As respect for other site sponsors we try and stay out of these discussions unless we clarify or fix misinformation. There are many ways to tackle the problem of building a magazine for the M4/M16 system. Due to the space limitations on the M4/M16 mag well there is always a compromise in design regarding factors like reliability, impact strength, tensile strength, chemical resistance, lower compatibility, cost, corrosion resistance and quality control over volume production, just to name a few. The PMag M3 is what we believe is the best solution to this design challenge.

To explain further I will address these points below.


In these series of test videos we show the durability of the PMag M3 testing impacts of various types, under various conditions, finishing with full auto reliability test.

PMag M3 test videos -High Speed Video with HK416 full auto

While the PMag M3 is stronger than the earlier MRev magazine (released in 2008), the original MRev's durability did just fine in 5 years of combat operations where millions were deployed making the PMag MRev the most combat fielded polymer M4/M16 magazine in US Military history (out numbering all other M4/M16 polymer magazines used -combined)


The window in the MagLevel PMags is not for viewing the rounds.

It is to see the orange maker on the spring coil that allows the user to accurately gauge rounds remaining even when remaining brass is obscured by the magazine well.


The M3 was designed around the 5.56 NATO round. That said we have been proven very reliable with other calibers such 300 Blackout

During the three year M3 R&D program we investigated using secondary support structures in the magazine body. We determined that the benefits of these secondary support structures were far out weighted by the negatives. Again review the above M3 test videos to see how strong a single part polymer body can be.

I cannot go into technical details due to this being an open forum but whatever we have said about us not building transparent magazines was directly specific to Magpul's magazine program and should not be taken out of that context.  In other words we are talking about us, not anyone else.

We are not ruling out a transparent mag in the future as there are some training benefits of a translucent design (being able to see the round tips) but what ever we release must address the list of concerns I outlined in my previous post.

FYI - Steyer is ofter held up as a premium polymer magazine but most of it's strength comes from the fact the AUG was designed to allow thick feed lips. The polymer would not fare well if used in an M4/M16 application. Even in the AUG form the round retention is less than optimal during high heat and/or forcible insertion on an open bolt.

When the original PMag was released in 2007 we were using very new polymer technology and we were unsure on how this new breed of material would do under pressure during long term storage.

By the end of 2008 we had long term testing under various conditions that allowed us to confirm that the PMags could be stored loaded long term without any issues.

So to repeat myself (I have been saying this for about half a decade now), the dust cover is optional. It's primary mission is to protect the feedlips from impact and debris but is in not needed to be used for long term storage of loaded mags

We have experimented with various translucent materials over the years and when get to a point where we are comfortable with the result we will release it.

As we said in the posts above, translucent magazines due have a clear mission in training as you can see the round tips. For gauging rounds remaining, the MagLevel gauge in the PMag allows for accurate verification of load level even when when the last 10 rounds are obscured by the magazine well.