Quoted:
Who gives a fuck until they make mags for manly men who shoot manly Glocks in manly calibers beginning in 4 and ending in 5. LOL

Quoted:
They can be $7 a piece and smell like gingerbread for all I care.. they go into Glocks, and Glocks aren't for me.

Quoted:
Glock tried the mags without the metal liner.  I had Glock mags with a metal liner that did not go all the way to the top in front eventually chip and crack off.   The current mags with the metal liner that extends to the top in front are the best yet.

Why would I want to go backwards to save a few dollars?

Quoted:


I can't shoot a glock got shit. I had a 19 for a short time. The forced position of the grip doesn't work for me. Meaning I don't like the finger grooves. Now if I could find a gen 2 at a good price, I'd probably buy it just to buy Magpul mags for it. Therefore, I'll continue to buy Springfield whose mags I can get on sale for right at $20.

Quoted:


Glock has had an edge on competition ever since it burst on the scene.

Quoted:
Now if magpul were to make 18 round cz75b magazines. .....

Quoted:
So, Rainier Arms just posted that Elite Tactical Systems Group is releasing Glock mags as well.

Look to be clear,  MSRP <$20, and it's all 9mm sizes including 33rd.

Quoted:
I have a bunch of friends behind enemy lines in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey.  I will be buying these up and shipping them out in bulk.

Quoted:


When the magpul glock mags hit the market and the price of the glock brand mags drop ill just buy a shit ton of Glock made mags.

Quoted:
First, consider the handgun market as it stood before these new mags were announced. There were marginal differences between service pistols, and we argue about those differences on a daily basis here, but for the most part, if you buy a quality pistol from the likes of Glock, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, or CZ, it's most likely going to be just fine. And I say that as a guy that's bought two defective Glock 9mms. The majority of the guns produced by any of these manufacturers will run with excellent reliability, and most experienced shooters won't observe much of a difference in accuracy.

Glocks have below average triggers and below average ergonomics, but mechanical simplicity and brand recognition are strengths. Another selling point often brought up by Glock fans is the availability of holsters and pricing of magazines. Holsters for many if not most major pistols will be available in most places that sell holsters. That leaves magazines...

Before today...
Magazines for Glocks were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for Beretta 92s were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for CZ 75s were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for BHPs were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for S&W 5906s were twenty-something dollars.

Some were more expensive, but I think you get the idea.

For the sake of this discussion, let's make two assumptions about these new Glock mags:
-Magpul is building a product that will work as advertised.
-These will have a street price around $10-12.

Now, we're looking at a change in market conditions. All of the above statements are still true, except Glock magazines are no longer twenty something dollars like most everything else. They're now under half that price. That's in addition to the fact that Glock ships the Gen4 pistols with three mags instead of two like everyone else. Even in retail terms (as opposed to Blue Label or GSSF), it will soon be possible for a customer to walk out of a gun shop with a brand new Gen4 G17 with 10 magazines for under or around $650. For the first time, Glock pistols have an edge that is objective, measurable, and quite significant. And the best part, from Glock's position, is that it's the investment of a third party that makes it possible.

And that leaves the rest of the industry an interesting decision to make. If you were running things at S&W, Springfield Armory, or Beretta, how would you address this problem? Do you increase the number of magazines that ship with your pistols? Do you find a way to cut costs on magazine production or reduce margins to make your product more affordable if possible? Or do you just stay the course and hope consumers still choose your pistols despite this disadvantage?

This could get interesting.

Quoted:
First, consider the handgun market as it stood before these new mags were announced. There were marginal differences between service pistols, and we argue about those differences on a daily basis here, but for the most part, if you buy a quality pistol from the likes of Glock, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, or CZ, it's most likely going to be just fine. And I say that as a guy that's bought two defective Glock 9mms. The majority of the guns produced by any of these manufacturers will run with excellent reliability, and most experienced shooters won't observe much of a difference in accuracy.

Glocks have below average triggers and below average ergonomics, but mechanical simplicity and brand recognition are strengths. Another selling point often brought up by Glock fans is the availability of holsters and pricing of magazines. Holsters for many if not most major pistols will be available in most places that sell holsters. That leaves magazines...

Before today...
Magazines for Glocks were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for Beretta 92s were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for CZ 75s were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for BHPs were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for S&W 5906s were twenty-something dollars.

Some were more expensive, but I think you get the idea.

For the sake of this discussion, let's make two assumptions about these new Glock mags:
-Magpul is building a product that will work as advertised.
-These will have a street price around $10-12.

Now, we're looking at a change in market conditions. All of the above statements are still true, except Glock magazines are no longer twenty something dollars like most everything else. They're now under half that price. That's in addition to the fact that Glock ships the Gen4 pistols with three mags instead of two like everyone else. Even in retail terms (as opposed to Blue Label or GSSF), it will soon be possible for a customer to walk out of a gun shop with a brand new Gen4 G17 with 10 magazines for under or around $650. For the first time, Glock pistols have an edge that is objective, measurable, and quite significant. And the best part, from Glock's position, is that it's the investment of a third party that makes it possible.

And that leaves the rest of the industry an interesting decision to make. If you were running things at S&W, Springfield Armory, or Beretta, how would you address this problem? Do you increase the number of magazines that ship with your pistols? Do you find a way to cut costs on magazine production or reduce margins to make your product more affordable if possible? Or do you just stay the course and hope consumers still choose your pistols despite this disadvantage?

This could get interesting.

Quoted:
Unless Magpul comes up with some revolutionary new polymer that can swap with steel one for one, there will be no PMags for traditional steel handgun mags.  They're simply too thin to be replaced with plastic.  Glock mags are considerably thicker than say Beretta or Sig mags.  Even the G36 mag is considerably thicker than a 1911 mag.

Quoted:
Magpul is in business for money. Don't be fooled. Other manufactures make glock mags like Kahn. Get over your Glock love. Trust me, a $10 mag will not be as good as a Glock mag.

Quoted:
OP has a low threshold for game changing.

Quoted:
Unless Magpul comes up with some revolutionary new polymer that can swap with steel one for one, there will be no PMags for traditional steel handgun mags.  They're simply too thin to be replaced with plastic.  Glock mags are considerably thicker than say Beretta or Sig mags.  Even the G36 mag is considerably thicker than a 1911 mag.

Quoted:
They can be $7 a piece and smell like gingerbread for all I care.. they go into Glocks, and Glocks aren't for me.

Quoted:


Except that 87% of pistol owners will never buy more mags than came with the pistol in the box.

Quoted:
First, consider the handgun market as it stood before these new mags were announced. There were marginal differences between service pistols, and we argue about those differences on a daily basis here, but for the most part, if you buy a quality pistol from the likes of Glock, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, or CZ, it's most likely going to be just fine. And I say that as a guy that's bought two defective Glock 9mms. The majority of the guns produced by any of these manufacturers will run with excellent reliability, and most experienced shooters won't observe much of a difference in accuracy.

Glocks have below average triggers and below average ergonomics, but mechanical simplicity and brand recognition are strengths. Another selling point often brought up by Glock fans is the availability of holsters and pricing of magazines. Holsters for many if not most major pistols will be available in most places that sell holsters. That leaves magazines...

Before today...
Magazines for Glocks were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for Beretta 92s were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for CZ 75s were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for BHPs were twenty-something dollars.
Magazines for S&W 5906s were twenty-something dollars.

Some were more expensive, but I think you get the idea.

For the sake of this discussion, let's make two assumptions about these new Glock mags:
-Magpul is building a product that will work as advertised.
-These will have a street price around $10-12.

Now, we're looking at a change in market conditions. All of the above statements are still true, except Glock magazines are no longer twenty something dollars like most everything else. They're now under half that price. That's in addition to the fact that Glock ships the Gen4 pistols with three mags instead of two like everyone else. Even in retail terms (as opposed to Blue Label or GSSF), it will soon be possible for a customer to walk out of a gun shop with a brand new Gen4 G17 with 10 magazines for under or around $650. For the first time, Glock pistols have an edge that is objective, measurable, and quite significant. And the best part, from Glock's position, is that it's the investment of a third party that makes it possible.

And that leaves the rest of the industry an interesting decision to make. If you were running things at S&W, Springfield Armory, or Beretta, how would you address this problem? Do you increase the number of magazines that ship with your pistols? Do you find a way to cut costs on magazine production or reduce margins to make your product more affordable if possible? Or do you just stay the course and hope consumers still choose your pistols despite this disadvantage?

This could get interesting.

Quoted:
Personally, I hope this is a precursor to other offerings.

Like poly M&P magazines.

And I'll even go so far as to say I could tolerate the loss of a round or two if they could pump them out for $10 a piece.