If so, do you feel like they are/were harder to fully put into battery than some other mags (like pmags)?

Reason I'm asking is because I bought one and I've been playing around with it and it seems like it takes a little bit extra force (or slap on the bottom) to "click" and fully seat into battery, whereas my pmags just seat with minimal force.

Note: I've only ever used/had pmags, so I didn't know if this was just normal for some mags to seat easier than others.

Topic Moved

I have several of them - regular and the coupling type in 30 rounders. My SBR does not like them .223 or 300 BO (failure to feed). My 300 BO rifle works ok with them. I gave a few away to a friend that has a 300 BO rifle and he occasionally has issues with the magazines (failure to feed) They are cool, but in my opinion are not reliable in my rifles. I bought mine a couple years ago and haven't bought any more.

Do you remember if they were a bit harder to fully seat than other mags?

Tula, possibly wolf, caused a feeding issue where the poly or laquer caused a drag on the inside that the spring couldnt overcome.
Brass should be ok though

Post I made after buying ETS mags.
In that same spikes lower I use magpul m2 and m3 (m3 has more over insertion stops from what I hear) mags zero problem. Even the m3 has plenty of wiggle room.
I've only fired about 2 mag loads through them and didn't have any jams, but I'm going to just stick with magpul at this point.

Are you saying you had a problem with the ETS mags being hard to insert?

If you followed that link, the part in red, I explained it there. Yes, they fit tight in one magwell and would not lock in at all in a spikes tactical lower.

Call ETS they will help you with any problem.

ETS have thicker feed lips which can make them harder to seat on certain builds.
They worked great on many of my guns including my PWS Mod1 but not my PWS Mod 0s (2)

ETS recommended I trim the feedlips back a little and sent me some photos showing me where to trim (They also offered to send me a shipping label and do it for me).
I did the trimming and they worked fine.
Pmags uses a special polymer than allows them to be thinner (patented) and Lancer uses metal feedlips which is why they have less issues.

Remember there are many builds with ARs and the slightest difference can cause a problem with a magazine that does not show up on other builds

I have about 25 ETS 30 rd mags. None of them are hard to insert or lock into my 1 billet lower(Arfcom lower), or the 5 different forged lowers.

I have six ETS mags, including two with the coupler. They worked flawlessly in my BCM rifle - inserted, fed, and dropped smoothly, just like any GI or PMAGs I've used. I'm not sure it is about them, but while the see-through effect is neat, and the coupling option is kind of a novelty, they don't really do much for me personally. I feel like they're reliable, and I would trust them, but I already have plenty of PMAGs, which are usually cheaper and easier to find. I think PMAGs feel more comfortable to handle too. I also really don't like how the cover works on the ETS mags - I find the release a pain to operate. I think part of the issue is that PMAGs are widely accepted in the military, but I don't see myself taking my ETS mags to work. My ETS mags went back in their boxes and into a storage bin after I tested them a few times. I may break them out again to take to the range sometime.