User Panel
Quoted:
Someone already said it, but mags are disposable and need to be thought of this way. Where I come from, you drop a loaded mag like that, visible damage or not, it either gets chucked on cautious principle or it goes deep in gear as a "For emergency use only". Totally untrustworthy regardless of type or maker... View Quote I'm happy that you have so much disposable income that you can chuck mags. Most of us don't. The point of destructive testing is to see what exactly they can withstand before needing to be chucked. |
|
Quoted:
I'm happy that you have so much disposable income that you can chuck mags. Most of us don't. The point of destructive testing is to see what exactly they can withstand before needing to be chucked. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone already said it, but mags are disposable and need to be thought of this way. Where I come from, you drop a loaded mag like that, visible damage or not, it either gets chucked on cautious principle or it goes deep in gear as a "For emergency use only". Totally untrustworthy regardless of type or maker... I'm happy that you have so much disposable income that you can chuck mags. Most of us don't. The point of destructive testing is to see what exactly they can withstand before needing to be chucked. I think we're taking about two entirely different situations here... |
|
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable.
|
|
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. View Quote Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? |
|
Quoted:
Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? If the op wanted to test the limits of his mags he would run 1000s of rounds through each to see how long they hold up. Like you said Magpul already has the drop test posted. If I drop a mag which I have done several times, I assume it is damaged or inspect it closely, if it seats I continue using it. I personally have never dropped the same loaded mag multiple times but I guess it would be possible for a clutzy type person to do so. So what is your conclusion of Pmags using the OPs results and testing method? I mostly use GI mags because they are cheap and reliable but one drop on the feed lips and they are spare parts |
|
Quoted:
Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? I agree except for magazines. Regardless of what testing has been done by the manufacturer, dropping a loaded magazine in this manner creates an unreliable magazine on principle, period. Even if you took it to the range and tested it for function, it may fail on the next cycle. Such testing only proves what just occurred, not what will likely occur next. As I said before, if you drop a loaded mag like this operationally, that mag is separated from the others if not disposed of entirely because it cannot be tested and it cannot be relied upon to work when you need it. Aside from range or practice use, why would one ever continue to rely a magazine that has been dropped like this? Just replace it. |
|
Quoted:
If the op wanted to test the limits of his mags he would run 1000s of rounds through each to see how long they hold up. Like you said Magpul already has the drop test posted. If I drop a mag which I have done several times, I assume it is damaged or inspect it closely, if it seats I continue using it. I personally have never dropped the same loaded mag multiple times but I guess it would be possible for a clutzy type person to do so. So what is your conclusion of Pmags using the OPs results and testing method? I mostly use GI mags because they are cheap and reliable but one drop on the feed lips and they are spare parts View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? If the op wanted to test the limits of his mags he would run 1000s of rounds through each to see how long they hold up. Like you said Magpul already has the drop test posted. If I drop a mag which I have done several times, I assume it is damaged or inspect it closely, if it seats I continue using it. I personally have never dropped the same loaded mag multiple times but I guess it would be possible for a clutzy type person to do so. So what is your conclusion of Pmags using the OPs results and testing method? I mostly use GI mags because they are cheap and reliable but one drop on the feed lips and they are spare parts I really don't want to give my opinion on Pmags because it would be seen as severely biased at best since we are a competitor. I think the moral of this entire thread is that you need to test your gear yourself and develop your own opinions. The reason the OP was so mad was because his test results were not even close to what Magpul's test video showed. Then when he posted his results he was told that his test was hardly scientific and not valid. That would make anyone angry. Do your own testing, form your own opinion, and learn as much about your equipment as you can. In the end, it will all be valuable. |
|
Quoted:
I agree except for magazines. Regardless of what testing has been done by the manufacturer, dropping a loaded magazine in this manner creates an unreliable magazine on principle, period. Even if you took it to the range and tested it for function, it may fail on the next cycle. Such testing only proves what just occurred, not what will likely occur next. As I said before, if you drop a loaded mag like this operationally, that mag is separated from the others if not disposed of entirely because it cannot be tested and it cannot be relied upon to work when you need it. Aside from range or practice use, why would one ever continue to rely a magazine that has been dropped like this? Just replace it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? I agree except for magazines. Regardless of what testing has been done by the manufacturer, dropping a loaded magazine in this manner creates an unreliable magazine on principle, period. Even if you took it to the range and tested it for function, it may fail on the next cycle. Such testing only proves what just occurred, not what will likely occur next. As I said before, if you drop a loaded mag like this operationally, that mag is separated from the others if not disposed of entirely because it cannot be tested and it cannot be relied upon to work when you need it. Aside from range or practice use, why would one ever continue to rely a magazine that has been dropped like this? Just replace it. This has been the case in the past. Based on AR mags for the last several decades I completely agree. That is why when we set out to make our AR mag we wanted to overcome this weakness. I assure you, without any doubt, that if you drop our mag it will not need to be replaced or relegated to range duty. We drop tested our mags from 20ft fully loaded on the feedlips on concrete for a reason. Not just to say "Hey look, we can survive a 20ft drop...." because that in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. The point of that testing is so that we know with certainty that a drop from 6ft will not break our mag, It won't even damage our mag. It won't develop a crack later from that drop. After a 6ft drop our mag is still absolutely 100% good to go. And you don't have to take our word for it. Feel free to test it for yourself. |
|
Quoted:
This has been the case in the past. Based on AR mags for the last several decades I completely agree. That is why when we set out to make our AR mag we wanted to overcome this weakness. I assure you, without any doubt, that if you drop our mag it will not need to be replaced or relegated to range duty. We drop tested our mags from 20ft fully loaded on the feedlips on concrete for a reason. Not just to say "Hey look, we can survive a 20ft drop...." because that in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. The point of that testing is so that we know with certainty that a drop from 6ft will not break our mag, It won't even damage our mag. It won't develop a crack later from that drop. After a 6ft drop our mag is still absolutely 100% good to go. And you don't have to take our word for it. Feel free to test it for yourself. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? I agree except for magazines. Regardless of what testing has been done by the manufacturer, dropping a loaded magazine in this manner creates an unreliable magazine on principle, period. Even if you took it to the range and tested it for function, it may fail on the next cycle. Such testing only proves what just occurred, not what will likely occur next. As I said before, if you drop a loaded mag like this operationally, that mag is separated from the others if not disposed of entirely because it cannot be tested and it cannot be relied upon to work when you need it. Aside from range or practice use, why would one ever continue to rely a magazine that has been dropped like this? Just replace it. This has been the case in the past. Based on AR mags for the last several decades I completely agree. That is why when we set out to make our AR mag we wanted to overcome this weakness. I assure you, without any doubt, that if you drop our mag it will not need to be replaced or relegated to range duty. We drop tested our mags from 20ft fully loaded on the feedlips on concrete for a reason. Not just to say "Hey look, we can survive a 20ft drop...." because that in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. The point of that testing is so that we know with certainty that a drop from 6ft will not break our mag, It won't even damage our mag. It won't develop a crack later from that drop. After a 6ft drop our mag is still absolutely 100% good to go. And you don't have to take our word for it. Feel free to test it for yourself. Again, if you have not read the PMag design concepts it basically says functionally reliability under all conditions is the priority of the PMag. Even now with the introduction of M855A1 it is publicly acknowledged (by those running it) that the only magazine that can reliability run M855A1 without accelerated damage to the rifle, is the PMag M3. We can make the material softer (lose tensile strength) and gain impact strength which is what many other designs do.We choose not reduce tensile strength because as I stated before- It is our view that reliability comes from specific geometry that is consistently maintained by high "tensile" strength material. This concept has been combat proven in 8 years of the GWOT and while the PMag will constantly increase in impact strength (through advancement in polymers) the tensile strength will remain the same for reliability. |
|
Quoted:
Again, if you have not read the PMag design concepts it basically says functionally reliability under all conditions is the priority of the PMag. Even now with the introduction of M855A1 it is publicly acknowledged (by those running it) that the only magazine that can reliability run M855A1 without accelerated damage to the rifle, is the PMag M3. We can make the material softer (lose tensile strength) and gain impact strength which is what manny other designs do.We choose not reduce tensile strength because as I stated before- It is our view that reliability comes from specific geometry that is consistently maintained by high "tensile" strength material. This concept has been combat proven in 8 years of the GWOT and while the PMag will constantly increase in impact strength through advancement in polymers the tensile strength will remain the same for reliability. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Worthless information and you have destroyed good mags in the process. Pmags are solid mags that work and yes mags are disposable. Hmm. Learning the limits of your equipment is extremely valuable information. Why do you think every manufacturer (Magpul included) test their gear so hard? Why do you think the guys who rely on this kind of stuff test the limits of their gear? Because you want to know where the limits are before you are in a gunfight, not find out during a gunfight. So please explain again how testing your equipment and finding the limits is worthless?? PS. If doing drop testing on mags is worthless, how come Magpul has several videos posted showing their testing of a 6ft drop? I agree except for magazines. Regardless of what testing has been done by the manufacturer, dropping a loaded magazine in this manner creates an unreliable magazine on principle, period. Even if you took it to the range and tested it for function, it may fail on the next cycle. Such testing only proves what just occurred, not what will likely occur next. As I said before, if you drop a loaded mag like this operationally, that mag is separated from the others if not disposed of entirely because it cannot be tested and it cannot be relied upon to work when you need it. Aside from range or practice use, why would one ever continue to rely a magazine that has been dropped like this? Just replace it. This has been the case in the past. Based on AR mags for the last several decades I completely agree. That is why when we set out to make our AR mag we wanted to overcome this weakness. I assure you, without any doubt, that if you drop our mag it will not need to be replaced or relegated to range duty. We drop tested our mags from 20ft fully loaded on the feedlips on concrete for a reason. Not just to say "Hey look, we can survive a 20ft drop...." because that in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. The point of that testing is so that we know with certainty that a drop from 6ft will not break our mag, It won't even damage our mag. It won't develop a crack later from that drop. After a 6ft drop our mag is still absolutely 100% good to go. And you don't have to take our word for it. Feel free to test it for yourself. Again, if you have not read the PMag design concepts it basically says functionally reliability under all conditions is the priority of the PMag. Even now with the introduction of M855A1 it is publicly acknowledged (by those running it) that the only magazine that can reliability run M855A1 without accelerated damage to the rifle, is the PMag M3. We can make the material softer (lose tensile strength) and gain impact strength which is what manny other designs do.We choose not reduce tensile strength because as I stated before- It is our view that reliability comes from specific geometry that is consistently maintained by high "tensile" strength material. This concept has been combat proven in 8 years of the GWOT and while the PMag will constantly increase in impact strength through advancement in polymers the tensile strength will remain the same for reliability. While I understand that you may occasionally need to defend the image of your company, it's becoming pointless to keep doing so in this thread. Haters gonna hate and competitors are gonna circle like vultures. You can post all the testing data you want, but when somebody makes up their mind about something, even if it's an incorrect conclusion, you generally aren't going to sway their fanatical hatred. lol |
|
Quoted:
You can post all the testing data you want, but when somebody makes up their mind about something, even if it's an incorrect conclusion, you generally aren't going to sway their fanatical hatred. lol View Quote I have been doing this for over a decade and enjoy engaging in discussions such as this. A lot of time I post for those scanning over a thread for information and might not get to a particular answer I posted pages back. It is part of our Magpul Foundations regarding "Education is the best form of marketing" Not too sure if all the posting I do makes me Sadistic or Masochistic but these threads do hone ones argumentative skills. |
|
Quoted:
I have been doing this for over a decade and enjoy engaging in discussions such as this. A lot of time I post for those scanning over a thread for information and might not get to a particular answer I posted pages back. It is part of our Magpul Foundations regarding "Education is the best form of marketing" Not too sure if all the posting I do makes me Sadistic or Masochistic but these threads do hone ones argumentative skills. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
You can post all the testing data you want, but when somebody makes up their mind about something, even if it's an incorrect conclusion, you generally aren't going to sway their fanatical hatred. lol I have been doing this for over a decade and enjoy engaging in discussions such as this. A lot of time I post for those scanning over a thread for information and might not get to a particular answer I posted pages back. It is part of our Magpul Foundations regarding "Education is the best form of marketing" Not too sure if all the posting I do makes me Sadistic or Masochistic but these threads do hone ones argumentative skills. My only issue has been that I am frustrated with the tests you guys show. I drop a PMAG 2 times from less than 6 feet, frozen in my freezer, and it's done for. Yet your marketing shows me that it shouldn't be so even when frozen to what, -60*F? When one sees such a massive disconnect between the lab and personal experience, it creates discontent. So...why are my mags breaking? Did I misunderstand, and are they only alleged to be good for 1 drop, or am I magical in my ability to create spontaneous un-planned structural integrity changes? |
|
Quoted:
My only issue has been that I am frustrated with the tests you guys show. I drop a PMAG 2 times from less than 6 feet, frozen in my freezer, and it's done for. Yet your marketing shows me that it shouldn't be so even when frozen to what, -60*F? When one sees such a massive disconnect between the lab and personal experience, it creates discontent. So...why are my mags breaking? Did I misunderstand, and are they only alleged to be good for 1 drop, or am I magical in my ability to create spontaneous un-planned structural integrity changes? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can post all the testing data you want, but when somebody makes up their mind about something, even if it's an incorrect conclusion, you generally aren't going to sway their fanatical hatred. lol I have been doing this for over a decade and enjoy engaging in discussions such as this. A lot of time I post for those scanning over a thread for information and might not get to a particular answer I posted pages back. It is part of our Magpul Foundations regarding "Education is the best form of marketing" Not too sure if all the posting I do makes me Sadistic or Masochistic but these threads do hone ones argumentative skills. My only issue has been that I am frustrated with the tests you guys show. I drop a PMAG 2 times from less than 6 feet, frozen in my freezer, and it's done for. Yet your marketing shows me that it shouldn't be so even when frozen to what, -60*F? When one sees such a massive disconnect between the lab and personal experience, it creates discontent. So...why are my mags breaking? Did I misunderstand, and are they only alleged to be good for 1 drop, or am I magical in my ability to create spontaneous un-planned structural integrity changes? It generally takes multiple drops to crack an M3 PMag. All testing shown use new USGI and M3 PMags for consistency of results between dropped magazines. Both you and DelTonGuy impacted the M3 magazine multiple times to form a stress crack so your results are not different than what is posted in the test videos. As I said before we can make the PMag stronger in impact resistance but that generally requires a loss of tensile strength (making the magazine body softer) and a subsequent drop in reliability. Seeing that the M3 PMag is several fold stronger in impact resistance than the original MRev PMag that had stellar service in the most intense combat the US military has seen in 4 decades (and completely out classed the issue USGI in all impact tests), in our view the trade off in proven reliability is not worth reducing the tensile strength. That said impact resistance will continue to increase as polymer technology advances. The Sand PMag M3 for example is already measurably stronger in impact testing with no loss of tensile strength. |
|
Quoted:
It generally takes multiple drops to crack an M3 PMag. All testing shown use new USGI and M3 PMags for consistency of results between dropped magazines. Both you and DelTonGuy impacted the M3 magazine multiple times to form a stress crack so your results are not different than what is posted in the test videos. As I said before we can make the PMag stronger in impact resistance but that generally requires a loss of tensile strength (making the magazine body softer) and a subsequent drop in reliability. Seeing that the M3 PMag is several fold stronger in impact resistance than the original MRev PMag that had stellar service in the most intense combat the US military has seen in 4 decades (and completely out classed the issue USGI in all impact tests), in our view the trade off in proven reliability is not worth reducing the tensile strength. That said impact resistance will continue to increase as polymer technology advances. The Sand PMag M3 for example is already measurably stronger in impact testing with no loss of tensile strength. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can post all the testing data you want, but when somebody makes up their mind about something, even if it's an incorrect conclusion, you generally aren't going to sway their fanatical hatred. lol I have been doing this for over a decade and enjoy engaging in discussions such as this. A lot of time I post for those scanning over a thread for information and might not get to a particular answer I posted pages back. It is part of our Magpul Foundations regarding "Education is the best form of marketing" Not too sure if all the posting I do makes me Sadistic or Masochistic but these threads do hone ones argumentative skills. My only issue has been that I am frustrated with the tests you guys show. I drop a PMAG 2 times from less than 6 feet, frozen in my freezer, and it's done for. Yet your marketing shows me that it shouldn't be so even when frozen to what, -60*F? When one sees such a massive disconnect between the lab and personal experience, it creates discontent. So...why are my mags breaking? Did I misunderstand, and are they only alleged to be good for 1 drop, or am I magical in my ability to create spontaneous un-planned structural integrity changes? It generally takes multiple drops to crack an M3 PMag. All testing shown use new USGI and M3 PMags for consistency of results between dropped magazines. Both you and DelTonGuy impacted the M3 magazine multiple times to form a stress crack so your results are not different than what is posted in the test videos. As I said before we can make the PMag stronger in impact resistance but that generally requires a loss of tensile strength (making the magazine body softer) and a subsequent drop in reliability. Seeing that the M3 PMag is several fold stronger in impact resistance than the original MRev PMag that had stellar service in the most intense combat the US military has seen in 4 decades (and completely out classed the issue USGI in all impact tests), in our view the trade off in proven reliability is not worth reducing the tensile strength. That said impact resistance will continue to increase as polymer technology advances. The Sand PMag M3 for example is already measurably stronger in impact testing with no loss of tensile strength. Okay...so my m3 pmag is not "rated" to take more than 1 tumble as described, but as a trade off for this, I am getting allegedly (so as not to ruffle feathers...) better reliability in actual use due to more consistent feed lip alignment etc. To make my pmag take multiple tumbles...I would be giving up (allegedly) feeding performance. Do I understand? |
|
Pmag is Pmagic
I have Gen I, Gen 2, and Gen 3. 10 round, 20 round, 30 round, and 40 round. 223/556 and 7.62/308 I use them in Bushmaster, RRA, DPMS, and PSA. Thousands of rounds fired. Paid as little as $8.99 each and no more than $19.99 each. Never had an issue. |
|
Quoted:
Okay...so my m3 pmag is not "rated" to take more than 1 tumble as described, but as a trade off for this, I am getting allegedly (so as not to ruffle feathers...) better reliability in actual use due to more consistent feed lip alignment etc. To make my pmag take multiple tumbles...I would be giving up (allegedly) feeding performance. Do I understand? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It generally takes multiple drops to crack an M3 PMag. All testing shown use new USGI and M3 PMags for consistency of results between dropped magazines. Both you and DelTonGuy impacted the M3 magazine multiple times to form a stress crack so your results are not different than what is posted in the test videos. As I said before we can make the PMag stronger in impact resistance but that generally requires a loss of tensile strength (making the magazine body softer) and a subsequent drop in reliability. Seeing that the M3 PMag is several fold stronger in impact resistance than the original MRev PMag that had stellar service in the most intense combat the US military has seen in 4 decades (and completely out classed the issue USGI in all impact tests), in our view the trade off in proven reliability is not worth reducing the tensile strength. That said impact resistance will continue to increase as polymer technology advances. The Sand PMag M3 for example is already measurably stronger in impact testing with no loss of tensile strength. Okay...so my m3 pmag is not "rated" to take more than 1 tumble as described, but as a trade off for this, I am getting allegedly (so as not to ruffle feathers...) better reliability in actual use due to more consistent feed lip alignment etc. To make my pmag take multiple tumbles...I would be giving up (allegedly) feeding performance. Do I understand? Multiple 5' or 6' drops generally are not an issue, but depending on what exactly impacts first, you may indeed see some cracking with a perfect impact or after several drops. As mentioned many times before, we have a very specific design philosophy on this, and what you get with a GEN 3 PMAG is a magazine which passes all TOP 3-2-045 rough handling criteria from -60 to +180 and FEEDS after the drops as reliably as before, even if damage occurs, plus works in dust, hot, cold, wet, with M855A1, Mk318, Mk262 and all other DODICs. Reliability and especially reliability after rough handling is the key to a magazine that works when you need it to. With the millions of PMAGs in military combat service around the globe, even of the GEN M2 previous generation, this has proven itself. Bottom line for a magazine is it is a feeding device, not a bludgeoning device. We've got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of rounds in the GEN M3 testing and development program, and so do others. Feeding reliability over the long haul, in less than optimal conditions, and after rough handling, is the key. Run what you want, different options may be a better fit from what you want from a magazine, but keeping the gun running is our goal. We've posted this before, but this is why a PMAG does what it does: Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249 Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices. The “Job” of a Magazine In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles. The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability. Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring. It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in. Materials Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction. If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures. Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions. If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling. So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features. The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums. After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material. A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here. So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables. The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages. So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum. The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested. Construction After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can. An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function. All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit. Feed Lip Stability Over Time There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues. As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover. Testing These Criteria Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed. We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations. We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops. Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments. All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping. All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available. Service Life and Deadline Criteria As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops. Cost This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with existing USGI aluminum magazines. Features and Improvements The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed. The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability. The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod. The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance. The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure. The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently shipped in Black and Sand for better IR significance performance without paint. The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion. |
|
|
When Magpul created the truck video, it made me believe that these mags could take a beating. But that was not a typical real world scenario of how a magazine can get damaged. Of course these mags are reliable when they are not damaged. But it saddens me that the feed lips is a weak link. Will they still be functional and reliable? Yes, but that is with the help of the mag well holding the broken mag in place. Sometimes cracked feed lips can no longer hold full capacity or near it. Mags are disposable but don't lead me into false advertising that these mags can take a lot of abuse.
|
|
Quoted:
Multiple 5' or 6' drops generally are not an issue, but depending on what exactly impacts first, you may indeed see some cracking with a perfect impact or after several drops. As mentioned many times before, we have a very specific design philosophy on this, and what you get with a GEN 3 PMAG is a magazine which passes all TOP 3-2-045 rough handling criteria from -60 to +180 and FEEDS after the drops as reliably as before, even if damage occurs, plus works in dust, hot, cold, wet, with M855A1, Mk318, Mk262 and all other DODICs. Reliability and especially reliability after rough handling is the key to a magazine that works when you need it to. With the millions of PMAGs in military combat service around the globe, even of the GEN M2 previous generation, this has proven itself. Bottom line for a magazine is it is a feeding device, not a bludgeoning device. We've got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of rounds in the GEN M3 testing and development program, and so do others. Feeding reliability over the long haul, in less than optimal conditions, and after rough handling, is the key. Run what you want, different options may be a better fit from what you want from a magazine, but keeping the gun running is our goal. We've posted this before, but this is why a PMAG does what it does: Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249 Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices. The “Job” of a Magazine In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles. The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability. Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring. It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in. Materials Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction. If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures. Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions. If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling. So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features. The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums. After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material. A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here. So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables. The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages. So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum. The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested. Construction After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can. An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function. All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit. Feed Lip Stability Over Time There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues. As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover. Testing These Criteria Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed. We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations. We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops. Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments. All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping. All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available. Service Life and Deadline Criteria As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops. Cost This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with existing USGI aluminum magazines. Features and Improvements The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed. The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability. The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod. The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance. The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure. The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently shipped in Black and Sand for better IR significance performance without paint. The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It generally takes multiple drops to crack an M3 PMag. All testing shown use new USGI and M3 PMags for consistency of results between dropped magazines. Both you and DelTonGuy impacted the M3 magazine multiple times to form a stress crack so your results are not different than what is posted in the test videos. As I said before we can make the PMag stronger in impact resistance but that generally requires a loss of tensile strength (making the magazine body softer) and a subsequent drop in reliability. Seeing that the M3 PMag is several fold stronger in impact resistance than the original MRev PMag that had stellar service in the most intense combat the US military has seen in 4 decades (and completely out classed the issue USGI in all impact tests), in our view the trade off in proven reliability is not worth reducing the tensile strength. That said impact resistance will continue to increase as polymer technology advances. The Sand PMag M3 for example is already measurably stronger in impact testing with no loss of tensile strength. Okay...so my m3 pmag is not "rated" to take more than 1 tumble as described, but as a trade off for this, I am getting allegedly (so as not to ruffle feathers...) better reliability in actual use due to more consistent feed lip alignment etc. To make my pmag take multiple tumbles...I would be giving up (allegedly) feeding performance. Do I understand? Multiple 5' or 6' drops generally are not an issue, but depending on what exactly impacts first, you may indeed see some cracking with a perfect impact or after several drops. As mentioned many times before, we have a very specific design philosophy on this, and what you get with a GEN 3 PMAG is a magazine which passes all TOP 3-2-045 rough handling criteria from -60 to +180 and FEEDS after the drops as reliably as before, even if damage occurs, plus works in dust, hot, cold, wet, with M855A1, Mk318, Mk262 and all other DODICs. Reliability and especially reliability after rough handling is the key to a magazine that works when you need it to. With the millions of PMAGs in military combat service around the globe, even of the GEN M2 previous generation, this has proven itself. Bottom line for a magazine is it is a feeding device, not a bludgeoning device. We've got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of rounds in the GEN M3 testing and development program, and so do others. Feeding reliability over the long haul, in less than optimal conditions, and after rough handling, is the key. Run what you want, different options may be a better fit from what you want from a magazine, but keeping the gun running is our goal. We've posted this before, but this is why a PMAG does what it does: Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249 Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices. The “Job” of a Magazine In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles. The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability. Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring. It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in. Materials Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction. If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures. Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions. If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling. So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features. The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums. After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material. A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here. So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables. The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages. So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum. The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested. Construction After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can. An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function. All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit. Feed Lip Stability Over Time There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues. As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover. Testing These Criteria Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed. We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations. We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops. Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments. All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping. All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available. Service Life and Deadline Criteria As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops. Cost This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with existing USGI aluminum magazines. Features and Improvements The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed. The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability. The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod. The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance. The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure. The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently shipped in Black and Sand for better IR significance performance without paint. The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly. The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion. Thanks! I guess I just got frustrated because I only tested 2 PMAG Gen 3's and one on the 2nd or 3rd drop blew rounds all over and wouldn't hold hardly any, and the second was unable to stay loaded after drop 2 probably, but I dropped it a 3rd time, so I don't know. I have found that you get 1 freebie, and the 2nd drop will destroy the mags ability to hold 30 rounds. Will it feed with what's left or what will stay in it? I honestly have not tested that. Now, I did just buy 2 new PMAG Gen 3 non-window black mags from Cabela's tonight. I love the PMAGs and they have worked great for me, I am just rather non-plussed at being unable to duplicate your testing and results with regards to the drop test. Maybe the fact that my concrete is not polished or I have a cheap freezer and not a super expensive testing cell is killing them or something, I don't know, but I don't get more than 1 drop before at least an inch-long crack appears and rounds begin popping out on their own when fully loaded. |
|
Quoted:
Now, I did just buy 2 new PMAG Gen 3 non-window black mags from Cabela's tonight. I love the PMAGs and they have worked great for me, I am just rather non-plussed at being unable to duplicate your testing and results with regards to the drop test. Maybe the fact that my concrete is not polished or I have a cheap freezer and not a super expensive testing cell is killing them or something, I don't know, but I don't get more than 1 drop before at least an inch-long crack appears and rounds begin popping out on their own when fully loaded. View Quote Message me your info and I will switch your mags out with new ones and examine your old ones. M3s are generally very tough and are returns for damage is extremely low. I will also send you a sand mag which uses a newer polymer blend and is even stronger than the current black M3 to try out. |
|
Quoted:
Message me your info and I will switch your mags out with new ones and examine your old ones. M3s are generally very tough and are returns for damage is extremely low. I will also send you a sand mag which uses a newer polymer blend and is even stronger than the current black M3 to try out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Now, I did just buy 2 new PMAG Gen 3 non-window black mags from Cabela's tonight. I love the PMAGs and they have worked great for me, I am just rather non-plussed at being unable to duplicate your testing and results with regards to the drop test. Maybe the fact that my concrete is not polished or I have a cheap freezer and not a super expensive testing cell is killing them or something, I don't know, but I don't get more than 1 drop before at least an inch-long crack appears and rounds begin popping out on their own when fully loaded. Message me your info and I will switch your mags out with new ones and examine your old ones. M3s are generally very tough and are returns for damage is extremely low. I will also send you a sand mag which uses a newer polymer blend and is even stronger than the current black M3 to try out. PM sent, but I certainly am not trying to say that this is normal "use". It was intentional abuse with an expected result. That said...the PMAG I broke was one of the first Gen 3's, as I understand it. Like I told you, I picked one up tonight from Cabela's (2, actually). The code on the PMAG I broke dates it as 4 / 2013. I am going to re-test tonight, with video, the NEW PMAG, and see if it fails similarly. Again, this is a learning and educational process for me, no compensation is necessary, but I will happily mail you the bodies. My only concern/question is...why is your lab so different from my porch? PMAG's work great for me, and so on and so forth. I'm NOT taking a swipe at 'em, just genuinely perplexed as to the discrepancy. Anyway, stand by for video. Mag is in the freezer cooling off. |
|
Quoted:
When Magpul created the truck video, it made me believe that these mags could take a beating. But that was not a typical real world scenario of how a magazine can get damaged. Of course these mags are reliable when they are not damaged. But it saddens me that the feed lips is a weak link. Will they still be functional and reliable? Yes, but that is with the help of the mag well holding the broken mag in place. Sometimes cracked feed lips can no longer hold full capacity or near it. Mags are disposable but don't lead me into false advertising that these mags can take a lot of abuse. View Quote It is good to look back at the original truck video (that is eight years old and only in 280p -the max resolution of youtube in 2007) The PMag was not the first polymer magazine (Orlites and Thermolds had been around for awhile) but it was the first AR15 polymer magazine to truly be combat viable and out preform all other magazines including the USGI and HK steel mags. Before this video (which was filmed impromptu in the Magpul car park during a design meeting) no one took AR15 polymer magazines seriously.Within a year all that had changed. If we had known it this was going to be such a historic event we probably would have taken it a bit more seriously and not named it with the alternate title -"..how I stopped worrying and learned to love a polymer magazine". The original PMag did had design issues and was replaced a year later by the MRev PMag that by then had competition from Lancer, Troy and a few others. Despite the competition the MRev PMag gained popularity with deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan becoming the most fielded polymer M16 polymer magazine in US combat history, outnumbering all others, combined. The majority of MRevs saw multiple year long deployments far outlasting USGI magazines under the same conditions. From the MRev we developed a stronger EMag version used in the British SA80 and US units using the HK416. In the case of the UK troops the EMag was exclusively used for all UK combat troops from 2011 onwards and had a documented replacement rate (due to damage) far lower than the issued steel magazines it replaced. The EMag also went on to be the primary magazine used on the most high profile US mission in the entire global war on terror. The EMag lead into a three year polymer development program for the M3 PMag that substantially increased both impact strength and reliability in extreme conditions. Since then we have continued with the polymer development releasing the Sand M3 PMag this year that is the strongest PMag yet. So that is our pedigree. We build magazines that are the proven leader in reliability and robustness in actual combat operations. We build them a certain way, with a certain mindset. If this does not fit in with your mission then use something else. |
|
Quoted:
PM sent, but I certainly am not trying to say that this is normal "use". It was intentional abuse with an expected result. That said...the PMAG I broke was one of the first Gen 3's, as I understand it. Like I told you, I picked one up tonight from Cabela's (2, actually). The code on the PMAG I broke dates it as 4 / 2013. I am going to re-test tonight, with video, the NEW PMAG, and see if it fails similarly. Again, this is a learning and educational process for me, no compensation is necessary, but I will happily mail you the bodies. My only concern/question is...why is your lab so different from my porch? PMAG's work great for me, and so on and so forth. I'm NOT taking a swipe at 'em, just genuinely perplexed as to the discrepancy. Anyway, stand by for video. Mag is in the freezer cooling off. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now, I did just buy 2 new PMAG Gen 3 non-window black mags from Cabela's tonight. I love the PMAGs and they have worked great for me, I am just rather non-plussed at being unable to duplicate your testing and results with regards to the drop test. Maybe the fact that my concrete is not polished or I have a cheap freezer and not a super expensive testing cell is killing them or something, I don't know, but I don't get more than 1 drop before at least an inch-long crack appears and rounds begin popping out on their own when fully loaded. Message me your info and I will switch your mags out with new ones and examine your old ones. M3s are generally very tough and are returns for damage is extremely low. I will also send you a sand mag which uses a newer polymer blend and is even stronger than the current black M3 to try out. PM sent, but I certainly am not trying to say that this is normal "use". It was intentional abuse with an expected result. That said...the PMAG I broke was one of the first Gen 3's, as I understand it. Like I told you, I picked one up tonight from Cabela's (2, actually). The code on the PMAG I broke dates it as 4 / 2013. I am going to re-test tonight, with video, the NEW PMAG, and see if it fails similarly. Again, this is a learning and educational process for me, no compensation is necessary, but I will happily mail you the bodies. My only concern/question is...why is your lab so different from my porch? PMAG's work great for me, and so on and so forth. I'm NOT taking a swipe at 'em, just genuinely perplexed as to the discrepancy. Anyway, stand by for video. Mag is in the freezer cooling off. For our our actual testing we use drop and impact fixtures. The videos are designed to mimic these tests and they are consistent in the results. We use a Thermotron to drop the temperature to -60 and hold it there for a few hours before dropping the magazine while at the frozen temp. A jig is used to release the magazine at the correct height and angle to contact the feed lips at 90 degrees. High speed video at 6000 fps is used to confirm impact. It will usually take more than one violent impact to form any visual damage. Even then the PMag will still function (semi and full auto) and drop free without issue. We had had PMags fielded in places like Alaska for many years and one of the first PMags ever made was used to shoot a bear in Alaska (we have the fur at the HQ building) |
|
Alright, I only loaded 29 rounds. I was so focused on making sure the mag stayed in the vid 100% of the time so noone accused me of any monkey business that I didn't notice that the round stack was on the left when "fully loaded". So I guess maybe this makes my test invalid, but, without further ado...
Also of note: A tape-measure was used to confirm 6' drop height. A cheap freezer was used to cool the magazine down. My MK1 thumb and index finger formed the hang/release fixture. An un-even painted/poured concrete slab formed the impact zone. I loaded 29 rounds instead of the full 30 by accident. I'm all sorts of sloppy and un-lab-like, and I apologize. PMAG Gen 3 Home Drop Test |
|
Quoted:
Alright, I only loaded 29 rounds. I was so focused on making sure the mag stayed in the vid 100% of the time so noone accused me of any monkey business that I didn't notice that the round stack was on the left when "fully loaded". So I guess maybe this makes my test invalid, but, without further ado... Also of note: A tape-measure was used to confirm 6' drop height. A cheap freezer was used to cool the magazine down. My MK1 thumb and index finger formed the hang/release fixture. An un-even painted/poured concrete slab formed the impact zone. I loaded 29 rounds instead of the full 30 by accident. I'm all sorts of sloppy and un-lab-like, and I apologize. *VIDEO LOADING* View Quote The height used in our video is 5 feet not 6 feet. In terms of deceleration this is a big increase and will change results as well as the lack of a full 30 rounds (there is a bounce effect). For example at -60, 4 feet drop even the USGI control was fully functional over 50% of the time. At -60, 6 feet we had visual damage on M3s over 50% of the time. However all M3s passed the live fire test in this condition without issue and I am sure the M3 you dropped will also run without issue. I did not like the particular fracture shown on the back of the mag and would like to get them back so engineering can take a look at them. All that said we stand by the principles which the PMag is designed and if wish to return your PMags we will be happy to take them back so you can get something else that better fits your requirements. |
|
Quoted:
The height used in our video is 5 feet not 6 feet. In terms of deceleration this is a big increase and will change results as well as the lack of a full 30 rounds (there is a bounce effect). For example at -60, 4 feet drop even the USGI control was fully functional over 50% of the time. At -60, 6 feet we had visual damage on M3s over 50% of the time. However all M3s passed the live fire test in this condition without issue and I am sure the M3 you dropped will also run without issue. All that said we stand by the principles which the PMag is designed and if wish to return your PMags we will be happy to take them back so you can get something else that better fits your requirements. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Alright, I only loaded 29 rounds. I was so focused on making sure the mag stayed in the vid 100% of the time so noone accused me of any monkey business that I didn't notice that the round stack was on the left when "fully loaded". So I guess maybe this makes my test invalid, but, without further ado... Also of note: A tape-measure was used to confirm 6' drop height. A cheap freezer was used to cool the magazine down. My MK1 thumb and index finger formed the hang/release fixture. An un-even painted/poured concrete slab formed the impact zone. I loaded 29 rounds instead of the full 30 by accident. I'm all sorts of sloppy and un-lab-like, and I apologize. *VIDEO LOADING* The height used in our video is 5 feet not 6 feet. In terms of deceleration this is a big increase and will change results as well as the lack of a full 30 rounds (there is a bounce effect). For example at -60, 4 feet drop even the USGI control was fully functional over 50% of the time. At -60, 6 feet we had visual damage on M3s over 50% of the time. However all M3s passed the live fire test in this condition without issue and I am sure the M3 you dropped will also run without issue. All that said we stand by the principles which the PMag is designed and if wish to return your PMags we will be happy to take them back so you can get something else that better fits your requirements. Derp! My fault, and yes, I understand the difference in a 5 and 6 foot drop, physics wise. Seems that's where I've been going wrong. I was seriously frustrated with all of your "undamaged" drops, when I went and tested it out for myself and kaboom! I estimate the first mag I dropped was from about 5.5 feet, and yes, it fared MUCH better than this legit 6' drop. I will try and see how this PMAG feeds maybe tomorrow. I'm curious. |
|
Quoted:
Derp! My fault, and yes, I understand the difference in a 5 and 6 foot drop, physics wise. Seems that's where I've been going wrong. I was seriously frustrated with all of your "undamaged" drops, when I went and tested it out for myself and kaboom! I estimate the first mag I dropped was from about 5.5 feet, and yes, it fared MUCH better than this legit 6' drop. I will try and see how this PMAG feeds maybe tomorrow. I'm curious. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alright, I only loaded 29 rounds. I was so focused on making sure the mag stayed in the vid 100% of the time so noone accused me of any monkey business that I didn't notice that the round stack was on the left when "fully loaded". So I guess maybe this makes my test invalid, but, without further ado... Also of note: A tape-measure was used to confirm 6' drop height. A cheap freezer was used to cool the magazine down. My MK1 thumb and index finger formed the hang/release fixture. An un-even painted/poured concrete slab formed the impact zone. I loaded 29 rounds instead of the full 30 by accident. I'm all sorts of sloppy and un-lab-like, and I apologize. *VIDEO LOADING* The height used in our video is 5 feet not 6 feet. In terms of deceleration this is a big increase and will change results as well as the lack of a full 30 rounds (there is a bounce effect). For example at -60, 4 feet drop even the USGI control was fully functional over 50% of the time. At -60, 6 feet we had visual damage on M3s over 50% of the time. However all M3s passed the live fire test in this condition without issue and I am sure the M3 you dropped will also run without issue. All that said we stand by the principles which the PMag is designed and if wish to return your PMags we will be happy to take them back so you can get something else that better fits your requirements. Derp! My fault, and yes, I understand the difference in a 5 and 6 foot drop, physics wise. Seems that's where I've been going wrong. I was seriously frustrated with all of your "undamaged" drops, when I went and tested it out for myself and kaboom! I estimate the first mag I dropped was from about 5.5 feet, and yes, it fared MUCH better than this legit 6' drop. I will try and see how this PMAG feeds maybe tomorrow. I'm curious. That is OK, I will be happy to work with you on validating our video results. I was there during most of the shooting of the videos posted and made sure everything we did we could be duplicated as I would be the one posting them. |
|
Quoted:
That is OK, I will be happy to work with you on validating our video results. I was there during most of the shooting of the videos posted and made sure everything we did we could be duplicated as I would be the one posting them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alright, I only loaded 29 rounds. I was so focused on making sure the mag stayed in the vid 100% of the time so noone accused me of any monkey business that I didn't notice that the round stack was on the left when "fully loaded". So I guess maybe this makes my test invalid, but, without further ado... Also of note: A tape-measure was used to confirm 6' drop height. A cheap freezer was used to cool the magazine down. My MK1 thumb and index finger formed the hang/release fixture. An un-even painted/poured concrete slab formed the impact zone. I loaded 29 rounds instead of the full 30 by accident. I'm all sorts of sloppy and un-lab-like, and I apologize. *VIDEO LOADING* The height used in our video is 5 feet not 6 feet. In terms of deceleration this is a big increase and will change results as well as the lack of a full 30 rounds (there is a bounce effect). For example at -60, 4 feet drop even the USGI control was fully functional over 50% of the time. At -60, 6 feet we had visual damage on M3s over 50% of the time. However all M3s passed the live fire test in this condition without issue and I am sure the M3 you dropped will also run without issue. All that said we stand by the principles which the PMag is designed and if wish to return your PMags we will be happy to take them back so you can get something else that better fits your requirements. Derp! My fault, and yes, I understand the difference in a 5 and 6 foot drop, physics wise. Seems that's where I've been going wrong. I was seriously frustrated with all of your "undamaged" drops, when I went and tested it out for myself and kaboom! I estimate the first mag I dropped was from about 5.5 feet, and yes, it fared MUCH better than this legit 6' drop. I will try and see how this PMAG feeds maybe tomorrow. I'm curious. That is OK, I will be happy to work with you on validating our video results. I was there during most of the shooting of the videos posted and made sure everything we did we could be duplicated as I would be the one posting them. I had always thought 6' was drop height. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Like I said, my PMAG's work great, it was the perceived advertising/experience discrepancy that gnawed at me. Thanks for clearing it up! |
|
Just my 2 Cents (for what it is worth)...Instead of repeatedly going over how certain mags can survive a 6ft drop with no damage and others cant, can we try this. a regular day at the range drop the mag three foot, it still works GREAT! I left the mag on my tail gait and it fell and was run over and it still works GREAT! Now 90% of everyone has there problem fixed. (just because a mag has damage does not mean it works or not, some mags look okay and don't work and vice versa) used that mag, no one is ever going to keep chucking there mags or dropping them from 6ft. If you do fall into that 10% who goes through rough use with your mags then spend the extra money and buy the indestructible mags. Problem solved
|
|
Quoted:
I had always thought 6' was drop height. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Like I said, my PMAG's work great, it was the perceived advertising/experience discrepancy that gnawed at me. Thanks for clearing it up! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alright, I only loaded 29 rounds. I was so focused on making sure the mag stayed in the vid 100% of the time so noone accused me of any monkey business that I didn't notice that the round stack was on the left when "fully loaded". So I guess maybe this makes my test invalid, but, without further ado... Also of note: A tape-measure was used to confirm 6' drop height. A cheap freezer was used to cool the magazine down. My MK1 thumb and index finger formed the hang/release fixture. An un-even painted/poured concrete slab formed the impact zone. I loaded 29 rounds instead of the full 30 by accident. I'm all sorts of sloppy and un-lab-like, and I apologize. *VIDEO LOADING* The height used in our video is 5 feet not 6 feet. In terms of deceleration this is a big increase and will change results as well as the lack of a full 30 rounds (there is a bounce effect). For example at -60, 4 feet drop even the USGI control was fully functional over 50% of the time. At -60, 6 feet we had visual damage on M3s over 50% of the time. However all M3s passed the live fire test in this condition without issue and I am sure the M3 you dropped will also run without issue. All that said we stand by the principles which the PMag is designed and if wish to return your PMags we will be happy to take them back so you can get something else that better fits your requirements. Derp! My fault, and yes, I understand the difference in a 5 and 6 foot drop, physics wise. Seems that's where I've been going wrong. I was seriously frustrated with all of your "undamaged" drops, when I went and tested it out for myself and kaboom! I estimate the first mag I dropped was from about 5.5 feet, and yes, it fared MUCH better than this legit 6' drop. I will try and see how this PMAG feeds maybe tomorrow. I'm curious. That is OK, I will be happy to work with you on validating our video results. I was there during most of the shooting of the videos posted and made sure everything we did we could be duplicated as I would be the one posting them. I had always thought 6' was drop height. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Like I said, my PMAG's work great, it was the perceived advertising/experience discrepancy that gnawed at me. Thanks for clearing it up! Hey 12_gauge, don't feel bad for mixing up the drop height. I applaud your efforts to learn about this stuff and test this for yourself. The cold drop is the only one that was from 5 feet. I'm sure that is where the mix up came from. All of the other pmag drop test videos (like the room temperature) are from 6 feet. |
|
Quoted:
Hey 12_gauge, don't feel bad for mixing up the drop height. I applaud your efforts to learn about this stuff and test this for yourself. The cold drop is the only one that was from 5 feet. I'm sure that is where the mix up came from. All of the other pmag drop test videos (like the room temperature) are from 6 feet. View Quote Some parts the PMAG testing is based on the 4.10 Rough Handling of the Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045 Small Arms Standard, as there is no magazine specific standard is applicable to Polymer magazines (or actually includes a live fire test). The (TOP) 3-2-045 includes a 1.5-meter (5 ft) drop onto a concrete surface at room temp. We started adding similar tests at -40 and 140 based on JXN-10-3877-L which was the SCAR light magazine solicitation requirement. |
|
Quoted:
Some parts the PMAG testing is based on the 4.10 Rough Handling Test of the Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045 Small Arms Standard as no magazine specific standard is applicable to Polymer magazines (or actually includes a live fire test). The (TOP) 3-2-045 includes a 1.5-meter (5 ft) drop onto a concrete surface at room temp. We started adding similar tests at -40 and 140 based on JXN-10-3877-L which was the SCAR light magazine solicitation requirement. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey 12_gauge, don't feel bad for mixing up the drop height. I applaud your efforts to learn about this stuff and test this for yourself. The cold drop is the only one that was from 5 feet. I'm sure that is where the mix up came from. All of the other pmag drop test videos (like the room temperature) are from 6 feet. Some parts the PMAG testing is based on the 4.10 Rough Handling Test of the Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045 Small Arms Standard as no magazine specific standard is applicable to Polymer magazines (or actually includes a live fire test). The (TOP) 3-2-045 includes a 1.5-meter (5 ft) drop onto a concrete surface at room temp. We started adding similar tests at -40 and 140 based on JXN-10-3877-L which was the SCAR light magazine solicitation requirement. Gotchya. What prompted the 6ft drop height in your videos? |
|
There is a complaint that the mag was dropped 1 foot higher, but I doubt that his freezer brought the mag down to - 60 degrees either. What temperature was the freezer set to? A higher temperature would be more forgiving and help equal out the higher drop height.
Do you have any brownell's USGI issue mags with the tan followers that you can duplicate that same test with? |
|
Quoted:
Gotchya. What prompted the 6ft drop height in your videos? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey 12_gauge, don't feel bad for mixing up the drop height. I applaud your efforts to learn about this stuff and test this for yourself. The cold drop is the only one that was from 5 feet. I'm sure that is where the mix up came from. All of the other pmag drop test videos (like the room temperature) are from 6 feet. Some parts the PMAG testing is based on the 4.10 Rough Handling Test of the Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045 Small Arms Standard as no magazine specific standard is applicable to Polymer magazines (or actually includes a live fire test). The (TOP) 3-2-045 includes a 1.5-meter (5 ft) drop onto a concrete surface at room temp. We started adding similar tests at -40 and 140 based on JXN-10-3877-L which was the SCAR light magazine solicitation requirement. Gotchya. What prompted the 6ft drop height in your videos? As stated before the video tests are mostly simplified versions of tests we do with impact fixtures. The impact fixture tests are done at various heights and impact surfaces. In the videos, if possible, we aimed at a spot that the USGI and PMag had some clearly identifiable differences in results (i.e. a spot where one fails before the other as a point of distinction). As we had a pretty good idea where this split was it made it relatively easy to set up for video. In the case of room temp drop at 6 feet, the USGIs feed lip deformation was clearer to see as the issue causing the malfunction so it was used over a 5 foot drop that yielded the same results but with damage that was harder to see. Again these videos were shot with knowledge gained over years of testing with a meaningful sample size. Not every magazine (Metal or Polymer) reacts exactly the same so while we had a good hunch on the results we only had time for one shot in the video.. Even then the USGI managed get a few surprise live fire "passes" in the 180 Degree Hot Soak and the Crush Test after we held the magazine together to insert it into the magazine well. The blowing dust test based upon TOP 3-2-045 has a malfunction rate that could not be captured accurately with a single example so we used the minimum amount of samples to maintain continuity with the rest of the videos. |
|
I just had to chuckle as I read this thread. At the time, I was using a hammer handle to open up a steel AK-47 mag that been squished a bit in a former life. If only these critters were as sturdy and trouble free as they appeared. I'm sure they would pass the feed lip test, but they can't have been fun to carry.
Thanks to everyone intent on building a better mousetrap. There will always be room for improvement, but the newer polymers I've tried have done the job just fine. Competition improves the breed. Maybe we should convince AIM, J&G, CDNN or Midway to offer a promotional mag sampler containing the latest versions of the Pmag, Lancer, ETS, Brownell's and Tango down or Troy so we can do our own testing. I'd be surprised to find a loser in the bunch. |
|
Quoted:
As stated before the video tests are mostly simplified versions of tests we do with impact fixtures. The impact fixture tests are done at various heights and impact surfaces. In the videos, if possible, we aimed at a spot that the USGI and PMag had some clearly identifiable differences in results (i.e. a spot where one fails before the other as a point of distinction). As we had a pretty good idea where this split was it made it relatively easy to set up for video. In the case of room temp drop at 6 feet, the USGIs feed lip deformation was clearer to see as the issue causing the malfunction so it was used over a 5 foot drop that yielded the same results but with damage that was harder to see. Again these videos were shot with knowledge gained over years of testing with a meaningful sample size. Not every magazine (Metal or Polymer) reacts exactly the same so while we had a good hunch on the results we only had time for one shot in the video.. Even then the USGI managed get a few surprise live fire "passes" in the 180 Degree Hot Soak and the Crush Test after we held the magazine together to insert it into the magazine well. The blowing dust test based upon TOP 3-2-045 has a malfunction rate that could not be captured accurately with a single example so we used the minimum amount of samples to maintain continuity with the rest of the videos. https://youtu.be/b89wwn9gGwc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey 12_gauge, don't feel bad for mixing up the drop height. I applaud your efforts to learn about this stuff and test this for yourself. The cold drop is the only one that was from 5 feet. I'm sure that is where the mix up came from. All of the other pmag drop test videos (like the room temperature) are from 6 feet. Some parts the PMAG testing is based on the 4.10 Rough Handling Test of the Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045 Small Arms Standard as no magazine specific standard is applicable to Polymer magazines (or actually includes a live fire test). The (TOP) 3-2-045 includes a 1.5-meter (5 ft) drop onto a concrete surface at room temp. We started adding similar tests at -40 and 140 based on JXN-10-3877-L which was the SCAR light magazine solicitation requirement. Gotchya. What prompted the 6ft drop height in your videos? As stated before the video tests are mostly simplified versions of tests we do with impact fixtures. The impact fixture tests are done at various heights and impact surfaces. In the videos, if possible, we aimed at a spot that the USGI and PMag had some clearly identifiable differences in results (i.e. a spot where one fails before the other as a point of distinction). As we had a pretty good idea where this split was it made it relatively easy to set up for video. In the case of room temp drop at 6 feet, the USGIs feed lip deformation was clearer to see as the issue causing the malfunction so it was used over a 5 foot drop that yielded the same results but with damage that was harder to see. Again these videos were shot with knowledge gained over years of testing with a meaningful sample size. Not every magazine (Metal or Polymer) reacts exactly the same so while we had a good hunch on the results we only had time for one shot in the video.. Even then the USGI managed get a few surprise live fire "passes" in the 180 Degree Hot Soak and the Crush Test after we held the magazine together to insert it into the magazine well. The blowing dust test based upon TOP 3-2-045 has a malfunction rate that could not be captured accurately with a single example so we used the minimum amount of samples to maintain continuity with the rest of the videos. https://youtu.be/b89wwn9gGwc?list=PLLLtq9scclwKVYVSGUsrOsprdHo_TKJt7 I'm just gonna chime in and say I'm glad to see two Industry partners talking and sharing ideas cordially. I wish the same could be said for some members here. |
|
Is there a "G3 Pmag vs Lancer L5AWM vs ETS mag" comparo yet? I'd bet a donut that it's coming
ETA: FWIW, I use all three (4 if you include G2 Pmags) and love them all. I'm enamored with Lancers steel feed lips, ETS's smooth follower function and smooth plastics, and Pmags look/grip/cost. I guess these are GREAT times when one can chose between multiple excellent mags! At any rate... looking forward to a "best of the best" video/comparo/test! |
|
Quoted:
Is there a "G3 Pmag vs Lancer L5AWM vs ETS mag" comparo yet? I'd bet a donut that it's coming ETA: FWIW, I use all three (4 if you include G2 Pmags) and love them all. I'm enamored with Lancers steel feed lips, ETS's smooth follower function and smooth plastics, and Pmags look/grip/cost. I guess these are GREAT times when one can chose between multiple excellent mags! At any rate... looking forward to a "best of the best" video/comparo/test! View Quote There are various tests that have been done. The latest one is here, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLG8devH8mcitaSUuK1yxSrkvTnfUPnmcU In general it seems, at least in terms of feedlip impact resistance, the order is Lancer L5AWM > ETS > Gen 3 Pmag. Obviously, dropping a mag straight down on it's feedlips will only tell you how durable a mag is to being dropped on its feedlips. What if you dropped a mag on its base plate, or side, etc? How about general reliability in terms of feeding and function in all conditions, muddy, sandy, etc? As far as dropping a mag right on the feedlips, the Lancer AWM is hands down the winner. Though I don't think the polymer formula for the rest of that mag is as strong as magpul's or EWS. It's just the metal component that is stronger. There was another test done on the board around a year or so ago by a member in the service that had a few enlisted men testing all of the major mags. Can read about that test HERE! The general consensus was that Magpul G2 was the "best" (scored higher than the G3) followed by the Lancer AWM and Brownell's tan follower USGI. |
|
Thankfully I don't drop any of my magazines from more than 6 feet EXACTLY on the feed lips on a regular basis, if ever, nor as mil/current LEO can I figure a situation where I would.
It took a while for me to finally bang up a USGI mag to the point where it wouldn't work (and they were well used bought during the ban with god only knows how many rounds through them, and only used on a range), before I had the two aforementioned jobs where I was routinely carrying mags around. Knowing that all of the PMAGS I've owned (including my GEN1's that are still my training mags and have been going strong since they first came out) can handle everything I've thrown at them, I can rest easy. I'm anxious to try some ETS magazines, sounds like they are making a great product. They'll be a good addition to the PMAGs and Lancers in my stash, all of which have been 100% amazing products. On a side note. Really fucking funny how many range commandos are getting worked up over one scenario/test that they'll never encounter in real life, even if they do manage to get themselves in a shootout with a paper target. How many complaints have you heard about PMAGS from people who are actually using them in combat? Maybe that should be the test people are concerned with, and as of this moment that test has been going on for a really really really long time and has had pretty damn good results. As with other magazine brands that are out there, I am sure ETS magazines, once again, are a great addition to an already awesome magazine market. We are lucky to have options, and companies that continue to develop their products, willing to defend their IP, and drive innovation. The result is a ton of great options. |
|
|
In these kind of tests, how would a Gen M3 Sand Pmag fare compared to the black?
|
|
Hey Rich, speaking of sand, it appears I cannot find OD dye anywhere on the internet.
Is there a source for the stuff out there that doesn't come in a 55 gallon drum? |
|
|
|
Quoted:
YES. I came to page 6 expecting a huge derp-fest and was pleasantly surprised. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just gonna chime in and say I'm glad to see two Industry partners talking and sharing ideas cordially. I wish the same could be said for some members here. YES. I came to page 6 expecting a huge derp-fest and was pleasantly surprised. Totally unlike how threads in the magazine sub forum end up I hope we see more of this |
|
Quoted:
I'm happy that you have so much disposable income that you can chuck mags. Most of us don't. The point of destructive testing is to see what exactly they can withstand before needing to be chucked. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone already said it, but mags are disposable and need to be thought of this way. Where I come from, you drop a loaded mag like that, visible damage or not, it either gets chucked on cautious principle or it goes deep in gear as a "For emergency use only". Totally untrustworthy regardless of type or maker... I'm happy that you have so much disposable income that you can chuck mags. Most of us don't. The point of destructive testing is to see what exactly they can withstand before needing to be chucked. How many mags are you destroying that you can't afford to replace them at ten bucks a pop? |
|
Quoted: How many mags are you destroying that you can't afford to replace them at ten bucks a pop? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Someone already said it, but mags are disposable and need to be thought of this way. Where I come from, you drop a loaded mag like that, visible damage or not, it either gets chucked on cautious principle or it goes deep in gear as a "For emergency use only". Totally untrustworthy regardless of type or maker... I'm happy that you have so much disposable income that you can chuck mags. Most of us don't. The point of destructive testing is to see what exactly they can withstand before needing to be chucked. How many mags are you destroying that you can't afford to replace them at ten bucks a pop? It really makes one wonder |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.