Funny stuff

The "Small Arms Weapons Neutral" color was a range of colors that was proscribed by the Army--FDE was outside that range, so we had to have a new color that was as strong as the Black material when used in the M3 Magazine.

MCT was the winner.

.Black is very hard to beat in strength as a color. This is due to the small size of the carbon molecule which makes up the black color and disruptes the base material the least during the molding process.

Sand color came about during experimentation in new materials and processing. It was the first time we made a color that was as strong as black but it took another couple of years of development to get a color that kept the M3s strength but fell within the new US Army "non black" specifications.

Technology is not static, it evolves.

In certain cases yes the Sand magazine is slightly stronger than Black but as an overall percentage they are very close to each other.

Rich,

Out of curiosity, since you have been making PMags for nearly ten years now, how many millions of PMags have you guys made?

I want to hear a number from you to make the progtards spontaneous wet their beds it's so enormous!

There have been a few of them. All have the same result. Unfortunately, It's the kind of thing that's not generally releasable open source. If you are in a DoD activity, we can tell you where to get the data from each of the tests. Some include other commercial magazines. Would love to share, as it would put to rest a lot of bad information.

Well, this is indeed going to be the ten year anniversary of the PMAG. We will have a pretty cool history of the PMAG display at SHOT show that shows some unicorn PMAGs, some notable ones, some prototypes and even some evolutionary dead ends from the very first live fired prototype PMAG to the latest hotness. Quad mag prototype, the first 50 round drum prototype (yep, 50 at first) that we did as a check of the concept, one of the reference PMAGs that has been stored loaded since July 2007 (without the cover, of course), etc. The display will also be at the NRA show, and we'll likely post hi-res photos of the example mags and prototypes on the web for download along with the timeline and information.

We are still privately held, so we won't come out and say a number, but we have annotated on that timeline when we first hit 1 Million, and you can probably get a sense of the number from there. It was really, really early. Thanks to our customers who believe in our products, it's been a great ten years, and we'll have even more PMAG goodness to release and share around SHOT show time to kick off the next ten!

In the only test I can give some particulars on, it was M16A4, M4A1, and M27(Hk416).  20,400 rounds of M855A1 for each participant (magazine type) in this test. Multiple other USGI (including the new EPM) and other magazines. We were the only magazine to not have a single bolt over base stoppage. Zero failures to get a round into the chamber. We also do the least feed ramp and chamber face damage when using 855A1 over any other magazine. The other tests are even more telling, and if you are DoD, we can direct you where to get the entire body of test data and specifics on this particular test.

As far as round counts, in more formal testing, we have gone over 3000rds of M855A1 out of a single mag and 8,000 M855 out of a single mag, but informally, we've gone 10's of thousands out of a single mag. The formal test protocols just don't seem to normally go much higher, probably since 7 mag loadout x 3,000 rounds per mag = probably time for new barrel--definitely time with A1. Not saying it's not valid to test higher, and we test higher than that internally, but that just how it seems to go with the formal testing.

Army "ban" was clarified to allow PMags to continue to be used just a week after this story first broke...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html

Military Times- Army Now Says No Ban on Rifle Magazines

The Pentagon has clarified the Army’s stance on a recent safety message that effectively banned a certain high-performance, commercial M4 magazine, which means soldiers can keep using their PMAGs.

The confusion began when Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a message in April, declaring that the only government-issued aluminum magazines were authorized for use in the M4 and M16 rifles.

TACOM officials released the message to address reports of Army units using “unauthorized” commercial, polymer magazines such as the popular PMAG, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp., in 2007. The decision left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has demonstrated its extreme reliability in combat and has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

Army officials acknowledged June 6 that TACOM’s message was poorly written and not intended as a directive on the use of PMAGs. Matthew Bourke, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon responding to questions from Mililtary.com, said the message should have included guidance that the final decision rests with commanders in the field.

“At best, the message is incomplete; at worst the message allows soldiers to jump to the wrong conclusions,” Bourke said. “Maintenance Information Messages [from TACOM] are permissive. They are not an order. They are not a directive. All content and direction in those messages are optional for the recipient.”

It’s still unclear why TACOM issued the message at this time, but sources say it might have something to do with the $10.7 million contract TACOM Rock Island awarded to Brownells Inc. in 2009 to produce 1.4 million improved magazines by January 2010.

Program Executive Office Soldier set out to develop the improved magazine after the M4 finished last against three other carbines in a 2007 reliability test. The “dust test” revealed that 27 percent of the M4’s stoppages were magazine related.

The improved magazine uses a redesigned “follower,” the part that sits on the magazine’s internal spring and feeds the rounds into the M4’s upper receiver. The new tan-colored follower features an extended rear leg and modified bullet protrusion for improved round stacking and orientation. The self-leveling/anti-tilt follower reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants, PEO Soldier officials maintain.

In late May, Military.com asked PEO Soldier if weapons officials had tested to see how the improved magazine performs against the PMAG. The command responded through Army public affairs that weapons officials had conducted “limited side-by-side testing and found that no commercial magazine was superior to the improved magazine,” Bourke said.

By contrast, PMAGs have developed a word-of-mouth reputation for being extremely reliable as well as durable. Special operations units such as Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment issue PMAGs as do many infantry units before war-zone deployments.

Soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, had been issued PMAGs before deploying to Afghanistan in 2009. On Oct. 3 of that year, they fought off a bold enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating that lasted for more than six hours and left eight Americans dead. Some soldiers fired up to 40 PMAGs from their M4s without a single stoppage.

Army officials maintain that TACOM’s message was intended to make soldiers aware that not all commercial magazines have gone through the same testing as the improved magazine, but concede that there are exceptions.

“The main message we want to get out is – although the Army does support and is confident in the improved, tan-follower magazine – we don’t want soldiers to fear punishment for using PMAGs,” Bourke said.

This^