Take a deep breath guys, and lets continue this thread.

For the Magpul AK magazines there is no Gen 1 or Gen 2. There is the MOE (non-reinforced) and Zhukov (metal reinforced) magazines. Both were announced at the same time in the 2013 catalog and have different missions as stated below

Note this post back in 4/30/2013 Magpul releases AK PMag.

The MOE AK PMag is a highly reliable shooter magazine primary designed for 922r compliance on a budget. The composite used is designed for tensile strength over impact strength and the MOE AK PMag will out last other all polymer AK47 magazines if you shoot it over using it as a hammer. This is the battle between tensile and impact strength. The MOE AK magazine remains a solid shooter after thousands of rounds where as the softer material in other magazines make them slightly better in a impact tests but they wear out faster if you shoot them al lot.

The Zhukov AK PMag is a true military grade (for impact and reliability), USA made, 922r compliance magazine that combines our polymer composition with custom metal reinforcements like the Bulgarian magazines. Of course this military solution comes at additional cost over the simpler MOE AK PMag.

Both magazines will be manufactured concurrently as the missions are different.

Any one reading this would assume you are suggesting that we buy off the shelf polymers and rebrand them as our own. That is not the case.

We have not used off the shelf polymers for over a decade now.

In 2004 we started having polymer components compiled specifically for us to our specifications and in 2010 we started funding our own R&D program with material engineers to develop polymers for our exclusive use. Yes they are still developed technically by a chemical company but the funding, specifications and exclusivity of the resulting design is Magpuls. This R&D program is still active and one of the new materials will be featured in a product announcement at SHOT next week.

Please see my response above regarding the MOE AK magazine compared to the other brand. Tapco is slightly stronger in impact strength due to the use of a softer material but the MOE AK magazine has a higher tensile strength making it far out last all other non reinforced magazines if you actually shoot it. As we already had a military grade solution specified in the Zhukov PMag this was the logical choice.

I see a trend where folks want to focus on the things  guy with a camera, one mag, and a box of rounds can do in the backyard, regardless of the effect of importance on what the mag is supposed to actually do. As Richard stated, and as I've stated elsewhere, the MOE mag is designed to be above all else, reliable. To do that, our material is resilient, but slightly more rigid than some others. Why? Softer polymer "gives" more and the back tab can flex, plus the body absorbs shock. So, you get a ductile magazine that handles the backyard drop rest fairly well. What you can also get is unstable feed lip geometry, easy grit embedding, poor durability over high round counts, poor front spine strength, and poor pullout strength of the tab-when it's more push than smack. its hard to test true reliability...and expensive, but without high round count comparisons, you have no real significance to blessing off a mag as "reliable".  That is, however, where all of our magazines excel, and they maintain that reliability over round counts that leave other poly mags chewed up and worn out. The MOE magazine was never meant to be a military grade solution....but a durable (for all poly) and above all, reliable AK magazine that would last for thousands and thousands of rounds, and would have handling characteristics the same as the GEN M3 AK mag. It's more durable than other mags in many metrics, but to get the reliability we wanted, it had to be more rigid. Now, we've beaten the tar out of these things in testing and practical usage, and I'm not sure what folks are doing that say they are having issues, but I'd love to know. We have a great return/replacement policy, and folks generally take advantage of that as appropriate. Truth is, we sell a lot of MOE AK mags and have an extremely low number of warranty issues.

On the GEN M3, I've stated it elsewhere, but there is a solid steel rear locking tab, and a thick, hardened, stamped steel front trunnion engagement that runs down the front of the magazine spine. We've tested reinforced feed lips and tested without, benchmark being the bulgy. The two weak points of the Bulgy mag are the feed lip reinforcements...they bend and cause stoppages...and the bottom of the mag, which is also reinforced, and tends to crush in a way that can make the follower get locked in place. We've had better reliability and durability results with  unreinforced feed lips. If we had better results  with reinforced, we'd be making them that way.

On the hand guard retainer removal for the Zhukov, leaving it on would be a compromise in the size, weight, and handling characteristics of the hand guard. We looked at other long handguard a that either leave it on or leave you the option, and the compromises made to accommodate this were never acceptable to us. If you ever decide to remove your Zhukov hand guard and go back to a retainer, there are bolt on solutions available that don't require pressing off your gas block to replace. However...the If you aren't comfortable taking off the retainer, the MOE hand guards work with it. You don't get the length of the Zhukov or the aluminum chassis, but you still get a longer HG, higher sides, and M-LOK.

The circle 10 is a very good magazine, don't get me wrong. If they were $20 or less, the dynamics of the AK mag market would be different. Steel AK mags do bend, and are susceptible to side impacts especially. The circle 10 inserts bend at a certain point, like any metal feed lip, and although it doesn't break, it introduces changed feeding geometry and stoppages, in our testing. We want to bring you the best magazines possible, and to do that reliability is always #1.

On the MOE HG, you wil SE BLK, FDE a, ODG, GRY,
And Plum.