the same intrinsic flaws consistent with other all-polymer mags. Although must say at least in this unscientific test, Magpul appeared the worst of it's all-polymer peers. Think eventually multi-material "hybrid" mags like Lancer will become more of the standard...they are more expensive to produce than an all-polymer, but clearly will perform the best. Peace View Quote As we posted before the PMag used in this test was the oldest design amongst all the magazines and it still did very well. Since then, we completed the 3 year R&D program resulting in the M3 magazine. The M3 material is now used in the M2 magazines but the real strength improvements were seen in the M3. We have posted a variety of impact tests with high speed video and full auto function testing on a HK416. PMag M3 testing- High Speed Video - Full Auto In some magazine designs (such as a the AK) adding metal reinforcements can happen without any compromises to the base material. This is not the case in the space available to the M4 magazine. Everything is a compromise of Impact strength, Tensile strength, Reliability, Manufacturing consistency, Lower compatibility, Extreme environmental resistance and Chemical resistance. During the R&D program we experimented with many different ways of building a better magazine. Some of these ideas included building magazines with internal support structures. In the end (and over 100,000s rounds fired and thousands of hours reviewing the results) we found the benefits of internal support structures were far outweighed by the disadvantages. As shown in the PMag M3 testing Videos, the M3 is plenty strong as a single piece rigid unit with very little other compromise. With steady increases in polymer technology, the perception for secondary support structures in magazines will continue to diminish. We are not saying any of the other magazines are bad. We just have differing views on how to answer the question posed by the design challenge. |
|
|
|
Well that's disappointing...
|
|
|
Please keep this thread on topic, it is about Plastic magazines
|
|
<font size=3>IYAOYAS</font id=s3>
|
I wonder how the Hexmag would hold up.
|
|
|
Wow that was boring
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Magpul:
As we posted before the PMag used in this test was the oldest design amongst all the magazines and it still did very well. Since then, we completed the 3 year R&D program resulting in the M3 magazine. The M3 material is now used in the M2 magazines but the real strength improvements were seen in the M3. We have posted a variety of impact tests with high speed video and full auto function testing on a HK416. PMag M3 testing- High Speed Video - Full Auto View Quote Very informational and interesting thread. In regards to Magpul using the M3 polymer in the M2 mags, i wonder when they started doing this and how many of my M2 mags have the more advanced polymer. It makes sense from a production standpoint to only use one type of polymer, but I'd also be very curious to know what gains in strength and durability were realized from using the new material in the older mag design, if any. |
|
|
I'm curious to see how the ETS polymer mags would hold up.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By epnurse:
I'm curious to see how the ETS polymer mags would hold up. View Quote Yes, we want to see that also. Hopefully if the author ever decides to do another mag test he will include us. We have done all of the same testing he did on our own just to see how our mag holds up. We would have no problem surviving every test except that Barret test. We haven't tried putting our mag on the break of a .50cal yet. I'm sure it would be fun to see. |
|
ETS Group - The Most Advanced AR Mags Available
www.ETSgroup.us |
I will repost this post from another thread relevant to this discussion.
The below is an internal document that we use to explain what we do and why we do it with magazine design, material, and testing, that has been asked for, and delivered externally to some folks that were interested in how and why the PMAG GEN M3 works as well as it does. To avoid repeated or rehashing the same information, I'll just repost in full. Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249 Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices. The “Job” of a Magazine In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles. The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability. Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring. It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in. Materials Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction. If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures. Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions. If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling. So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features. The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums. After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material. A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here. So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables. The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages. So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum. The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested. Construction After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can. An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function. All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit. Feed Lip Stability Over Time There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues. As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover. This is another area where softer polymers fail, but you may not notice until an extended period left loaded, especially with heat cycling, like the trunk of a car, etc. Testing These Criteria Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed. We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations. We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops. Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments. All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping. All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available. Service Life and Deadline Criteria As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops. Cost This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with USGI aluminum magazines, especially when lifecycle/service life is considered. Features and Improvements The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed. The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability. The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod. The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance. The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure. The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round. The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Deadwing:
Very informational and interesting thread. In regards to Magpul using the M3 polymer in the M2 mags, i wonder when they started doing this and how many of my M2 mags have the more advanced polymer. It makes sense from a production standpoint to only use one type of polymer, but I'd also be very curious to know what gains in strength and durability were realized from using the new material in the older mag design, if any. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Deadwing:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
As we posted before the PMag used in this test was the oldest design amongst all the magazines and it still did very well. Since then, we completed the 3 year R&D program resulting in the M3 magazine. The M3 material is now used in the M2 magazines but the real strength improvements were seen in the M3. We have posted a variety of impact tests with high speed video and full auto function testing on a HK416. PMag M3 testing- High Speed Video - Full Auto Very informational and interesting thread. In regards to Magpul using the M3 polymer in the M2 mags, i wonder when they started doing this and how many of my M2 mags have the more advanced polymer. It makes sense from a production standpoint to only use one type of polymer, but I'd also be very curious to know what gains in strength and durability were realized from using the new material in the older mag design, if any. Newer material was introduced in the Gen M2 magazine around the introduction of the Gen M3 magazines. There was improvement in strength across the board but they are not as strong as Gen M3s due to the way the Gen M3s are processed in manufacturing with the specific material. |
|
|
Good read above. We have over 800 Pmags in service at work. I think we have had all of 5 crack since we started issuing them in 2009. Not a bad track record I think. In fact I have two cracked Pmags in my truck I have taken off the street. I have been using them as training mags this past year since they still work fine.
We have about 250 Lancers also. They work fine too. The Lancers have only been used since 2013. David |
|
|
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Magpul:
M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. http://youtu.be/JVobY9KdeHc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read. M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. http://youtu.be/JVobY9KdeHc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 Hi, Thanks for the video, it was very interesting seeing the tests you conduct at Magpul on your magazines. The video does raise some issues what test procedure do you follow? Testing one magazine out of a lot may not find a significant flaw. The statement " They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged" is true in my experence with cracked P-Mag's, but bad practice to keep running them. The paradox with this video is If the mag cracks it's a fail, but it would still pass your firing test in the video. The spline and lip fatigue cracks aren't always obivious on casual visual inspection shown in the video. It would make the video more credible to show an inspection of the mag for cracks using a dye or some other method to show it's a true pass. Regards: |
|
|
Originally Posted By PicatinnyPete:
Hi, Thanks for the video, it was very interesting seeing the tests you conduct at Magpul on your magazines. The video does raise some issues what test procedure do you follow? Testing one magazine out of a lot may not find a significant flaw. The statement " They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged" is true in my experence with cracked P-Mag's, but bad practice to keep running them. The paradox with this video is If the mag cracks it's a fail, but it would still pass your firing test in the video. The spline and lip fatigue cracks aren't always obivious on casual visual inspection shown in the video. It would make the video more credible to show an inspection of the mag for cracks using a dye or some other method to show it's a true pass. Regards: View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By PicatinnyPete:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read. M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. http://youtu.be/JVobY9KdeHc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 Hi, Thanks for the video, it was very interesting seeing the tests you conduct at Magpul on your magazines. The video does raise some issues what test procedure do you follow? Testing one magazine out of a lot may not find a significant flaw. The statement " They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged" is true in my experence with cracked P-Mag's, but bad practice to keep running them. The paradox with this video is If the mag cracks it's a fail, but it would still pass your firing test in the video. The spline and lip fatigue cracks aren't always obivious on casual visual inspection shown in the video. It would make the video more credible to show an inspection of the mag for cracks using a dye or some other method to show it's a true pass. Regards: The videos are labeled "Unscientific" as they are a single representation of the type of testing (and expected results of that testing) we do in house. Our actual testing involves multiple batch sampling, drop fixtures and stress fracture analysis. A visual spine crack is an indication that the mag should be replaced but the PMag is designed that this will not affect feed or function for thousands of rounds even with damage such as this. Yes the testing is a pass if either magazine live fires the entire magazine full auto (that is the primary mission of the magazine after all). |
|
|
Originally Posted By Magpul:
M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. http://youtu.be/JVobY9KdeHc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read. M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. http://youtu.be/JVobY9KdeHc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 Thats all well and good, and I am sure your tests show that. I have seen different. And the mags dont work when the feed lips come off in the gun at -6.5. Causes a substantial malfunction. I am sorry if my experience differs from your testing. |
|
|
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
Thats all well and good, and I am sure your tests show that. I have seen different. And the mags dont work when the feed lips come off in the gun at -6.5. Causes a substantial malfunction. I am sorry if my experience differs from your testing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By walkingllama:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read. M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. Thats all well and good, and I am sure your tests show that. I have seen different. And the mags dont work when the feed lips come off in the gun at -6.5. Causes a substantial malfunction. I am sorry if my experience differs from your testing. The PMag is the most widely fielded polymer M16/M4 magazine in US combat history, out numbering all others, combined. As such we are well aware of all types of failures through it's lifecycle of design changes since 2007. That particular failure is only with earlier M-Rev colored magazines. For the M2s and M3s the failure mode is engineered to be located on the spine so as not to affect the magazines function in the event of impact damage. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Magpul:
The PMag is the most widely fielded polymer M16/M4 magazine in US combat history, out numbering all others, combined. As such we are well aware of all types of failures through it's lifecycle of design changes since 2007. That particular failure is only with earlier M-Rev colored magazines. For the M2s and M3s the failure mode is engineered to be located on the spine so as not to affect the magazines function in the event of impact damage. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read. M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. Thats all well and good, and I am sure your tests show that. I have seen different. And the mags dont work when the feed lips come off in the gun at -6.5. Causes a substantial malfunction. I am sorry if my experience differs from your testing. The PMag is the most widely fielded polymer M16/M4 magazine in US combat history, out numbering all others, combined. As such we are well aware of all types of failures through it's lifecycle of design changes since 2007. That particular failure is only with earlier M-Rev colored magazines. For the M2s and M3s the failure mode is engineered to be located on the spine so as not to affect the magazines function in the event of impact damage. When did you guys starting naming the Gen2's "MOE" I thought that was the end of 2012 / beginning of 2013? |
|
|
Aannnyyway. Cool thread, hopefully you have good luck with the new job, would like to see more of the "very unscientific" tests that most certainly in no way reflect in any way on magpul.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
When did you guys starting naming the Gen2's "MOE" I thought that was the end of 2012 / beginning of 2013? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
I found this thread searching for new magazine options after I recently discovered that some PMAGs feed lips break in the sub zero. Decided to start looking at other options. Very interesting. Great read. M2 PMags are rated down to -30 and M3 PMags are rated down to -60. They are designed to run just fine even in the event that they are damaged. Thats all well and good, and I am sure your tests show that. I have seen different. And the mags dont work when the feed lips come off in the gun at -6.5. Causes a substantial malfunction. I am sorry if my experience differs from your testing. The PMag is the most widely fielded polymer M16/M4 magazine in US combat history, out numbering all others, combined. As such we are well aware of all types of failures through it's lifecycle of design changes since 2007. That particular failure is only with earlier M-Rev colored magazines. For the M2s and M3s the failure mode is engineered to be located on the spine so as not to affect the magazines function in the event of impact damage. When did you guys starting naming the Gen2's "MOE" I thought that was the end of 2012 / beginning of 2013? Gen 1 PMags were the first gen and had the smaller window (these were only out for about a year and were discontinued mid 2008) MRev were the second gen. These had a number of minor design and processing changes through out it's release and was updated in 2012 as the M2 (MOE). The MRev was the most common used in Iraq and Afghanistan M2 (MOE) PMag is the same form factor as the MRev but the newer M3 polymer resin and more refined processing. (Current Production) The M3 is designed from the outset to use the newer polymer formula (so is stronger than the M2 in extreme environments) and is compatible with a larger range of weapons fielded by the military (i.e. HK416, SA80A2, FN SCAR, Tavor etc). |
|
|
Originally Posted By walkingllama:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
That particular failure is only with earlier M-Rev colored magazines. For the M2s and M3s the failure mode is engineered to be located on the spine so as not to affect the magazines function in the event of impact damage. Originally Posted By Magpul:
M2 (MOE) PMag is the same form factor as the MRev but the newer M3 polymer resin and more refined processing. (Current Production) The M3 material is in black only (like the M3 PMags themselves). Colors, especially FDE are very hard to process for consistency and as we dialed in the M3 (black) material with the M2 molds it was decided to discontinue colors until we had a non black option that could strength test close to the M3 Black magazines. That was a year ago and we will have some news on this subject in a few weeks during SHOT 2015. With that in mind, send the mag back to us (I will send a FedEx label) and we will inspect it and replace it with one that will not exhibit this issue. |
|
|
BTT. This thread should be preserved. So much good, unbiased info...
|
|
|
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
BTT. This thread should be preserved. So much good, unbiased info... View Quote Yes, hopefully there will be another test like this. We would love to see our mags in this test. Hopefully the OP will consider doing another test with some of the new mags on the market. |
|
ETS Group - The Most Advanced AR Mags Available
www.ETSgroup.us |
Originally Posted By 35mm_Shooter:
The surface rust has had zero effect on the function of the AWM mag, yet the crack on the PMAG resulted in it spitting out 93% of its rounds during the drop test. And this is not the first test to show the crack problem, I can't count the number of times I've seen this failure mode on PMAGs. I own over 200 PMAGs, I have no vested interest in bashing them.This constant spin just irks me View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By 35mm_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By ArmedPete:
This is a great thread. I subscribed a while ago and have been enjoying each test. It's interesting to me how poorly the magpul pmag is holding up. The Lancer however is very impressive. Thanks for doing this. The PMag hasn't rusted and nothing has deformed in response to chemical exposure. So the crack (which is common to other polymer magazines) is the only issue in this that we could have done better in. That said, even with the crack the PMag will still function when inserted into the magazine well of the weapon unlike the damaged USGI. Increase in spine strength without affecting the high all round, proven performance of the PMag was one of the primary goals of the M3 PMag program. As a result the PMag M3 does have a several fold increase in spine strength over the current PMag magazine. The surface rust has had zero effect on the function of the AWM mag, yet the crack on the PMAG resulted in it spitting out 93% of its rounds during the drop test. And this is not the first test to show the crack problem, I can't count the number of times I've seen this failure mode on PMAGs. I own over 200 PMAGs, I have no vested interest in bashing them.This constant spin just irks me +1 to bolded |
|
|
Originally Posted By DelTonGuy:
Originally Posted By 35mm_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By ArmedPete:
This is a great thread. I subscribed a while ago and have been enjoying each test. It's interesting to me how poorly the magpul pmag is holding up. The Lancer however is very impressive. Thanks for doing this. The PMag hasn't rusted and nothing has deformed in response to chemical exposure. So the crack (which is common to other polymer magazines) is the only issue in this that we could have done better in. That said, even with the crack the PMag will still function when inserted into the magazine well of the weapon unlike the damaged USGI. Increase in spine strength without affecting the high all round, proven performance of the PMag was one of the primary goals of the M3 PMag program. As a result the PMag M3 does have a several fold increase in spine strength over the current PMag magazine. The surface rust has had zero effect on the function of the AWM mag, yet the crack on the PMAG resulted in it spitting out 93% of its rounds during the drop test. And this is not the first test to show the crack problem, I can't count the number of times I've seen this failure mode on PMAGs. I own over 200 PMAGs, I have no vested interest in bashing them.This constant spin just irks me +1 to bolded Part of our foundations is education. When the PMag was introduced back in early 2008 it was the first magazine to successfully challenge the venerable USGI magazine and through successive design changes it managed to become the most fielded polymer M16 magazine in US combat history, out numbering all others, combined. So it is fair to say we have gotten a lot of feedback on what makes a magazine work under combat conditions. Here is some of the thoughts behind the PMag design (spin if you want to call it that) on why we build the PMag this way. Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249 Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices. The “Job” of a Magazine In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles. The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability. Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring. It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in. Materials Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction. If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures. Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions. If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling. So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features. The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums. After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material. A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here. So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables. The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages. So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum. The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested. Construction After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can. An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function. All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit. Feed Lip Stability Over Time There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues. As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover. Testing These Criteria Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed. We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations. We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops. Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments. All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping. All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available. Service Life and Deadline Criteria As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops. Cost This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with existing USGI aluminum magazines. Features and Improvements The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed. The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability. The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod. The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance. The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure. The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently shipped in Black and Sand for better IR significance performance without paint. The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion. |
|
|
Bravo sir !
For doing this ! |
|
This thread is a shit storm tornado headed for the Arf.com trailer park. - ArmaNotSoLite
We're all human, we're all flawed, but in the end it's just animals mashing genitalia together. - XCRmonger |
Magpul's constant need to reply to every single non magpul loving comment is kind of annoying.
|
|
|
Very informative and good to know. Thanks again for sharing this with us.
|
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.