This deserves a technical thread of its own.

Worn and old M16A4's and M4's tested with multiple magazines including:
Legacy tan follower.
Army Tan EPM.
Pmag M3.
Undisclosed Magazine B.

Main take away is that when other magazines struggle to make worn and old rifles function Pmag M3's can turn them into a rifle that runs like it just came out of the box.
@Magpul

Attached File
Attached File


Again these were on older rifles that had an undisclosed round count on them. These were not knew rifles and also faced the issues of the normal government way of counting the trigger reset issues of the burst cam FCG.

Who are you and what did you do with our joglee?

You didn't mention HK once!

Don't care what the Corpse has to say.

Unless Army tests collaborate.

That's nice, but that's just a snippet of the data. Really want to see the M27 and M249 results.

Really? That's a pretty arrogant thing to say. Because the Marine Corps deliberately fixes weapons testing to not give us the best equipment, right? The Army has no business doing its own tests, that's just waste of money and time, and if done honestly, will give the same result.

Well the Marine Corps did get us the M16A2 for target shooters who don't wear armor, and they viewed the M4 as a extension of the pistol until 2012, and they did run the M45A1 competition that solely consisted of Colt.

But that is besides the point.

It was the Army marksmanship unit, not the Marine Corps, that directed the changes to make the M16A2. The M4 did replace sidearms for many uses, and the Corps never should have made it standard issue for grunts. The Corps got the M45A1 because they specifically wanted another 1911 to replace the M45, not another type of pistol. It wasn't competition really.

The AMU did not design the M16A2.

Also the M4 does everything the M16 does except it does it while being lighter and shorter.

And the M45A1 was a competition of one. Only Colt was tested and Colt was purchased. Plenty of 1911 makers out there.