User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:09:09 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryI wonder how many times we're going to see this copy-and-paste wall o' text before Magpul's PR division comes up with something new. Until Magpul gets tired of posting it. Don't hold your breath. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:17:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dphill:
I mainly have USGI mags. But I do have a few different polymer/plastic mags. The ETS mags are the best I've tried. If I need more mags those would be the ones I would stock up on... Thanks for the vote of confidence. We appreciate the compliment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:47:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Well this was a fun read. Still want to try some of the ETS mags. Can't say that I have ever had an issue with any of my PMAGs, they have always been gtg.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 10:37:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Magpul]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YERDADDY:
Until Magpul gets tired of posting it. Don't hold your breath.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YERDADDY:
I wonder how many times we're going to see this copy-and-paste wall o' text before Magpul's PR division comes up with something new. Until Magpul gets tired of posting it. Don't hold your breath.
In thirteen years I have only given up on a thread once, but that was in General Discussion so it does not count. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 12:45:47 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YERDADDY: Until Magpul gets tired of posting it. Don't hold your breath. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YERDADDY: I wonder how many times we're going to see this copy-and-paste wall o' text before Magpul's PR division comes up with something new. Until Magpul gets tired of posting it. Don't hold your breath. I'll direct this to both of you and whoever else wants to pile on This isn't GD, unless you have something technical to add please keep this thread on topic or warnings will be sent and accounts will be restricted from the technical forums |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 12:54:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dpmmn]
[#6]
<Comment removed...........dpmmn>
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 1:39:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dpmmn]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YERDADDY: <Comment removed...........dpmmn> Bye Felica. I've never had a problem with any of my Pmags. The price on them are too good for me honestly. They held up for our 6 week training course for Global Strike Command. I have wanted to test a ETS mag though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:17:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dpmmn]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By YERDADDY: <Comment removed...........dpmmn> KBYE. I will always be on the pmag bandwagon. Pmag's are GWOT proven, (as well as G.I.) which along with my own personal observations of the improvements over G.I. mags make pmag's my number 1, and USGI my number 2. There is no better testing than a decade - long war. We got your back Magpul. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 9:18:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LaRue_Tactical]
[#9]
|
|
|
|
AR, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 10:30:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: VA-gunnut]
[#10]
Edited...VA-gunnut
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 11:11:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: VA-gunnut]
[#11]
Edited...VA-gunnut
|
|
|
|
AFG
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 12:35:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
There is no better testing than a decade - long war. Depends how the testing is set up and how you interpret the results. The military did a complete evaluation of all the small arms systems about 5-7 years back. (USGI mags were not felt to be a major problem, opposed to what you hear on hobby forums). If something works it works, the gravity and air density, and temperatures etc. are no different in a combat zone than in the CONUS or can easily be simulated in a lab. If you are aware of SPECIFIC testing of M16 magazines that happened during the wars I think it would be worthy of discussion on this forum, perhaps a whole new thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 12:43:14 PM EDT
[#13]
USGI mags were not felt to be a major problem, opposed to what you hear on hobby forums). The problem with USGI mags is nobody will throw the bad ones out. They can carry defects that are visually hard or impossible to detect. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 1:31:34 PM EDT
[#14]
I don't think there is anything wrong with USGI mags (except for the feed angle which they are changing). They work when they are not damaged or deformed. That said, if you can get a mag that feeds just as well, or better, and doesn't get damaged from hard use then it is a better option. That is not debatable.
Like I have said before, the USGI mag is a good mag, but there are better options. Our mags will not bend or crack at the feedlips. They will not get dented or crushed from a boot stepping on them. The bottom line is our mags will remain in like new working order long after the USGI mag has succumbed to damage from being in the field. Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. And for all of the arguments that this mag, or that mag, has been in combat for 10 years so it must be the best....that is flawed logic. All that proves is that it worked, which is worth something. But to say that because a particular item has worked for the last 10 years so it must be the best and can not be improved upon is silly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 3:36:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
I don't think there is anything wrong with USGI mags (except for the feed angle which they are changing). They work when they are not damaged or deformed. That said, if you can get a mag that feeds just as well, or better, and doesn't get damaged from hard use then it is a better option. That is not debatable. Like I have said before, the USGI mag is a good mag, but there are better options. Our mags will not bend or crack at the feedlips. They will not get dented or crushed from a boot stepping on them. The bottom line is our mags will remain in like new working order long after the USGI mag has succumbed to damage from being in the field. Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. And for all of the arguments that this mag, or that mag, has been in combat for 10 years so it must be the best....that is flawed logic. All that proves is that it worked, which is worth something. But to say that because a particular item has worked for the last 10 years so it must be the best and can not be improved upon is silly. If you could quote where I said it couldn't be improved upon that would be great. Also, I think "this mag was tested through a 10 year war" is a better logic than "this brand new mag that hasn't been tested in combat is the best mag on the planet" sounds like a flawed sales pitch to me. People can pick what they like for whatever reasons they want to, I pick mine off of track record and personal observation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:37:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
I don't think there is anything wrong with USGI mags (except for the feed angle which they are changing). They work when they are not damaged or deformed. That said, if you can get a mag that feeds just as well, or better, and doesn't get damaged from hard use then it is a better option. That is not debatable. Like I have said before, the USGI mag is a good mag, but there are better options. Our mags will not bend or crack at the feedlips. They will not get dented or crushed from a boot stepping on them. The bottom line is our mags will remain in like new working order long after the USGI mag has succumbed to damage from being in the field. Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. And for all of the arguments that this mag, or that mag, has been in combat for 10 years so it must be the best....that is flawed logic. All that proves is that it worked, which is worth something. But to say that because a particular item has worked for the last 10 years so it must be the best and can not be improved upon is silly. If you could quote where I said it couldn't be improved upon that would be great. Also, I think "this mag was tested through a 10 year war" is a better logic than "this brand new mag that hasn't been tested in combat is the best mag on the planet" sounds like a flawed sales pitch to me. People can pick what they like for whatever reasons they want to, I pick mine off of track record and personal observation. My statement wasn't directed at you. I dind't meant for it to come across that way. There have been a few comments in this thread stating that because USGI mags and Pmags were used in GWOT that they are proven and better. I was simply pointing out that a given item having a proven track record simply means it's good and it works. And that is great. It only takes one improvement to make a better product. I wasn't trying to tell anyone that they should listen to a sales pitch and to take my word that our mag is the best ever. I will say this, our mag is more durable than a pmag or USGI mag, that is a fact and not debatable. What I was trying to say was that we have reached a point in mags for the AR where with good geometry, good followers, and strict quality control, all well made mags feed incredibly reliably. So how do you make that better? You make a mag that is more durable so after more use it retains that super reliable feeding. That is all I am trying to say. I leave it up to you guys to try our mags, and others, and decide what you like best. I do think you can not state that a USGI mag or a Pmag is better than our mag if you don't even own one of our mags. I think it's fair to say that in your opinion that until our mag has a proven track record you will stick with USGI or Pmags, and that's cool. All I am asking is that you guys at least judge our mags with an open mind and give them a fair shake. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:56:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Nameless_Hobo]
[#17]
I've got a ton of Brownell's GI mags, Pmags, and a few Lancer mags, and so far the Lancers are my favorite, to be entirely honest. I dig the fact that they're thinner than the Pmag and have steel feedlips. The only one I've really had a problem with was some out of spec Brownell's mags that wouldn't drop free. That being said, I'd grab any of the three without a second thought if I needed to.
I'd like to try the ETS mag without the coupler, last thing I need is another projection or knob on a magazine. Part of the reason I like Lancers and GIs are because they're thinner than the Pmags, which is the only complaint I can muster about Magpul's products. Other than 40 round pmags, I haven't bought new mags in years.( Though, I'd probably buy some Magpul translucent mags, if they hit the market.) Point of my rambling boils down to this: Anything you get from a reputable company is going to work, these days. Don't treat magazines like the crown jewels, and throw them away when they get damaged, and you will be fine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 6:26:10 PM EDT
[#18]
For us behind enemy lines, having a way to couple two 10 rounders by the baseplate would be handy. Come out with something roughly the length of a 30 round, that holds 20 (with a mag change, of course) would be nice. Something that worked with existing mags.
Just throwin' it out there, since some mfg's are lurking here.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 6:39:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
My statement wasn't directed at you. I dind't meant for it to come across that way. There have been a few comments in this thread stating that because USGI mags and Pmags were used in GWOT that they are proven and better. I was simply pointing out that a given item having a proven track record simply means it's good and it works. And that is great. It only takes one improvement to make a better product. I wasn't trying to tell anyone that they should listen to a sales pitch and to take my word that our mag is the best ever. I will say this, our mag is more durable than a pmag or USGI mag, that is a fact and not debatable. What I was trying to say was that we have reached a point in mags for the AR where with good geometry, good followers, and strict quality control, all well made mags feed incredibly reliably. So how do you make that better? You make a mag that is more durable so after more use it retains that super reliable feeding. That is all I am trying to say. I leave it up to you guys to try our mags, and others, and decide what you like best. I do think you can not state that a USGI mag or a Pmag is better than our mag if you don't even own one of our mags. I think it's fair to say that in your opinion that until our mag has a proven track record you will stick with USGI or Pmags, and that's cool. All I am asking is that you guys at least judge our mags with an open mind and give them a fair shake. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
I don't think there is anything wrong with USGI mags (except for the feed angle which they are changing). They work when they are not damaged or deformed. That said, if you can get a mag that feeds just as well, or better, and doesn't get damaged from hard use then it is a better option. That is not debatable. Like I have said before, the USGI mag is a good mag, but there are better options. Our mags will not bend or crack at the feedlips. They will not get dented or crushed from a boot stepping on them. The bottom line is our mags will remain in like new working order long after the USGI mag has succumbed to damage from being in the field. Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. And for all of the arguments that this mag, or that mag, has been in combat for 10 years so it must be the best....that is flawed logic. All that proves is that it worked, which is worth something. But to say that because a particular item has worked for the last 10 years so it must be the best and can not be improved upon is silly. If you could quote where I said it couldn't be improved upon that would be great. Also, I think "this mag was tested through a 10 year war" is a better logic than "this brand new mag that hasn't been tested in combat is the best mag on the planet" sounds like a flawed sales pitch to me. People can pick what they like for whatever reasons they want to, I pick mine off of track record and personal observation. My statement wasn't directed at you. I dind't meant for it to come across that way. There have been a few comments in this thread stating that because USGI mags and Pmags were used in GWOT that they are proven and better. I was simply pointing out that a given item having a proven track record simply means it's good and it works. And that is great. It only takes one improvement to make a better product. I wasn't trying to tell anyone that they should listen to a sales pitch and to take my word that our mag is the best ever. I will say this, our mag is more durable than a pmag or USGI mag, that is a fact and not debatable. What I was trying to say was that we have reached a point in mags for the AR where with good geometry, good followers, and strict quality control, all well made mags feed incredibly reliably. So how do you make that better? You make a mag that is more durable so after more use it retains that super reliable feeding. That is all I am trying to say. I leave it up to you guys to try our mags, and others, and decide what you like best. I do think you can not state that a USGI mag or a Pmag is better than our mag if you don't even own one of our mags. I think it's fair to say that in your opinion that until our mag has a proven track record you will stick with USGI or Pmags, and that's cool. All I am asking is that you guys at least judge our mags with an open mind and give them a fair shake. Fair enough. I respect this answer. 
I figured it had to be directed at me, as I hadn't seen anybody else reference the GWOT. I agree that just because a mag successfully survived the GWOT doesn't mean it's the best mag to ever be created past, present, and future, but I feel that for myself, knowing a certain mag survived that real world use in harsh conditions for that span of time, with that much R&D and feedback from a war setting, is (besides personal observation) the best way for me to gage what I'm going to trust my life to. I have no doubt you make a good mag, as your feedback on social media has been positive, and I won't push that to the side or ignore it. I just feel the ultimate test for a mag is war opposed to temp regulated drop tests and the works. (Which are also great tests to judge a mag don't get me wrong) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 7:22:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Both are great mags. Buy the ones you like. Don't the ones you don't.
Sheesh... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 12:21:17 AM EDT
[#21]
Only 7 of my Pmags have been involved in the GWOT, I think I have 10 Centers that were in Afghan.
I don't use any of those mags. I use my new un-combat proven mags. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:36:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By samuse:
Only 7 of my Pmags have been involved in the GWOT, I think I have 10 Centers that were in Afghan. I don't use any of those mags. I use my new un-combat proven mags. Ok. Does that change anything I said? No. You can run Blackhawk mags for all I care (because I dont, at all.) I use what I know works. Which is probably why I avoid boutique shit like the plague. (Not referencing you ETS, I don't think you guys are boutique) I definitely wouldn't mind trying to put some abuse on some ETS mags at the range if they were a little bit cheaper though, to give them a thorough shot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:42:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: zackmars]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Ok. Does that change anything I said? No. You can run Blackhawk mags for all I care (because I dont, at all.) I use what I know works. Which is probably why I avoid boutique shit like the plague. (Not referencing you ETS, I don't think you guys are boutique) I definitely wouldn't mind trying to put some abuse on some ETS mags at the range if they were a little bit cheaper though, to give them a thorough shot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By samuse:
Only 7 of my Pmags have been involved in the GWOT, I think I have 10 Centers that were in Afghan. I don't use any of those mags. I use my new un-combat proven mags. Ok. Does that change anything I said? No. You can run Blackhawk mags for all I care (because I dont, at all.) I use what I know works. Which is probably why I avoid boutique shit like the plague. (Not referencing you ETS, I don't think you guys are boutique) I definitely wouldn't mind trying to put some abuse on some ETS mags at the range if they were a little bit cheaper though, to give them a thorough shot. 17$ here 14$ for non couple here |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:48:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By samuse:
Only 7 of my Pmags have been involved in the GWOT, I think I have 10 Centers that were in Afghan. I don't use any of those mags. I use my new un-combat proven mags. Ok. Does that change anything I said? No. You can run Blackhawk mags for all I care (because I dont, at all.) I use what I know works. Which is probably why I avoid boutique shit like the plague. (Not referencing you ETS, I don't think you guys are boutique) I definitely wouldn't mind trying to put some abuse on some ETS mags at the range if they were a little bit cheaper though, to give them a thorough shot. 17$ here 14$ for non couple here Thanks Zack 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:51:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Thanks Zack Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By samuse:
Only 7 of my Pmags have been involved in the GWOT, I think I have 10 Centers that were in Afghan. I don't use any of those mags. I use my new un-combat proven mags. Ok. Does that change anything I said? No. You can run Blackhawk mags for all I care (because I dont, at all.) I use what I know works. Which is probably why I avoid boutique shit like the plague. (Not referencing you ETS, I don't think you guys are boutique) I definitely wouldn't mind trying to put some abuse on some ETS mags at the range if they were a little bit cheaper though, to give them a thorough shot. 17$ here 14$ for non couple here Thanks Zack No prob! I love mine, though i haven't really beaten them up |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 2:57:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
No prob! I love mine, though i haven't really beaten them up Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By samuse:
Only 7 of my Pmags have been involved in the GWOT, I think I have 10 Centers that were in Afghan. I don't use any of those mags. I use my new un-combat proven mags. Ok. Does that change anything I said? No. You can run Blackhawk mags for all I care (because I dont, at all.) I use what I know works. Which is probably why I avoid boutique shit like the plague. (Not referencing you ETS, I don't think you guys are boutique) I definitely wouldn't mind trying to put some abuse on some ETS mags at the range if they were a little bit cheaper though, to give them a thorough shot. 17$ here 14$ for non couple here Thanks Zack No prob! I love mine, though i haven't really beaten them up Do it!! 
I know a lot of us would be interested in seeing how it fares. I've seen a few ETS torture tests on YouTube, but sticking a mag in a jeeps cooling fan isn't necessarily the data I'd be looking for. (that's you IV8888)
|
|
|
|
AFG
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:09:45 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. How so?? There is not a single thing I can think of that a magazine can be exposed to in a combat environment that can't be duplicated in a lab under better controlled conditions. Everyone seems to think there is something magical, mysterious and unreal that happens in a combat zone. If you are talking about a perimeter defense system I can see testing it in an actual combat zone, but a box with a spring in it isn't going to be any different from a testing lab than in a real situation. Look at the MRAP, they beat IEDs in the lab, and guess what???? They defeat IEDs in the combat zone. What is so special about GWOT? USGI mags have been working well since Viet Nam,: Gulf 1, Panama, Grenada and probably a few I'm forgetting....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:40:51 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
How so?? There is not a single thing I can think of that a magazine can be exposed to in a combat environment that can't be duplicated in a lab under better controlled conditions. Everyone seems to think there is something magical, mysterious and unreal that happens in a combat zone. If you are talking about a perimeter defense system I can see testing it in an actual combat zone, but a box with a spring in it isn't going to be any different from a testing lab than in a real situation. Look at the MRAP, they beat IEDs in the lab, and guess what???? They defeat IEDs in the combat zone. What is so special about GWOT? USGI mags have been working well since Viet Nam,: Gulf 1, Panama, Grenada and probably a few I'm forgetting....... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. How so?? There is not a single thing I can think of that a magazine can be exposed to in a combat environment that can't be duplicated in a lab under better controlled conditions. Everyone seems to think there is something magical, mysterious and unreal that happens in a combat zone. If you are talking about a perimeter defense system I can see testing it in an actual combat zone, but a box with a spring in it isn't going to be any different from a testing lab than in a real situation. Look at the MRAP, they beat IEDs in the lab, and guess what???? They defeat IEDs in the combat zone. What is so special about GWOT? USGI mags have been working well since Viet Nam,: Gulf 1, Panama, Grenada and probably a few I'm forgetting....... Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. That said, that is why we have done everything we can think of to test our mags and make sure that the things they are likely to encounter won't hurt them. We have done impact testing and you won't break our mag from an impact. We have done crush testing with an 8000lb truck, it was unharmed. We have done thermal testing, they won't get soft from 200F heat, and they won't get brittle from -60F cold. We have exposed them to extended periods of high UV exposure to make sure our plastic won't become brittle, it doesn't. We exposed them to a ton of chemical to make sure they wouldn't be attacked, and none of the transportaional fluids, even jet fuel, or cleaners affected our mags. We also made our mags out of a material that is not hygroscopic so it won't matter if you are in a desert or a tropical jungle, it won't react with moisture. We have done all of these things to make sure that when our mag does see combat, by God it's going to work. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 4:05:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. That said, that is why we have done everything we can think of to test our mags and make sure that the things they are likely to encounter won't hurt them. We have done impact testing and you won't break our mag from an impact. We have done crush testing with an 8000lb truck, it was unharmed. We have done thermal testing, they won't get soft from 200F heat, and they won't get brittle from -60F cold. We have exposed them to extended periods of high UV exposure to make sure our plastic won't become brittle, it doesn't. We exposed them to a ton of chemical to make sure they wouldn't be attacked, and none of the transportaional fluids, even jet fuel, or cleaners affected our mags. We also made our mags out of a material that is not hygroscopic so it won't matter if you are in a desert or a tropical jungle, it won't react with moisture. We have done all of these things to make sure that when our mag does see combat, by God it's going to work. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. How so?? There is not a single thing I can think of that a magazine can be exposed to in a combat environment that can't be duplicated in a lab under better controlled conditions. Everyone seems to think there is something magical, mysterious and unreal that happens in a combat zone. If you are talking about a perimeter defense system I can see testing it in an actual combat zone, but a box with a spring in it isn't going to be any different from a testing lab than in a real situation. Look at the MRAP, they beat IEDs in the lab, and guess what???? They defeat IEDs in the combat zone. What is so special about GWOT? USGI mags have been working well since Viet Nam,: Gulf 1, Panama, Grenada and probably a few I'm forgetting....... Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. That said, that is why we have done everything we can think of to test our mags and make sure that the things they are likely to encounter won't hurt them. We have done impact testing and you won't break our mag from an impact. We have done crush testing with an 8000lb truck, it was unharmed. We have done thermal testing, they won't get soft from 200F heat, and they won't get brittle from -60F cold. We have exposed them to extended periods of high UV exposure to make sure our plastic won't become brittle, it doesn't. We exposed them to a ton of chemical to make sure they wouldn't be attacked, and none of the transportaional fluids, even jet fuel, or cleaners affected our mags. We also made our mags out of a material that is not hygroscopic so it won't matter if you are in a desert or a tropical jungle, it won't react with moisture. We have done all of these things to make sure that when our mag does see combat, by God it's going to work. +1 |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 12:52:35 PM EDT
[#30]
So where could one get an ETS mag to try?
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 12:56:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Never mind, saw the link.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 3:03:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Magpul]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
Shooting a thousand, or even ten thousand rounds in a test lab or at a range will never even come close to duplicating the overall abuse a mag sees in combat. How so?? There is not a single thing I can think of that a magazine can be exposed to in a combat environment that can't be duplicated in a lab under better controlled conditions. Everyone seems to think there is something magical, mysterious and unreal that happens in a combat zone. If you are talking about a perimeter defense system I can see testing it in an actual combat zone, but a box with a spring in it isn't going to be any different from a testing lab than in a real situation. Look at the MRAP, they beat IEDs in the lab, and guess what???? They defeat IEDs in the combat zone. What is so special about GWOT? USGI mags have been working well since Viet Nam,: Gulf 1, Panama, Grenada and probably a few I'm forgetting....... Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. When the PMag was first release in early 2007 we already had over 6 months of testing on the product but still did not approve it for anything other than training until we had a full year of peacetime feedback (all this feedback resulted in a completely new mold). Even then after a year an a half of internal and large scale field testing, as soon as the PMag hit large scale combat operations we were making minor adjustments to the mold, monthly based almost entirely on combat after action reports for another two and a half years. Making the magazine successively stronger was relatively easy, making it increasingly reliable under all conditions took the majority of time. From our experience developing products during both peace time and major combat deployments, I would estimate that one year of combat feedback is worth at least 7 years of peacetime lab testing. Even then you have to look at something like this is a very basic way just to compare the two. In reality, multiple environments and conditions exist that create an event that would never be thought of to be even tested in a lab. Some here get upset when it is pointed out that the PMag is the most combat deployed polymer magazine in US Military history, but in the real world there is no lab replacement for actual long term, large scale, combat deployment when it comes to accurately reviewing magazine performance (or any other piece of military equipment). To reduce this to an Albert Einstein quote- "In theory, reality and theory are the same. In reality, they are not." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 6:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: jekbrown]
[#33]
Indeed. Almost any condition CAN be lab tested... but what you test for is limited by experience and imagination, both of which are finite. You know that saying, "he'd find a way to break ball bearings in a rubber room!"?? Well, combat is the mother of all creativity when it come to things fucking up. There's an unimaginable number of variables at work here, which is likely why magpuls combat results prove so much more valuable than their lab results.
Those variables are also why it's nearly impossible to design a mag that is perfect from day 1 and we tend to see revisions over the years to improve them. People have broke pmags, and people will break ETS mags. I have used the former to good effect and look forward to ordering some of the latter as soon as the glock mags come out. I don't know which mag is superior, but I do know that we should all be glad we have this kind of competition and quality in this industry/hobby. |
|
|
|
AFG
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 9:36:49 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. I think you more or less agree with me. So lets see what a mag does in "combat" 1. Placed or carried in some type of pouch or container loaded with ammo. 2. Removed from said pouch or container and placed in a weapon. 3. be attached to weapon via magwell. Fire and not fire 4. Remove from weapon either loaded, partly loaded, or empty and returned to container or dropped on ground. The above 4 steps are not exactly complicated like say a Saturn V rocket launch sequence........ Even the lowly regarded USGI mags survive decades and function in and out of combat environments.... Someone give me a SPECIFIC example of something about M16 magazines learned from actual combat that couldn't or had not been figured out beforehand.....this will be easy with all the "combat" testing that has been done,. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 10:33:24 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
I think you more or less agree with me. So lets see what a mag does in "combat" 1. Placed or carried in some type of pouch or container loaded with ammo. 2. Removed from said pouch or container and placed in a weapon. 3. be attached to weapon via magwell. Fire and not fire 4. Remove from weapon either loaded, partly loaded, or empty and returned to container or dropped on ground. The above 4 steps are not exactly complicated like say a Saturn V rocket launch sequence........ Even the lowly regarded USGI mags survive decades and function in and out of combat environments.... Someone give me a SPECIFIC example of something about M16 magazines learned from actual combat that couldn't or had not been figured out beforehand.....this will be easy with all the "combat" testing that has been done,. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. I think you more or less agree with me. So lets see what a mag does in "combat" 1. Placed or carried in some type of pouch or container loaded with ammo. 2. Removed from said pouch or container and placed in a weapon. 3. be attached to weapon via magwell. Fire and not fire 4. Remove from weapon either loaded, partly loaded, or empty and returned to container or dropped on ground. The above 4 steps are not exactly complicated like say a Saturn V rocket launch sequence........ Even the lowly regarded USGI mags survive decades and function in and out of combat environments.... Someone give me a SPECIFIC example of something about M16 magazines learned from actual combat that couldn't or had not been figured out beforehand.....this will be easy with all the "combat" testing that has been done,. In a perfect world your 4 steps are all a mag would need to do. But in reality other stuff happens to them. If those 4 steps were all mags ever saw in combat, they would never need to be replaced. I will give you a real word example of feedback we have gotten. Border patrol in a certain area are using some 7" barreled ARs. They use these really short ARs because they spend a lot of time getting in and out of their SUVs. They told us that they have broken several mags banging them on crap as they jump out of the SUV. They have dented/bent several GI mags and cracked a few polymer mags. Thus they were very excited when they started using our mags and after almost a year of beating on them they have yet to break one. I know border patrol is not exactly a combat environment, but it's real world stuff like this that happens to mags during their service life. To think the only thing they do is sit in a pouch, get loaded, shoot, then put back in the pouch is just too simplistic. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 12:54:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Magpul:
I mention C Products Defense as it is their press release you cited as evidence. Those with previous dealings with C-Products can judge the source for themselves. As for the hygroscopic reference in the press release, there are truth’s to the science but they are being twisted and misrepresented to meet the intent of the conclusion. The science behind this relationship of moisture absorption in polymer is defined in Flick's Law. In short The rate of absorption is not that quick and happens over months, not hours, to reach the moisture content which would have a measurable of an effect on the product. 2 weeks to 2 months of 100% nylon under water at elevated temperatures may drive the partial pressure differentials enough to vary the moisture content up to just 2%. The moisture content variables are well within in the noise of operating ranges of a PMag. For example almost all polymer frame guns are much more hygroscopic than a PMag and none have had issues over the last 30 years that forced them to develop a non hygroscopic solution. Again we are happy to go into more detail in a non public forum. Both links you show are with early generation of PMags (2009) and the second with older colored magazine. This is the problem when you develop and constantly improve a product over many years and generations, everyone likes to reference old data as if it was relevant today. Processing and material changes several years ago eliminated these issues and are part of the current M2 (MOE) and M3 production. Our product improvement program is always ongoing and no doubt future PMags will continue improve on performance as polymer technology continues. To answer your last question regarding the USMC. Over 200,000 MRev (NSN) PMags were purchased by USMC units during the height of combat operations and these were exceptionally popular by those in the field. Unfortunately due to the implementation of the IAR (HK416) with it's non standard magazine well (which was elongated on the front for compatibility with a SA80A2 blank firing magazine) the original PMag would not lock into the IARs magazine well causing a safety issue between systems. As such we supported the decision here and are currently in process to have the PMag M3 (which is IAR compatible) authorized. You still did not answer the question if you are affiliated in any way with Picatinny or a government entity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By PicatinnyPete:
Hello, Actually I heard about the incident before and the source was an arms company representative. I read the article you cited and it also gives the source, Officer Frank Gaber of the Chicago PD so the incident can be verified. It is a little surprising séeing you mention CPD Inc on post comparing ETS Group to PMAGS. PMAG has become a generic term for polymer magazines many of which bare more than a passing resemblance to the PMAG. I have seen instances though in the past were older versions of the PMAG did display this behavior. This is one documented for instance. PMAG failure PMAG failure with pictures Magpul has always stood behind their product, I and my family use your magazines and accessories No magazine is perfect though and they all have faults PMAG's included. USGI Aluminum magazines have faults and I use them also. I sèe no problem here an issue has been identified and is being addressed by Magpul. It is a challenging task because of the material Nylon. I think having the information out there is better to help people make informed decisions. I do think it is legitimate to raise the question about the question of if the magazine material is Hydroscopic as it has an effect on the performance of the magazine. I will ask the same question of ETS too since the topic of this thread also concerns them. How hydroscopic is your polymer? Regards: P.S. Did the USMC lift the ban on PMAGS? I mention C Products Defense as it is their press release you cited as evidence. Those with previous dealings with C-Products can judge the source for themselves. As for the hygroscopic reference in the press release, there are truth’s to the science but they are being twisted and misrepresented to meet the intent of the conclusion. The science behind this relationship of moisture absorption in polymer is defined in Flick's Law. In short The rate of absorption is not that quick and happens over months, not hours, to reach the moisture content which would have a measurable of an effect on the product. 2 weeks to 2 months of 100% nylon under water at elevated temperatures may drive the partial pressure differentials enough to vary the moisture content up to just 2%. The moisture content variables are well within in the noise of operating ranges of a PMag. For example almost all polymer frame guns are much more hygroscopic than a PMag and none have had issues over the last 30 years that forced them to develop a non hygroscopic solution. Again we are happy to go into more detail in a non public forum. Both links you show are with early generation of PMags (2009) and the second with older colored magazine. This is the problem when you develop and constantly improve a product over many years and generations, everyone likes to reference old data as if it was relevant today. Processing and material changes several years ago eliminated these issues and are part of the current M2 (MOE) and M3 production. Our product improvement program is always ongoing and no doubt future PMags will continue improve on performance as polymer technology continues. To answer your last question regarding the USMC. Over 200,000 MRev (NSN) PMags were purchased by USMC units during the height of combat operations and these were exceptionally popular by those in the field. Unfortunately due to the implementation of the IAR (HK416) with it's non standard magazine well (which was elongated on the front for compatibility with a SA80A2 blank firing magazine) the original PMag would not lock into the IARs magazine well causing a safety issue between systems. As such we supported the decision here and are currently in process to have the PMag M3 (which is IAR compatible) authorized. You still did not answer the question if you are affiliated in any way with Picatinny or a government entity. Hello, Its a nice sunny day in Wharton NJ, I'm off work, and I'm in a decent mood.  I read the barrage of posts regarding this and other posts while on vacation and thought a reply is in order. Flicks law does apply to nylon, but it was neglected to mention that plastic packaging for generation 3 P-Mags have holes in it that allow the magazine to condition itself and absorb water vapor on the self. Anyone who has looked at the date on the magazine often sees dates a few years old. Plenty of time to absorb water vapor in high humidity areas.
I've also seen fully loaded generation 3 P-Mags exposed to 100% humidity not immersed in water expand enough that they go from freely ejecting to not ejecting, and the timeframe is much less than weeks with loaded Generation 3 P-Magazines in my experience. The flip side is if the humidity is low and the P-Mag is exposed to high temperatures the effect is minimal and it freely ejects. I think this is a concern for more people than just me, consistent behavior in a magazine is a plus. It's going on three years since the US Marines Corp pulled P-Mags. I would have expected if the issues were fixed with the Generation 3 P-Mag approval should have been done/forthcoming. To be fair the ETS magazine may have issues too under the same circumstances which will be tested soon. I realize both ETS and Magpul magazines are extensively tested, but just because a test is passed don't mean it's valid or that its addressing a significant issue/problem. Respectfully: |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 1:47:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
I think you more or less agree with me. So lets see what a mag does in "combat" 1. Placed or carried in some type of pouch or container loaded with ammo. 2. Removed from said pouch or container and placed in a weapon. 3. be attached to weapon via magwell. Fire and not fire 4. Remove from weapon either loaded, partly loaded, or empty and returned to container or dropped on ground. The above 4 steps are not exactly complicated like say a Saturn V rocket launch sequence........ Even the lowly regarded USGI mags survive decades and function in and out of combat environments.... Someone give me a SPECIFIC example of something about M16 magazines learned from actual combat that couldn't or had not been figured out beforehand.....this will be easy with all the "combat" testing that has been done,. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. I think you more or less agree with me. So lets see what a mag does in "combat" 1. Placed or carried in some type of pouch or container loaded with ammo. 2. Removed from said pouch or container and placed in a weapon. 3. be attached to weapon via magwell. Fire and not fire 4. Remove from weapon either loaded, partly loaded, or empty and returned to container or dropped on ground. The above 4 steps are not exactly complicated like say a Saturn V rocket launch sequence........ Even the lowly regarded USGI mags survive decades and function in and out of combat environments.... Someone give me a SPECIFIC example of something about M16 magazines learned from actual combat that couldn't or had not been figured out beforehand.....this will be easy with all the "combat" testing that has been done,. I wonder if all the broken/fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 2:02:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: jekbrown]
[#38]
I'm no mag tester, and earned no CAR when I was an 0311, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with some difficult to lab test stresses on a mag. Simple / dumb one: almost every place you can put your boots on the ground in the world will have a unique particulate composition. It's not only different for every place in the world, it's different at different times. So yeah, you can dump a mag in some sand and then test it in a lab, but is that sand exactly the same as sand in Kandahar? Baghdad? Morocco? Oregon dunes? No, they aren't and each one would have different physical properties and pose unique challenges to mag bodies/springs/followers/floor plates etc. Sometimes the differences won't make a functional difference at all, in other cases it will. Since it's impossible to have infinite varieties of sand/dirt in any lab, you need to put them out in the field to see how they work in the real world in circumstances both imaginable and unimaginable.
Product development history is littered with problematic products that worked great in a lab. It's not a knock on that process, or a reason to get rid of it, it's recognition that lab tests are limited by the human component and that in the field, chaos happens... regularly. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 2:32:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Magpul]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PicatinnyPete:
Hello, Its a nice sunny day in Wharton NJ, I'm off work, and I'm in a decent mood. I read the barrage of posts regarding this and other posts while on vacation and thought a reply is in order. Flicks law does apply to nylon, but it was neglected to mention that plastic packaging for generation 3 P-Mags have holes in it that allow the magazine to condition itself and absorb water vapor on the self. Anyone who has looked at the date on the magazine often sees dates a few years old. Plenty of time to absorb water vapor in high humidity areas.
I've also seen fully loaded generation 3 P-Mags exposed to 100% humidity not immersed in water expand enough that they go from freely ejecting to not ejecting, and the timeframe is much less than weeks with loaded Generation 3 P-Magazines in my experience. The flip side is if the humidity is low and the P-Mag is exposed to high temperatures the effect is minimal and it freely ejects. I think this is a concern for more people than just me, consistent behavior in a magazine is a plus. It's going on three years since the US Marines Corp pulled P-Mags. I would have expected if the issues were fixed with the Generation 3 P-Mag approval should have been done/forthcoming. To be fair the ETS magazine may have issues too under the same circumstances which will be tested soon. I realize both ETS and Magpul magazines are extensively tested, but just because a test is passed don't mean it's valid or that its addressing a significant issue/problem. Respectfully: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PicatinnyPete:
Originally Posted By Magpul:
Originally Posted By PicatinnyPete:
SNIP I mention C Products Defense as it is their press release you cited as evidence. Those with previous dealings with C-Products can judge the source for themselves. As for the hygroscopic reference in the press release, there are truth’s to the science but they are being twisted and misrepresented to meet the intent of the conclusion. The science behind this relationship of moisture absorption in polymer is defined in Flick's Law. In short The rate of absorption is not that quick and happens over months, not hours, to reach the moisture content which would have a measurable of an effect on the product. 2 weeks to 2 months of 100% nylon under water at elevated temperatures may drive the partial pressure differentials enough to vary the moisture content up to just 2%. The moisture content variables are well within in the noise of operating ranges of a PMag. For example almost all polymer frame guns are much more hygroscopic than a PMag and none have had issues over the last 30 years that forced them to develop a non hygroscopic solution. Again we are happy to go into more detail in a non public forum. Both links you show are with early generation of PMags (2009) and the second with older colored magazine. This is the problem when you develop and constantly improve a product over many years and generations, everyone likes to reference old data as if it was relevant today. Processing and material changes several years ago eliminated these issues and are part of the current M2 (MOE) and M3 production. Our product improvement program is always ongoing and no doubt future PMags will continue improve on performance as polymer technology continues. To answer your last question regarding the USMC. Over 200,000 MRev (NSN) PMags were purchased by USMC units during the height of combat operations and these were exceptionally popular by those in the field. Unfortunately due to the implementation of the IAR (HK416) with it's non standard magazine well (which was elongated on the front for compatibility with a SA80A2 blank firing magazine) the original PMag would not lock into the IARs magazine well causing a safety issue between systems. As such we supported the decision here and are currently in process to have the PMag M3 (which is IAR compatible) authorized. You still did not answer the question if you are affiliated in any way with Picatinny or a government entity. Hello, Its a nice sunny day in Wharton NJ, I'm off work, and I'm in a decent mood. I read the barrage of posts regarding this and other posts while on vacation and thought a reply is in order. Flicks law does apply to nylon, but it was neglected to mention that plastic packaging for generation 3 P-Mags have holes in it that allow the magazine to condition itself and absorb water vapor on the self. Anyone who has looked at the date on the magazine often sees dates a few years old. Plenty of time to absorb water vapor in high humidity areas.
I've also seen fully loaded generation 3 P-Mags exposed to 100% humidity not immersed in water expand enough that they go from freely ejecting to not ejecting, and the timeframe is much less than weeks with loaded Generation 3 P-Magazines in my experience. The flip side is if the humidity is low and the P-Mag is exposed to high temperatures the effect is minimal and it freely ejects. I think this is a concern for more people than just me, consistent behavior in a magazine is a plus. It's going on three years since the US Marines Corp pulled P-Mags. I would have expected if the issues were fixed with the Generation 3 P-Mag approval should have been done/forthcoming. To be fair the ETS magazine may have issues too under the same circumstances which will be tested soon. I realize both ETS and Magpul magazines are extensively tested, but just because a test is passed don't mean it's valid or that its addressing a significant issue/problem. Respectfully: Non Sequitur Argument, even under the most extreme element of 100% submersion for two months at elevated temperatures, the amount of dimensional shift in the PMag material due to moisture is so small that it will not inhibit the PMag M3 from dropping free from an issue M16/M4 magazine well. For comparasion there is enough dimensional shift in a USGI at Arizona dashboard temperatures that require the magazine to be physically pulled out of the rifle as shown here add a little dust and the same thing happens. In the same instance the PMag can be at maximum or minimum moisture saturation and still drop free either way. I cannot speak to any other companies test protocols but we have been in a full magazine research and development process since 2007 and have one of the largest, most extensive commercial polymer magazine development programs in the world. As such we know a lot not only about our magazines but all the other magazines and potential material technology as well. As stated before, if you are part of US Government Small Arms development, we would be happy to have our engineers go through our test protocols in detail with you but this information is not something for a public forum. IM me if you want this contact information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 4:27:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: backbencher]
[#40]
N/m. : )
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 4:36:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher:
What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556: I wonder if all the fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"
Since you put put afghan as your location I assume you're mil, what's your MOS? What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 4:47:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556: I wonder if all the fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"
Since you put put afghan as your location I assume you're mil, what's your MOS? What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people Word. I have to think even Kurt knows better deep down. You can't say what's going to happen to a mag. What about the mag in a weapon getting slammed on shit/exposed to God knows what? Not every mag is going from a pouch to the weapon to the dump pouch with the utmost care. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 4:52:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#43]
Not a double tap, but we can pretend it is since the issue is now resolved.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 10:04:12 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556: I wonder if all the fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"
Since you put put afghan as your location I assume you're mil, what's your MOS? What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 12:15:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? Kurt I totally believe you that a vast majority of the time is boring with nothing really going on. But we have to design these parts to work the other 0.01% of the time when the SHTF. It kind like armor, most of the time, in fact its entire life is spent doing nothing, until the time comes that it does its job. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 1:19:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556: I wonder if all the fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"
Since you put put afghan as your location I assume you're mil, what's your MOS? What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? So you never dropped a mag on a hard surface? Never had dirt/sand get into a mag? I know what a 61j/61k is
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 1:21:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
In a perfect world your 4 steps are all a mag would need to do. But in reality other stuff happens to them. If those 4 steps were all mags ever saw in combat, they would never need to be replaced. I will give you a real word example of feedback we have gotten. Border patrol in a certain area are using some 7" barreled ARs. They use these really short ARs because they spend a lot of time getting in and out of their SUVs. They told us that they have broken several mags banging them on crap as they jump out of the SUV. They have dented/bent several GI mags and cracked a few polymer mags. Thus they were very excited when they started using our mags and after almost a year of beating on them they have yet to break one. I know border patrol is not exactly a combat environment, but it's real world stuff like this that happens to mags during their service life. To think the only thing they do is sit in a pouch, get loaded, shoot, then put back in the pouch is just too simplistic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ETSgroup:
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By ETSgroup:
Kurt you are right that any situation a mag could encounter can be duplicated in a lab and scientifically tested. What I was saying is the real random card is what kind of abuse they see, with what frequency, and for what duration. Real word conditions, in any kind of testing, makes for so many variables that it becomes very difficult to test in a lab. If you want to isolate one aspect, such as impact testing, that is easy. But we know these mags see more than just impacts out in the field. I think you more or less agree with me. So lets see what a mag does in "combat" 1. Placed or carried in some type of pouch or container loaded with ammo. 2. Removed from said pouch or container and placed in a weapon. 3. be attached to weapon via magwell. Fire and not fire 4. Remove from weapon either loaded, partly loaded, or empty and returned to container or dropped on ground. The above 4 steps are not exactly complicated like say a Saturn V rocket launch sequence........ Even the lowly regarded USGI mags survive decades and function in and out of combat environments.... Someone give me a SPECIFIC example of something about M16 magazines learned from actual combat that couldn't or had not been figured out beforehand.....this will be easy with all the "combat" testing that has been done,. In a perfect world your 4 steps are all a mag would need to do. But in reality other stuff happens to them. If those 4 steps were all mags ever saw in combat, they would never need to be replaced. I will give you a real word example of feedback we have gotten. Border patrol in a certain area are using some 7" barreled ARs. They use these really short ARs because they spend a lot of time getting in and out of their SUVs. They told us that they have broken several mags banging them on crap as they jump out of the SUV. They have dented/bent several GI mags and cracked a few polymer mags. Thus they were very excited when they started using our mags and after almost a year of beating on them they have yet to break one. I know border patrol is not exactly a combat environment, but it's real world stuff like this that happens to mags during their service life. To think the only thing they do is sit in a pouch, get loaded, shoot, then put back in the pouch is just too simplistic. So in other words they didn't break when you tested them, and they didn't break in the real world scenario. Thank you. This is my point exactly
You don't need a war to test if magazines are durable enough to survive getting into and out of a vehicle. You can do this test in your parking lot preferably in someone else's vehicle(s)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 2:50:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556: I wonder if all the fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"
Since you put put afghan as your location I assume you're mil, what's your MOS? What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? I have a strong feeling a seasoned 11B/03xx would disagree with your mag assessment. Just because your job didn't put your gear through the wringer doesn't mean somebody else's didn't. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 5:06:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
I have a strong feeling a seasoned 11B/03xx would disagree with your mag assessment. Just because your job didn't put your gear through the wringer doesn't mean somebody else's didn't. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By zackmars:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556: I wonder if all the fucked up mags our military has gone through became damaged from putting them in the pouch or being put back in a "container"
Since you put put afghan as your location I assume you're mil, what's your MOS? What is all this who are you stuff in a tech thread? He could just as easily be a contractor, or a member who likes to change his flag around. The idea that a magazine just rides around in a pouch, gets loaded and unloaded all day and nothing else, is pretty laughable, even to non military people I'm a 61J/61K. I spend a fair amount of time in ugly places. If non military people know how boring and mundane things are on actual deployments they would have a hard time believing it.. Sorry, but 99.9% 0f the time it isn't as exciting as in the movies. What else do magazines do then????? I have a strong feeling a seasoned 11B/03xx would disagree with your mag assessment. Just because your job didn't put your gear through the wringer doesn't mean somebody else's didn't. are you 11B???Are you well seasoned??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 5:57:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MILSPEC556]
[#50]
Relax Kurt. I'm just making a point.
Gear gets abused is the whole point here. Both of these racks of EOTechs and Aimpoints, broken. 
 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
