Posted: 2/23/2015 10:43:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History Quoted:
Look guys, I don't think anyone questions that Magpul makes a reliable AR mag., and we certainly aren't trying to get into a pissing contest on the forum. However, I do feel it necessarily to reply to the comment about impact strength vs tensile strength. I feel this is one of those times that we have to agree to disagree. You guys think your way of making a mag is the best, and obviously we feel our way is better.
With regards to tensile strength, I assume you are really talking about rigidity or the elastic modulus. We have found that as long as the material is rigid enough to keep its form and present the rounds in the correct geometry to the weapon you will end up with a perfectly reliable magazine. The material being extra rigid above and beyond what is needed to maintain proper feeding geometry is unnecessary and provides no additional benefits with regards to function. The example I will use is a steel mag vs an aluminum GI mag. The steel mag is going to be more rigid for sure, but since the aluminum is plenty rigid enough to maintain its geometry, you won't see an improvement in performance, as it relates to feeding, in a steel vs aluminum.
Our mag is not as rigid as a pmag, but it is plenty rigid enough to hold its shape and feeding geometry. Plus, and this part is really important, when our material encounters an impact (or other force) that deforms its shape momentarily, it has plenty of elasticity to absorb said force and them promptly return right back to its original proper geometry. That way when you drop your mag accidentally it won't break, crack, or have any other damage. With our mag it as if the drop never even happened. And while we know that the primary function of an AR magazine is to reliably feed the weapon, not to be a hammer, we also feel that accidentally dropping your mag from 4-6 feet shouldn't mean that it develops a crack and needs to be replaced.
I feel like I have explained why we make our mags the way we do. I have much respect for the Pmag as well as other mags like the Lancer. We are not in any way saying the pmag is a bad mag, because we all know, it has proven itself. We just feel we have improved the AR magazine to be more durable, see through, have an integrated coupler, along with several other small features. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our mag is not a pmag. It will not break...
nobody said it WAS a Pmag. get back when your prices are better.
He specifically quoted me making a comment about how our mags will easily outlast a GI mag. He then posted pics of several broken pmags. I was pointing out that there is no reason to even compare our mags to a pmag when it comes to toughness because they are not even in the same league.
As for our prices, as I have pointed out many times before, we are right inline with a pmag. Our non coupled mag has an MSRP of $17.99, a gen 3 windowed pmag is $17.95 MSRP. That is right where they should be. No need to adjust our price.
Please read our in depth explanation magazine design in this thread. It explains why we build a magazine with the primary mission to function reliability (as opposed to basing it's effectiveness as a hammer)
In our reliability testing we found there is a critical balance between impact strength and tensile strength.
In the case of the PMag we have a proven blend of impact vs tensile strength to gain the maximum reliability with substantial resistance to damage. Watch the PMag M3 test videos and see how much damage a M3 PMag can sustain without issue. Even if damaged visually the a PMag M3 is specifically designed to run effectively for thousands of rounds until it can be replaced.
Look guys, I don't think anyone questions that Magpul makes a reliable AR mag., and we certainly aren't trying to get into a pissing contest on the forum. However, I do feel it necessarily to reply to the comment about impact strength vs tensile strength. I feel this is one of those times that we have to agree to disagree. You guys think your way of making a mag is the best, and obviously we feel our way is better.
With regards to tensile strength, I assume you are really talking about rigidity or the elastic modulus. We have found that as long as the material is rigid enough to keep its form and present the rounds in the correct geometry to the weapon you will end up with a perfectly reliable magazine. The material being extra rigid above and beyond what is needed to maintain proper feeding geometry is unnecessary and provides no additional benefits with regards to function. The example I will use is a steel mag vs an aluminum GI mag. The steel mag is going to be more rigid for sure, but since the aluminum is plenty rigid enough to maintain its geometry, you won't see an improvement in performance, as it relates to feeding, in a steel vs aluminum.
Our mag is not as rigid as a pmag, but it is plenty rigid enough to hold its shape and feeding geometry. Plus, and this part is really important, when our material encounters an impact (or other force) that deforms its shape momentarily, it has plenty of elasticity to absorb said force and them promptly return right back to its original proper geometry. That way when you drop your mag accidentally it won't break, crack, or have any other damage. With our mag it as if the drop never even happened. And while we know that the primary function of an AR magazine is to reliably feed the weapon, not to be a hammer, we also feel that accidentally dropping your mag from 4-6 feet shouldn't mean that it develops a crack and needs to be replaced.
I feel like I have explained why we make our mags the way we do. I have much respect for the Pmag as well as other mags like the Lancer. We are not in any way saying the pmag is a bad mag, because we all know, it has proven itself. We just feel we have improved the AR magazine to be more durable, see through, have an integrated coupler, along with several other small features.
Interesting, though have you conducted any tests in extreme environments? IE both for impact and function in extreme cold, heat, sand, water, mud, etc?
|