User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 12:05:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Only thing I'm aware of is resistance to DEET and possibly some other chemicals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 12:19:23 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only thing I'm aware of is resistance to DEET and possibly some other chemicals. Thanks, I heard that the formulation of the plastic was changed to make it more resistant to deet but I'm wondering about the reason for the entirely different design and attachment of the steel feed lips between the original L5 and the L5AWM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 6:31:38 AM EDT
[#3]
Don't think the followers were anti tilt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 8:14:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't think the followers were anti tilt. not sure what L5s this guy had, Lancer did change the shape of the front of the follower but both were anti-tilt. the base plate design changed, they added texture, & the feed lips have more metal. I think they were improvements but I wouldn't call the previous design deficient. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 8:36:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks, I heard that the formulation of the plastic was changed to make it more resistant to deet but I'm wondering about the reason for the entirely different design and attachment of the steel feed lips between the original L5 and the L5AWM. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Only thing I'm aware of is resistance to DEET and possibly some other chemicals. Thanks, I heard that the formulation of the plastic was changed to make it more resistant to deet but I'm wondering about the reason for the entirely different design and attachment of the steel feed lips between the original L5 and the L5AWM. The "wraparound" steel feed lips are cheaper to manufacture and have greater margin for error in manufacturing than the molded-in steel feed lips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 9:09:09 AM EDT
[#6]
Thanks everyone; the original L5s I've got have been completely reliable, but I was concerned about the complete design change of the feed lips perhaps being due to some major deficiency with the first design like maybe the feed lips becoming detached from the magazine body.
I've read that there were feed problems with the L5 AWM feed lips early on due to them being improperly machined and finished, but I haven't heard anything negative about the originals. The deet resistance doesn't concern me, only the feed lips. Thanks again, and if anyone has something to add I'd appreciate it. One more question; would YOU use them as your primary, always loaded, home defense magazines, particularly during hurricane emergencies, rather than GI or P Mags? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 2:00:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Nothing wrong with your l5 mags . I have both the green and black follower l5 mags and no issues ever . Now I also have over 200 of the awf mags and they are my go to mags, but the originals are a-ok !!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 3:06:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks everyone; the original L5s I've got have been completely reliable, but I was concerned about the complete design change of the feed lips perhaps being due to some major deficiency with the first design like maybe the feed lips becoming detached from the magazine body. I've read that there were feed problems with the L5 AWM feed lips early on due to them being improperly machined and finished, but I haven't heard anything negative about the originals. The deet resistance doesn't concern me, only the feed lips. Thanks again, and if anyone has something to add I'd appreciate it. One more question; would YOU use them as your primary, always loaded, home defense magazines, particularly during hurricane emergencies, rather than GI or P Mags? I have been leaving my L5's loaded up with 31 to 32 rounds of m855 for 5 or 6 years and shoot them every now and then with no performance problems what so ever. While I don't think the pmag is a bad mag I do think the Lancer is a MUCH better magazine design. As a test case just check out all the 308 pmag problems vs the Lancers, which seem to work across the board in all the various DPMS,AR308/SR-25 style 308 platforms. Here's "The Unscientific Mag Test" thread, since your concerned with the feed lips check out page 3, there has been some other posts and threads similar to this info too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 3:41:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Thanks again for the answers to my questions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 6:32:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not sure what L5s this guy had, Lancer did change the shape of the front of the follower but both were anti-tilt. the base plate design changed, they added texture, & the feed lips have more metal. I think they were improvements but I wouldn't call the previous design deficient. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't think the followers were anti tilt. not sure what L5s this guy had, Lancer did change the shape of the front of the follower but both were anti-tilt. the base plate design changed, they added texture, & the feed lips have more metal. I think they were improvements but I wouldn't call the previous design deficient. My black follower L5s are not anti-tilt. Anti-tilt followers may be an improvement in some magazine designs, but IMHO, they really are a case of really good marketing. The L5s feed well, despite not having an anti-tilt follower. The L5s do have a potential quirk you should be aware of: if I seat a loaded L5 with the bolt closed, and manually retract the bolt, sometimes the top round in the magazine will partially come out of the feed lips in a way that may not feed. This does not happen when firing. For this reason, if you intend to have your rifle in condition two, L5s are a bad option. The AWMs do not have this quirk.  This round fed into the chamber when I released the bolt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2016 7:09:26 PM EDT
[#11]
I have a stack of ten of the original L5 20rd mags. I've mostly used a couple for bench shooting. One wouldn't feed right when I finally broke it out of the package this year. IIRC it would skip the round feeding from the right side fairly often. I called lancer and they sent out one of the newer versions as a replacement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2016 3:21:30 PM EDT
[#12]
I have owned all 3 versions and they are built nicely. The AWM are the only ones with an anti-tilt follower. The L5 and the L5A do not because it is not necessary with the continous curve. AWM feed lips wrap around the top of mag, the others do not. I like them enough to use them first in a fight
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2016 7:27:14 PM EDT
[#13]
I'm glad I asked my questions here because I've gotten some really good information.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2016 7:52:04 PM EDT
[#14]
I picked up 16 L5AWM's the other day, took 4 of em to the range and they were flawless, well, I only shot 3 mags, because I was sighting in my new uppers.
Btw, concerning AWM's, check out this YouTube vid! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpEOrTbzceo [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpEOrTbzceo[/youtube] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2016 12:54:54 PM EDT
[#15]
I also forgot to mention that these mags are hard to insert on a closed bolt. Not as easy and smooth like magpuls. That's not an issue for me. Lancer decided to switch to anti-tilt followers with the AWM because of consumer requests and competitor influence. Not to enhance reliability. They claim that the continous curve design of the mag does not require anti-tilt followers. I never ran into problems with all versions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2016 7:18:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have been leaving my L5's loaded up with 31 to 32 rounds of m855 for 5 or 6 years and shoot them every now and then with no performance problems what so ever. While I don't think the pmag is a bad mag I do think the Lancer is a MUCH better magazine design. As a test case just check out all the 308 pmag problems vs the Lancers, which seem to work across the board in all the various DPMS,AR308/SR-25 style 308 platforms. Here's "The Unscientific Mag Test" thread, since your concerned with the feed lips check out page 3, there has been some other posts and threads similar to this info too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks everyone; the original L5s I've got have been completely reliable, but I was concerned about the complete design change of the feed lips perhaps being due to some major deficiency with the first design like maybe the feed lips becoming detached from the magazine body. I've read that there were feed problems with the L5 AWM feed lips early on due to them being improperly machined and finished, but I haven't heard anything negative about the originals. The deet resistance doesn't concern me, only the feed lips. Thanks again, and if anyone has something to add I'd appreciate it. One more question; would YOU use them as your primary, always loaded, home defense magazines, particularly during hurricane emergencies, rather than GI or P Mags? I have been leaving my L5's loaded up with 31 to 32 rounds of m855 for 5 or 6 years and shoot them every now and then with no performance problems what so ever. While I don't think the pmag is a bad mag I do think the Lancer is a MUCH better magazine design. As a test case just check out all the 308 pmag problems vs the Lancers, which seem to work across the board in all the various DPMS,AR308/SR-25 style 308 platforms. Here's "The Unscientific Mag Test" thread, since your concerned with the feed lips check out page 3, there has been some other posts and threads similar to this info too. A much better design? In what way? Pmags have used in the theatre of war. The ultimate proving ground. Guys love them. I'm not dissing lancers. Just saying. "Much better"? How? Are you talk My about the clear lancers and being able to see the bullets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2016 8:53:56 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A much better design? In what way? Pmags have used in the theatre of war. The ultimate proving ground. Guys love them. I'm not dissing lancers. Just saying. "Much better"? How? Are you talk My about the clear lancers and being able to see the bullets? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have been leaving my L5's loaded up with 31 to 32 rounds of m855 for 5 or 6 years and shoot them every now and then with no performance problems what so ever. While I don't think the pmag is a bad mag I do think the Lancer is a MUCH better magazine design. As a test case just check out all the 308 pmag problems vs the Lancers, which seem to work across the board in all the various DPMS,AR308/SR-25 style 308 platforms. Here's "The Unscientific Mag Test" thread, since your concerned with the feed lips check out page 3, there has been some other posts and threads similar to this info too. A much better design? In what way? Pmags have used in the theatre of war. The ultimate proving ground. Guys love them. I'm not dissing lancers. Just saying. "Much better"? How? Are you talk My about the clear lancers and being able to see the bullets?  Fanboi's. I thought I clearly stated that with the 308 problems, and in the link, you did click the link didn't you? So Pmags were the only mags used in the "theater of war" huh, "the ultimate proving ground" I just wonder what did our soldiers use before the great infallible Magpul came along (also why does Magpul have three gen. of mags, you know you cant improve perfection can you?). There have been other threads about cracked Magpul feed lips and spines but since I referenced that particular thread and Magpul is superior to any other mag. Then tell me, why does Magpul and Tapco both design their mags to crack at the spines, dumping nearly all the rounds out of both?
EDIT: USMC BANS PMAG |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2016 9:52:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Originals had rubber baseplate.
Certainly that can help on hard drops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 3:46:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A much better design? In what way? Pmags have used in the theatre of war. The ultimate proving ground. Guys love them. I'm not dissing lancers. Just saying. "Much better"? How? Are you talk My about the clear lancers and being able to see the bullets? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks everyone; the original L5s I've got have been completely reliable, but I was concerned about the complete design change of the feed lips perhaps being due to some major deficiency with the first design like maybe the feed lips becoming detached from the magazine body. I've read that there were feed problems with the L5 AWM feed lips early on due to them being improperly machined and finished, but I haven't heard anything negative about the originals. The deet resistance doesn't concern me, only the feed lips. Thanks again, and if anyone has something to add I'd appreciate it. One more question; would YOU use them as your primary, always loaded, home defense magazines, particularly during hurricane emergencies, rather than GI or P Mags? I have been leaving my L5's loaded up with 31 to 32 rounds of m855 for 5 or 6 years and shoot them every now and then with no performance problems what so ever. While I don't think the pmag is a bad mag I do think the Lancer is a MUCH better magazine design. As a test case just check out all the 308 pmag problems vs the Lancers, which seem to work across the board in all the various DPMS,AR308/SR-25 style 308 platforms. Here's "The Unscientific Mag Test" thread, since your concerned with the feed lips check out page 3, there has been some other posts and threads similar to this info too. A much better design? In what way? Pmags have used in the theatre of war. The ultimate proving ground. Guys love them. I'm not dissing lancers. Just saying. "Much better"? How? Are you talk My about the clear lancers and being able to see the bullets? By your logic USGI magazines would be the ultimate since they have been used in the "theatre of war" for the last half century. Actually on another thread there was some discussion that Lancers have been used in combat. They have certainly been around long enough. Why would you think that a top tier magazine that wins all the comparison tests wouldn't have been used in combat? I have personally seen a soldier in Afghanistan with a TAPCO magazine in his M4 does that count?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2016 11:46:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks everyone; the original L5s I've got have been completely reliable, but I was concerned about the complete design change of the feed lips perhaps being due to some major deficiency with the first design like maybe the feed lips becoming detached from the magazine body. I've read that there were feed problems with the L5 AWM feed lips early on due to them being improperly machined and finished, but I haven't heard anything negative about the originals. The deet resistance doesn't concern me, only the feed lips. Thanks again, and if anyone has something to add I'd appreciate it. One more question; would YOU use them as your primary, always loaded, home defense magazines, particularly during hurricane emergencies, rather than GI or P Mags? As a matter of fact, one of my oh shit loadouts consists of 20rnd L5 mags loaded with 75gr Gold Dots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2016 8:20:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a matter of fact, one of my oh shit loadouts consists of 20rnd L5 mags loaded with 75gr Gold Dots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks everyone; the original L5s I've got have been completely reliable, but I was concerned about the complete design change of the feed lips perhaps being due to some major deficiency with the first design like maybe the feed lips becoming detached from the magazine body. I've read that there were feed problems with the L5 AWM feed lips early on due to them being improperly machined and finished, but I haven't heard anything negative about the originals. The deet resistance doesn't concern me, only the feed lips. Thanks again, and if anyone has something to add I'd appreciate it. One more question; would YOU use them as your primary, always loaded, home defense magazines, particularly during hurricane emergencies, rather than GI or P Mags? As a matter of fact, one of my oh shit loadouts consists of 20rnd L5 mags loaded with 75gr Gold Dots. Thanks. |
|
|
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.
