Working with engineers for the last decade has taught me that testing is half setting up the test to get valid results and the other half is interpreting those results correctly. While we still consider our published videos as "unscientific" (we do not use our testing fixtures or show sample size or multiple controls), they have the minimum requirements to make the subject worthwhile.

What our minimums were in making our videos shown below...

1. The test should be repeatable and consistent. (in this case we use 6000fps high speed video to confirm impact points are consistent)
2. The test should have a control or baseline (in this case the new from the wrapper USGI contract brown follower magazines)
3. The test should document physical damage and visual changes after test.
4. The test should confirm if any damage (visual or not) causes the item to not function as intended (in our case every test is ended with full auto fire with a factory HK 416 and failures are confirmed on high speed video)

I do not know about other companies but Magpul Industries does not pay any online blogger or personality to do pseudo testing. We like to do our own media.

PMag M3 Testing (HK416 Full Auto with High Speed Video)

On the lancer, the left side indicates it is an odd-numbered round.

I agree with the assessment that he was overloading the magazine and that was likely why it failed.  He failed the 10 percent test.

While I prefer Gen 3 PMAGS over all other mags, and are my current baseline magazine, in my experience, there is not a damn thing wrong with the Lancers and would take them into harms way in a hot minute.

This is true, our top round is on the left on even numbers. Opposite a GI mag.

We were a little disappointed that our mags were not in the comparison.