I suspect the would love to get them back with that much use.  That is valuable data.

A quick run through your photos.

The crack on the back of your magazine is where the PMag is engineered to break under impact loads. Some earlier MRev colored magazines could break at the feed lips causing a malfunction so we design impact loads to be forced down the back spine. Both the current M2 (MOE) and M3 PMags use updated material that survives impacts several times more than the magazine pictured so this issue is far less common. That said even in this condition the magazine as pictured would still hold rounds and still would function normally as opposed to a USGI magazine subjected to the same impact forces.

PMag M3 vs USGI (HK 416 Full Auto Test with high Speed Video)

On the second photo you show the inside a PMag LR (308-7.62x51) that has small indentations from certain 308 rounds sliding forward and impacting the front surface of the magazine. In military testing of the PMag LR this issue was noted and it was found that the impacts did not affect function of the M110 (SR25) in the 1000s of rounds tested . As a single PMag LR magazine had a service life in excess of the weapon systems barrel, it was deemed a non issue.

The third photo shows the problem is being in a growing business for over 15 years. The products shown (the M93 stock and early MIAD grip) are from almost a decade ago. At the time we were using an of the shelf polymer used in ski bindings. This material had a very high tensile strength but fell short in impact testing. We stopped using this back in 2005-2006 and moved to a new propriety compound which became the basis of the polymer that was used on the original PMag. This new polymer was the basis for the current material used in the M3 so in short we have long surpassed several times the material used in the original M93.

M3s and Black M2s (Made with M3 material) no longer have the failure point in that area. It is directed down the center spine almost always now.

Hello Guys,
I saw you all talking about our warranty so I thought I would pop in. The reason we offer a lifetime warranty on our AR mags is because we know (through lots of testing) that our mags are the toughest AR mags on the market. We know that even with extremely hard use they are going to easily hold up over the long haul. This warranty is not a sales tactic, it is us having supreme confidence in a product that we have now spent over 2 years designing, developing, and testing.

As we have said many times before, we hope in the long run to be able to change the way you all view AR mags. When they are as tough as ours, there is no reason to have to think of them as disposable. I don't want to highjack this thread, I just wanted you guys to know where we are coming from with regards to our warranty.

And for what it's worth, in the last year of selling AR mags we have not had to replace a single mag because of breaking, cracking, or any other kind of damage.

Kurt, as usual, your posts seem full insight. You definitely seem to know what you are talking about. For any company, when you look at your warranty you have to try to calculate what the cost might be to replace x per 1000 units. We knew that even if we had to replace more mags than we anticipated from our testing it would still be plenty cost effective and within a very reasonable cost.

Fortunately ,thus far, the replacement number has been much smaller than we have even anticipated(as said in my last post, zero so far from any sort of damage). And we have several units out there with active duty guys and PMCs. So they are in some tough environments and I would say from we have seen, that the training environments for these guys is rougher than what most of the mags will see out in the "field".