Lancer L5AWM issue - Page 1

AR-15 » Magazines

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

Posted: 12/25/2016 12:30:00 AM EDT

I just assembled my 300 Blackout.
I purchased 2 Lancer L5AWM translucent smoke 30rd magazines to distinguish the 300 Blackout Ammo from my 5.56.
I loaded the magazine with 30rds. of Lehigh Defense 194g maximum expansion ammo.
I went to chamber a round by pulling the BCG back and releasing, but the round didn't chamber. See the photo:

I unloaded a round at a time, until I got to 26 rounds and the round still didn't chamber.
I then loaded the magazine with only 4 rounds, with the same results.
I tried the 2nd L5AWM I have, with the same results.
The magazines were locked in.
If I applied manual upward pressure to the magazine from the base, I could chamber a round.
I tried different 300 Blackout ammo with the same results.

I then loaded a Pmag Gen M3 with 300 Blackout Ammo and had no issues chambering the rounds.

What do you guys believe the issue is?

Update:
Please see my post below for more extensive troubleshooting, reaching a possible conclusion.

Posted: 12/25/2016 1:42:52 AM EDT

[#1]

Magazine held too low in the receiver.

The feed angle of a Pmag is hard to argue with.

Posted: 12/25/2016 1:47:13 AM EDT

[#2]

Is it your opinion that I'm going to have this issue with any Lancer L5AWM mag?

Posted: 12/25/2016 8:40:47 AM EDT

[#3]

When you say you tried with 5.56, do you mean in a different gun?
Realistically it is something with your lower. Magazines are molded and there is very little difference from one to the next. It is unlikely to have a defective pmag or lancer etc. Much more likely it is the lower which are machined individually.

Posted: 12/25/2016 8:47:01 AM EDT

[#4]

How do the Lancer mags work in a different gun?

Posted: 12/25/2016 10:21:59 AM EDT

[#5]

I have 15 each of the 20 round version. Most of them have failures when inserting the magazine rapidly into the lower receiver, in that a round or two will pop out of the magazine once inserted. I am working with Lancer tech support and engineers. They have been unable to duplicate my issue and asked I send my magazines back for testing, which I did earlier this week with their prepaid UPS label. Lancer's support so far as been stellar. They would probably be very interested in your issue in conjunction with mine. I received a very quick initial response from: [email protected]. They are short staffed the week after Christmas so your response may be slower than my experience.

I have tested using AE XM855 and IMI M855 cartridges with the same result in a Bushmaster circa 2003 receiver, along with an 80% arms receiver and a Black Rain Ordnance receiver. New Magpul G3 20 round magazines work fine. Prior to sending the magazines back, I setup a video session and caught a round popping out of the magazine on the fourth insertion into the lower receiver. I reinserted that round into the magazine and on the second magazine insertion, one round popped clear out of the receiver through the ejection port. Lancer has that video now as evidence of my problem they have been unable to duplicate at their end.

[email protected]

Posted: 12/25/2016 10:29:35 AM EDT

[#6]

@ajacobs
@GTRider245

My mistake regarding the 5.56 ammo not feeding. I was using my 300 upper.

I've done more testing below as described, involving swapping lowers and cycling 2 different types of 300 Blackout ammo between 75-100x, to troubleshoot the chambering issue:

1) The Lancer L5AWM mags with 5.56 ammo chambered fine in my 5.56 pistol. I've modified my op to reflect this.

2) I swapped my lower in the 5.56 with my lower in my 300 Blackout.

a) Lancer mags with 300 Blackout Lehigh Defense 194gr maximum expansion ammo chambered fine, But only when one round was in the magazine.
With more than one round in the Lancer mag, I had the same chambering issue.

b) Lancer mags with HSM 300 Blackout 220gr ammo chambered fine, whether with with one round or multiple rounds.

c) PMAG Gen M3 magazines chambered 300 Blackout ammo without issue, both Lehigh Defense and HSM rounds described below.

The above was tested with two Aero Precision lowers I have, cycling between 75-100x

The 300 Blackout ammo I used above:
HSM 220gr - OAL: 52.96mm
Lehigh Defense 194g maximum expansion - OAL: 54.24mm
I took the above measurements with my digital caliper.

Conclusion:
From my experience as described, the L5-AWM magazine appears to be sensitive to which 300 Blackout ammo it will feed. I'm not sure as to why this is, other than to observe that the magazine is having an issue feeding a cartridge which is slightly longer than another cartridge, as measured above.
I doubt that replacing my current Lancer mags with replacement Lancer mags will solve the issue.
Because the Lancer mags were going to be used exclusively for my 300 Blackout pistol to distinguish between 5.56 & 300 Blackout ammo, I'll be swapping them out for PMAGS with a window.
I'll notify Primary Arms, as well as Lancer, describing the found issue to them.

I had the same chambering issues with both Aero Precision lowers, so I don't believe it's a lower spec issue, and it's just that the Lancer L5 AWM is not chambering the longer round, while the PMAG Gen M3 has no problem in doing so.

Posted: 12/25/2016 10:35:08 AM EDT

[#7]

I only have one AWM, and one .300blk, but mine works well with various ammo.

Maybe try your .300 upper on a different lower and the same mags as before.

Posted: 12/25/2016 10:40:15 AM EDT

[#8]

@CountryGuy,

Thanks for that info.
Please see my post above, reflecting more troubleshooting.
I'll most likely be swapping out my Lancer L5AWM mags for PMAG Gen M3 Mags, as I need the mags to be operational with the ammo I'll be using. Lancer works with the HSM ammo but not the Lehigh Defense ammo as I described.
I purchased my Lancer mags from Primary Arms.
First I'll notify Lancer to see what they have say about my findings.

Posted: 12/25/2016 10:41:11 AM EDT

[#9]

@AS556
Please see my post #155 above regarding more extensive troubleshooting.

Posted: 12/25/2016 11:06:17 AM EDT

[#10]

Thanks Biker1. I am an engineer. And assuming Lancer tested correctly with their in house magazines and receivers, and assuming other customers have not reported the same problem I am having, I am dubious my mags will fail in their lowers. If Lancer is unable to duplicate my problem with my mags, I will also be replacing them with Magpul G3s.

Posted: 12/25/2016 3:32:47 PM EDT

[#11]

Eventually I'd like to just get to the range, and have 110% confidence that my ARs will fire, if and when SHTF. Getting the right combination is so crucial, from the mags to the ammo to everything else involved in putting together an AR.

Posted: 12/26/2016 6:54:11 AM EDT

[#12]

What's the parts list for your gun, and what other ARs do you have to test with?

Posted: 12/26/2016 7:15:28 AM EDT

[#13]

8.5" 300 Blackout Pistol:
- PSA upper (Anchor Harvey)
- Aero Precision Gen 2 lower
- CMMG LPK
- AGL Defense ACT FCG
- FailZero BCG

10.5" 5.56 Pistol:
- PSA upper (Brass Aluminum Forging)
- Aero Precision Gen 2 lower
- CMMG LPK
- AGL Defense ACT FCG
- FailZero BCG

Posted: 12/26/2016 3:23:16 PM EDT

[#14]

Odd. A lot of people use the Lancers as their different .300 mags because they seem to work so well with the round.

Posted: 12/26/2016 3:29:42 PM EDT

[#15]

Not in my case.
I just placed a new order with Primary Arms for 2 PMAG Gen M3 magazines, Black w/window, to differentiate the 5.56 ammo in my other Pmags, and requested an RMA to return the the Lancer L5AWM mags.
I've spent too much time, hours, troubleshooting and writing emails to Primary Arms, Lancer and Lehigh Defense.
I already have the Pmags which work fine with the 300 Blackout Lehigh Defense ammo, which will be the magazines primary, if not only use.

Posted: 12/26/2016 4:49:54 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
Not in my case.
I just placed a new order with Primary Arms for 2 PMAG Gen M3 magazines, Black w/window, to differentiate the 5.56 ammo in my other Pmags, and requested an RMA to return the the Lancer L5AWM mags.
I've spent too much time, hours, troubleshooting and writing emails to Primary Arms, Lancer and Lehigh Defense.
I already have the Pmags which work fine with the 300 Blackout Lehigh Defense ammo, which will be the magazines primary, if not only use.

View Quote

I think this is the best thing to do. If I run across some 20 round G3 Pmags for a great price before Lancer gets mine "fixed", I will do the same. But as mentioned previously, I am not expecting a positive outcome. I keep a MTM 15 magazine AR ammo box full for each of my two primary rifles and need to fill the second box.

Posted: 12/27/2016 4:21:18 PM EDT

[#17]

Thanks. You gave me an idea
https://www.amazon.com/MTM-Tactical-Magazine-Storage-TMC15/dp/B00HVDFSQ0?tag=vglnk-c102-20

One for 5.56/2.23, and one for 300 Blackout.
Clearly marked, of course. I'll see if they have black.

Posted: 12/27/2016 4:43:39 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thanks. You gave me an idea
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HVDFSQ0

One for 5.56/2.23, and one for 300 Blackout.
Clearly marked, of course. I'll see if they have black.

View Quote

That's it. Decent way to carry, keep out of the weather and keep different things separated. In my case, one in the truck and the other in the house. Identical contents. 1 row of IMI 77 OTM, 1 row of Speer 75 Gold Dot, 1 row of IMI M855, 2 ten round mags of Speer 55 Gold Dot and a Lula speed loader. All mags downloaded by 1 round- just because.

Posted: 12/28/2016 10:57:53 AM EDT

[#19]

Not a .300 BLK user, but ETS markets their translucent mags as compatible with that round. Maybe give them a try if you still want something visually different?

Nothing to offer on the Lancer issue, aside from maybe checking the COAL of the rounds you're using. Maybe they're too long for the mag?

Posted: 12/29/2016 5:40:28 AM EDT

[#20]

I emailed Lancer, Primary Arms and Lehigh Defense to let them know about the issue I'm having.
I then ordered 2 PMAG Gen M3 30rd mags with a window from PA.
Primary Arms issued a pre-paid return label for a refund.
Lehigh Defense emailed me back and asked if I have an M4 feed ramp cut into my upper, which I do. He mentioned there are issues with feeding no matter what mag is used if you don't have the M4 ramp. He's going to try a Lancer L5AWM in his rifle and let me know.
I haven't heard from Lancer.
The Lehigh Defense 194g maximum expansion ammo is slightly longer as I mentioned in a previous post:

"The 300 Blackout ammo I used above:
HSM 220gr - OAL: 52.96mm
Lehigh Defense 194g maximum expansion - OAL: 54.24mm
I took the above measurements with my digital caliper.
The PMAGS have no problems chambering the ammo."

Posted: 12/29/2016 7:08:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Just received my PMAG Gen M3 30rd, black w/window mags from Primary Arms and they chamber the 194gr ME Lehigh Defense ammo just find. Will be going to the range in about a week to test everything out.
My 300 Blackout has Midnite's stamp of approval, and that's good enough for me

Posted: 12/29/2016 9:09:20 PM EDT

[#22]

I just received my 300BO ar pistol upper, lower coming soon so i'll try out my pmags first. But will probably put some colored duct tape on the bottom part of the mags to designate them.

Posted: 12/29/2016 9:17:22 PM EDT

[#23]

I have 20 PMAG Gen M3 Mags, 20rds and 30rds.
I wrapped a band of 3M Black 33+ tape around the bottom to distinguish my 300 Blackout Ammo from my 5.56.
I then decided to purchase the Lancers to distinguish the difference in ammo.
When the Lancers didn't work out, I purchased the PMAG windows, which will be good to go.
I also installed a Magpul MAG416 OD pistol grip on my 300 Blackout pistol to distinguish it.

Posted: 12/31/2016 4:43:39 PM EDT

[#24]

Lancer mags don't feed 300 very well for me either.
I had the ammo nosedive into the upper receiver just below the edge of the M4 feedramp in the lancers.
I switched to using the lancers for 5.56 only, no issues with 5.56 ammo.

Posted: 12/31/2016 4:59:14 PM EDT

[#25]

As I mentioned, the approx. COAL of the 300 Blackout Ammo I used was the following:

HSM 220gr:
52.96mm = 2.08"
Lehigh Defense 194g maximum expansion:
54.24mm = 2.13"
I took the above measurements with my digital caliper.
I was chambering rounds in my living room, as I haven't gotten to the range yet.
If I loaded the Lancer with more than 1 round of Lehigh Defense, the round wouldn't chamber, but the 300 Blackout HSM chambered fine.
The approx. 1.27mm longer cartridge was causing issues with the Lancer chambering the round.
The PMAGs had no issue.
Hopefully range practice will yield positive results.

Posted: 12/31/2016 5:00:45 PM EDT

[#26]

In the past when I was seriously thinking about adding 300 BO to my collection, I do seem to recall reading about potential magazine feeding problems with other than .223 caliber ammunition as the feed lips and follower are based upon .223 caliber- that it was not specifically a COAL issue. I also read the same thing about some types of bullets and a couple of the bullet OEMs had a .30 caliber bullet shaped for this purpose. So in the end, appearances are Lancer may not have designed their magazines with anything other than .223 caliber mind. Here is an example: http://www.300blktalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=79154&sid=5551e8ea2498b0f8cbcea226e1657dce&start=10

Posted: 12/31/2016 5:23:37 PM EDT

[#27]

Are your Lehigh's loaded by Lehigh? I measured my Lehigh's, both loaded by Beck and by Lehigh and they measure 2.200" and 2.185" respectively. I use twenty round Lancers loaded full to 20. Good functioning in two BMC Uppers and one Daniel Defense Upper. I'm wondering wtf the diff is on this issue?

Posted: 12/31/2016 5:28:00 PM EDT

[#28]

2.00 & 1.185?
Yes, I purchased the 194gr Maximum Expansion, 2 boxes/40rds., directly from Lehigh Defense, as I did the 115gr Controlled Chaos Copper.
Lehigh Defense lists the 194gr ME as OAL (in): 2.180.
Their measurements are obviously more accurate than mine, but I'm in the ballpark @2.130"

Posted: 12/31/2016 5:31:39 PM EDT

[#29]

@CountryGuy
I read your link.
Regarding the COAL possibly being the cause of the issue in my case, it appears that's the only difference in the 2 types of 300 Blackout ammo I have, which is why I believe it's the possible cause.

Posted: 12/31/2016 6:08:26 PM EDT

[#30]

Double checked my gauge. Zero set and used two sets, same numbers.

Posted: 12/31/2016 6:11:03 PM EDT

[#31]

Posted: 12/31/2016 6:26:58 PM EDT

[#32]

I have my 194gr ME @2.18" and you have yours at 2.20".
Considering +/-% error, our ammo is the same OAL.
With that being said, your Lancers have no issue chambering while mine did.
A determining test would be for my L5AWMs to feed your 194gr or for my Lancers to feed your 194gr, but I've already returned mine to Primary Arms.
Whatever the cause of the issues I had was, the PMAGS didn't have the issue, at least in my case. I was only manually chambering the rounds. I hope to have success at the range.

Posted: 12/31/2016 6:41:49 PM EDT

[#33]

Lol, I guess so. I'm following this because I got rid of my Magpul 20’s and got a shitload of Lancer 20’s cause I liked the smoke and to identify my 300blk ammo. I hope we both made the right choice for our Lehigh ammo.

Posted: 12/31/2016 6:51:37 PM EDT

[#34]

Lol too!
I hear ya about the ammo.
I also purchased the Lancer L5AWMs to distinguish my 300 Blackout ammo, but the windowed PMAGs are fine.
Could be a combination of different tolerances here and there.
It would be nice to know for certain, but I'll probably never know for sure. But one thing is certain, maybe, which is that the PMAGs appear to be more tolerant of whatever the issue was, in my case.

Posted: 1/1/2017 12:22:48 AM EDT

[#35]

Lancers feed at the same angle as a g.i. mag. A Pmag is going to feed everything better.

Posted: 1/1/2017 12:28:48 AM EDT

[#36]

What is it about the PMAG angle which enables it to feed more of a variety of ammo better?

Posted: 1/1/2017 4:50:11 PM EDT

[#37]

They present the bullet tip a little higher.

Posted: 1/2/2017 1:25:11 AM EDT

[#38]

Thanks.
Works for me.
Can't wait to get to the range.

Posted: 1/2/2017 12:47:01 PM EDT

[#39]

Well I just read through all the comments, quite interesting. I've got 15 or so of each the pmag and the lancers and use both of them in my 300blk's and thankfully haven't had any problems with either. I got 4 or so boxes of the 194's from Lehigh a couple months ago but only shot maybe 20 of them just to confirm function. Not exactly a plinking round for me with the cost. I can't remember which mag I used for the 194's so I will test out my lancers with them this coming weekend.

Posted: 1/2/2017 1:45:14 PM EDT

[#40]

Agreed. The 194gr ME is definitely not a plinking round @$2/rd. I'll be using the HSM 220gr @$1/rd to test subsonic function, in addition to maybe shooting 10-20rds. of the 194gr ME to test function.
Let me know how the L5AWMs work with the 194gr ME.
Lancer's Technical Specialist just emailed me back thanking me for my email, and that it's under review by their Engineers.

Posted: 1/3/2017 11:54:38 AM EDT

[#41]

I received the expected email from Lancer. Their engineers gave a quick testing of the mag(s ?) and found nothing amiss. But they want to keep them for further testing and are sending me out a new set of 15. I am dubious, but hopeful they will work fine. Lancer is handling my issue in a professional manner with excellent customer service. I have no complaints and will update this post with replacement magazine testing soon after I receive them.

Posted: 1/3/2017 12:04:24 PM EDT

[#42]

That's great, I would love to hear how the replacements perform!

Posted: 1/4/2017 5:37:08 PM EDT

[#43]

So they're sending you a new set of L5AWMs and keeping the 2 you sent them for further testing
It'll be interesting to see if the 2 they send you work under the same circumstances the 2 you sent them didn't work.

Posted: 1/5/2017 8:04:40 AM EDT

[#44]

Agree. There are 15 mags involved. I function tested in depth with well over half of them with ~14 failing in some manner and left one unopened. When I did my testing for the video sent to Lancer, I just grabbed a magazine out of the stack and it failed twice for the video. It is troublesome Lancer was not able to duplicate my issues with their in stock mags and especially so with the ones I sent them. I carefully inspected my original magazines and found nothing obviously amiss, and took one apart to get the date code as last year Lancer had production issues with certain dates of magazines- per their web site. But mine were new production and not covered by the recall.

My mags do not necessarily fail on the first insertion into the mag well. But all tested fail within a few forceful insertions with an open bolt. I think I mentioned previously I have this same problem with a little used year 2003 Bushmaster lower, a new Black Rain Ordnance lower and a 80% Arms lower. So totally different OEMs with similar issues and no problems with Pmag G3 magazines. I do have a POF 4.5# drop in trigger assembly in each lower but can't see how this could possibly cause my magazine issues with cartridges jumping out of the mags upon forceful insertion into the mag well. So I am dubious that the 15 replacement mags will perform any better than the originals- assuming Lancer did proper testing on their end and that I am the only person reporting this problem.

Will see. Mags not shipped yet but they are supposed to be coming by UPS and thankfully, not USPS. The shipper doc has a "To be shipped by date" of Feb. 8. But my Lancer contact told me to ignore that date as it is used for internal stuff. I certainly hope so.

Posted: 1/14/2017 7:19:04 AM EDT

[#45]

I received my 15 replacement magazines yesterday from Lancer and tested with the same ammunition with the same failing results. I then tried a magazine of my primary defensive ammunition- Speer 75 grain Gold Dot, which also failed. The IMI M855 cartridges are at maximum length for the magazines while the Gold Dots are a bit shorter, so length is not the issue. This time in testing I had a cartridge that did not fully pop out of the magazine and was held in place only by the rear of the feed lips at the rear of the case. I sent more photos to Lancer and they are being forwarded to management and engineers.

So in the end, I had excellent tech support from Lancer. I would think they would have complaints from other customers with similar results as mine, since I have the same failure with several types of standard factory ammunition in three totally different receivers. But they acted like this is not a common problem, without saying so, but who knows. I will be replacing the Lancers with Pmag G3s, which work fine under the same test scenarios.

Posted: 1/14/2017 11:13:03 AM EDT

[#46]

Thanks for the update. As you forsaw, you had the same issues. Something is definitely awry with the L5AWMs.
You have to have extreme confidence in your mags, and for me, Lancers appear to be too sensitive to the ammo they're feeding, while PMAGs appear to be more accepting.
I have not been to the range yet to test out my 300 Blackout, but I will be soon, and will post my results. As I previously mentioned, chambering with the PMAGs were issue free compared to the Lancers.
After the initial email I received from Lancer over 2 weeks ago, they never got back to me, and that's fine as I won't be using their mags anyway. I explained the issue in detail with photos, and that's as far as I feel like going with them at this point. Plus I returned their mags to Primary Arms anyway, and purchased the PMAG Gen M3's with windows.
Lehigh Defense never got back to me either, after their initial response to my detailed explanation of the issue I had with Lancers, but not PMAGs. I was told he was going to test the Lancers with the same ammo as I did, with his ARs, etc., but I never heard back.
The denial of ever seeing your issue before by Lancer in regards to your issue being unique, in addition to the lack of followup in my case is curious to say the least. There could be different reasons for this, but I have my own opinion as I'm sure others will have theirs. From my personal experiences though, it will be PMAGs for me.

Posted: 1/17/2017 4:21:13 AM EDT

[#47]

Problem solved: PMAG 300 Blackout GEN M3

Posted: 1/17/2017 5:45:55 AM EDT

[#48]

Thanks for the heads up.
It'll be interesting to compare the specific PMAG 300 Blackout mags to the PMAG Gen M3 Mags currently being used for 300 Blackout, regarding function. The asthetics difference is a big plus to differentiate the ammo being used, although I currently chose the PMAG w/window to differentiate my 300 Blackout ammo from my 5.56/.223 ammo, where I'm not using the window option.
As I mentioned in previous posts, I had no issues chambering the 300 Blackout Lehigh Defense 194gr maximum expansion ammo in bench testing at on home, but I have not tried the combination at the range yet, which I hope to do soon.

Posted: 1/17/2017 7:52:37 AM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
Problem solved: PMAG 300 Blackout GEN M3

View Quote

From my understanding of 300BO feed problems, all things else being equal with the 223 cartridge, for the most part it revolves around the reduced length between the rim and shoulder vs. the magazine support/guide ridge. And this new G3 magazine seems to have resolved that issue.

BTW: My replacement G3 mags for the 15 errant Lancer's using 223 will be here tomorrow. Hurray.

Posted: 1/17/2017 11:07:13 AM EDT

[#50]

Interesting! Wilson Combat sells a Lancer that has the inner guide ribs removed. I have used these Lancers and they work well in my three Blackouts. The only failure to feed was with a short coated cast flat nosed round. I'll be curious to see the inside ribbing on the new Magpul. If anybody gets their hands on one please post a pic of the inside of the body.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Lancer L5AWM issue

AR-15 » Magazines

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us