Yup , the plastic is much thinner in the top end of the mag body to allow for the metal portion to clamp around it. Time will tell, these are getting in to more peoples hands now and prepper & manticore are good to work with, so if there ever is a failure there shouldn't be any hassle on return/replace.

Respectfully, your post is just as much a disservice and makes me believe that you did not read all of the information presented. The OP already took a step back and decided that exposing the mags to chemicals and a dish washer was not realistic testing. The OP made it clear that he went ahead and focused on non chemical drop testing, which nobody should argue is not normal. In 2 sets of tests involving only drops, the results were posted. The OP also brought in other mags as a "control" such as OEM CZ mags as well as Lancer brand AR type mags (because lancers are sort of similar to the mags being discussed.

The results of those tests are the results. I for one, cannot have a mag that is in any way less than tough, for many reasons. I would guess that some people on this site are going to use the firearm that these mags were designed for, for reasons other than range fun or even home defense. Seeing as the magazine is a critical cog in this machine that we call a CZ Scorpion Evo, that cog needs to be tough as heat tempered, tool steel nails.  

I know that the mags being discussed have the full backing of a great company! I know that if my mags fail me, I will be taken care of without question. I don't like using warranties. My hopes for this mag were to be unquestionably tough, that was all.

First, my critique here was harsh, perhaps for no good reason. It wasn't meant to be personal, though.

Second, I understand that you were working with what you had and did make an effort / put time into this.  I'm not suggesting you intentionally set out to hurt the mags reputation.

Freezing a mag and performing a drop test is objective. Dropping a gun on its mag is objective. These are things that happen in the real world, and they answer actual questions that people have about polymer mags. I don't expect you to drop your Scorpion for our benefit, just giving examples of tests that make sense.

Remember the Intacto Arms video?  A bunch of useless abuse.

My point is- The mud test, for example. You did demonstrate that the feed lips and spring will corrode. But, will the mag still function after you clean it? How clean does it need to be?  That's the most important aspect of the test, right? That's what the famous Glock torture test shows us. That's why I asked what your intention was there.

You're right. A couple hundred rounds of slow fire isn't going to impress anyone. That's why I believe you did Sven a disservice here. He's already shown us full auto mag dumps. I'm sure he's put a lot of time and money into this project, not to mention the risk.

I guess I'm out of line here, but the series of tests just seem to be a poor representation of what the mag is capable of in the real world.  There's a couple guys in this thread expressing doubts due to your tests. Is that fair to Sven?

Let me ask you this- Do you honestly think a second gen mag will be developed utilizing any data here?

I read all of the posts, including the introspective parts.  I also read the part where he is already suggesting a second generation based on this thread. Sorry, that is crazy to me, especially after he stated he didn't know what to make of all the testing or whether it affected the drop test portion in the first place.

My post isn't a disservice. What damage have I done here?  I'm a nobody, a "13'er". OP's post may very well influence people's decision to buy these mags and could affect the bottom line of real companies. There's a big difference. The tests he displayed here aren't fair to Sven or PGS as a dealer.

It absolutely would be most useful to conduct completely isolated tests, I agree completely with that. I only had 4 mags to work with though, so it would wind up being a very narrowly focused kind of thing if I had said "ok, this one mag is only going to be used for cold temp tests". Data from such a test would probably be more useful, I was just trying to work within the logistical limitations. I can say that I did adjust my thinking/test methods with this compound-test issue in mind...it's one reason why I wasn't trying to replicate the freeze to -60 and then do drop tests while it's frozen.  

I'm not a product testing lab or an R&D person, but I would presume that the way this tends to work is more along the lines of:

1. product is engineered / prototyped / tested etc. for the initial product dev (I realize this is combining many steps / iterations)
2. product is put to market, where it is exposed to a much less focused but much wider array of things, some of which could be imagined, some not so much...some might be methods of use that differ from the original testing criteria.
3. If issues arise 'in the field' with these end users that appear to be problematic and repeatable, a question sometimes gets asked: "why is this happening?"
4. Certain aspects of #1 might be re-examined, to determine a) if #3 actually is an issue at all or if it's in the realm of "anything can be broken" and b) if it is an issue, can anything be done to resolve it or mitigate it?
5. If yes to the former and yes to the latter are the answers, then some re-engineering may happen and a new generation of product may be produced. Obviously a gazillion things would go into that decision and process, but that's a whole 'nother subject.

I'm not trying to push for a gen 2 mag...but a manufacturer's response to an end-user's experience isn't outside the realm of possibility either. This exact thing actually is currently underway right now with Magpul AK mags, where a couple of joe six pack mil dudes with youtube channels were breaking feedlips on M3 AK mags. These guys aren't engineers, materials science guys, or a testing lab...all they are doing is regular guy stuff with repeatable results and passing that info on the Magpul. After a bit of work, Magpul did their own testing and replicated the results these two yahoos were getting. It turned out that what the two joe six pack guys were doing was just different than what they were doing in their test lab at Magpul...which lead to different results. Ever since then, Magpul's been working on resolving the issue. That hasn't resulted in a new product (yet anyway), but the question raised by these guys started a process in motion that does involve the real engineers/gurus of this type of product design to reexamine things.

There's nothing wrong with products evolving over time in response to real world use. Our beloved ARs are all evolved from older designs from the 60s, right? I'm not sure why continued product dev is looked at as a bad thing. Do you buy gen 2/3 pmags or do you hunt down gen 1 pmags because they are the original? gen 1 Lancers? Do you track down examples of that first run of Magpul Glock mags because they were 'first'? Gen 1 CZ OEM mags? We're all enjoying the fruits of designers continued labors in almost all of the things we buy and enjoy, I don't see why that should be any different here. I'm gonna run the heck out of some M/P mags in my Scorpion. If Sven decides to make a gen 2 at some point, I'll run the hell out of those too.

----

In response to your most recent post, I think we can all agree that magazines will be dropped in real life normal use, from time to time. If that is the case, feel free to tell us exactly how a drop test should be performed, that would be both "fair" in your mind and actually test the durability of a magazine falling out of a gun, being dropped, or what have you . If you could refer to industry examples, that would be helpful. I agree completely that my tests were both small scale and not a perfect methodology with regard to how a lab would test them...but the real world has a lot more factors at play and doesn't behave like a lab in all cases. How would you test them if you were tasked with doing so in the same circumstances? Drop them on a pillow and call it good? A lot of people live in urban and suburban settings. Concrete / asphalt / tile and similarly rigid surfaces are everywhere. Are they not legitimate impact surfaces for such a test? It's fine if you think so, it's a free country, I'm just curious what you are basing your comments on so I can understand them.

Did you give Sven a chance to address your concerns prior to making this thread? Isn't that the fair thing to do, especially the first week a product hits the market? Perhaps, he could've provided some insight to your testing methods and what you should expect from these mags.

I am basing my comments on the fact that people were practically begging Manticore and ETS to develop a Scorpion mag. Sven stepped up, put his money where his mouth is, and brought one to market.  He did the research and the testing that you clearly state you can't do.  Apparently, he passed out some free product for feedback.  I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I imagine that would entail loading them up and using the mags as intended. Not tossing them around until they break. If they broke while loading or shooting, I would say you found a problem.  

The assertion that a "good" mag should survive "x" amount of drops isn't something I agree with. Mags are expendable. If I drop them and they break, I replace them.  I've never once thought I uncovered a design flaw.  Sure, there's an objective way to test how many times a mag can be dropped. How many times is it DESIGNED to be dropped?  Remember, CZ mags were breaking just sitting around and having a couple boxes of ammo run through them. That's a serious flaw.

Take a look at your Scorpion. It's a lightweight, throw away gun. How many times can you buttstroke the concrete before the stock breaks off? How many times can you drop the gun from 5 feet before the receiver breaks or the grip breaks off?  What does it take for an optic mount to break the plastic picatinny rail?

I think your expectations for this platform may be unrealistic. Just because you see people on YouTube tossing around AR mags, doesn't mean every other gun on the planet is going to live up to that standard. If you want indestructible, get a Garand. The AR is so popular because it nailed the sweet spot in design compromises. It's a great gun that can truly be taken to battle. The Scorpion will never be that gun. It fills a different roll. The fact that it's a 9mm carbine should make that obvious.

For guys like us, the Scorpion is a fun gun. I love shooting mine. I have enough CZ and Manticore mags to shoot out the barrel. If I drop one 1.87 times and it breaks, oh well. I bet Sven will stand behind his product and replace anything with a manufacturing defect.  What more can you ask for?

None of that answered the question. Let's put it this way, if you bought a mag, took it to the range, and it fell 12" onto some deep fluffy grass and broke in half, would you be satisfied with the mags durability? I'm not saying that's the case here,, I'm merely suggesting that everyone has at least some level of demand for durability, unless you're doing the old school M16A1  "use it once and leave it on the ground" thing. Even then, what if it gets dropped before the first time you use it?

I've pointed out the issues with CZ mag durability many times in this thread, as others have elsewhere. I guess all of those people's? comments, including your own, are a disservice to CZ?

And yes, all results have got to Sven first. I've had the pics / data ready to roll for a long time. The only reason they got posted when they did was because the product was released. Once a product is in the wild anyone / everyone is free to comment on them, no? If not, why are you saying negative things about CZ mags?

I was going to post again that I like these mags and will be buying more, but it would just be ignored again so I guess I won't bother.

I think Lancer MPX mags should have been used instead of their AR pattern mags.

More apples to apples that way. MagPul can stay though, as they are industry standard.

No, I wouldn't be satisfied with that, but that's not what is happening with any of these mags.  As I said, if your Manticore mags broke while you were loading them or shooting them, it would make sense to report that. The CZ mags had a serious flaw, they were breaking under normal use. You can't tell the difference here? You barely used the mags and then subjected them to bunch of arbitrary tests.

The bottom line is, there's already another thread where guys are expressing doubts about this mag and saying they may not buy any based on your report. "I report, you decide" is what you said. If you're proud of that and what you've done here, congrats I guess. IMO, you may have hurt a small business while misrepresenting the durability of their product.

The fact that you will buy more doesn't matter to those guys, apparently. Instead of buying a couple and running them hard to see how they perform over time (actually taking your gun outside and using it), we're talking about how many times you can drop various plastic things until they break and judging them by some standard that doesn't exist.

MAC did a 20 minute video on these mags and they worked great for him, even after dropping them multiple times at the range. Why are his "real world" results different than yours? Perhaps, your expectations are unrealistic and you are shaping people's opinions, which is the only reason I spoke up to begin with.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, even though we don't agree.

So when it comes to shooting gear (guns, mags, parts etc.) if you can load it at the range and it goes bang when you pull the trigger then it's "enough"? Funny, not a single manufacturer of any gun part believes in that incredibly low standard, including Manticore. If you do, that's fine. Free country, but people drop their mags all the time in all kinds of situations and terrains. It's very very normal behavior in pretty much every circumstance other than bench-rest target shooting or plinking.

And here we are again, where you say that you don't like the tests but then refuse to propose any realistic alternative. Let's put it this way, yes or no question: is dropping a mag on the ground "normal use"? If so, what is your standard for durability? I don't care what it is, I'd just like to know what your standard is so we can actually talk about it. Once you have a standard then you need a way to test it, which we could discuss as well instead of running around in circles.

I don't have the power to hurt any business and I don't control what other people think. I haven't done anything that others won't do over time, I just posted results first (well, not first really, but earlier than the avg early-adopting consumer let's put it that way). I suppose it's possible that I have magic concrete in my garage and that no one will ever experience similar results...but my guess is, at least a few other people will. That's not the end of the world. Magpul Pmags are 'the standard', no? Have any idea how many people have got a Pmag to fail under hard-but-not-unrealistic use? The AK pmag issue I mentioned previously was repeatable when dropping the partial mags in grass. It happens. It doesn't mean the product is bad, it just means it isn't perfect. On the other hand, what is?

Define "running them hard".

There are lots of durability standards out there, milspec tests, and mag manufacturer's naturally have their own tests as well. Arsenal makes AKs and AK mags. Here a sliver of the kind of testing they do with their mags.



Not 100% sure how far they are dropping it there. They are Bulgarians IIRC, so probably a meter...but with a full mag and gun, and the mag being the impact point of the drop onto what appears to be a steel plate in the horizontal drop tests. That's pretty hardcore testing. I imagine their tests that don't include a rifle being attached are much rougher than mine as well. Is Arsenal's conduct a disservice to...Arsenal? Magpul's hard core internal testing a disservice to...Magpul?

So if one person tests something in one way, then no other testing anywhere on earth at any time is ever valid again? I thought MACs couple of drops was an interesting test, because the mags were loaded, which has the potential to introduce some pretty serious forces...especially on a gravel surface where 'just the right' drop could result in much greater PSI (point of a rock hits first) than a flat concrete test. On the other hand, the feed lips of a mag are partially supported by the ammo/spring pressure when you drop a partially full mag feed-lips first...which is why it should just be one test in a series of drop tests. For 'normal use' empty mags are dropped more often than full mags, so if you're testing is based on what is most likely to happen with regular shooters than an empty mag test would make more sense if you could only do one...but doing both would always be best, which is why I had both in my testing regime. I do understand why he did feedlips-first--CZ mags have issues with the feed lips and the steel feed lips feature of the M/P mags is a key characteristic of the product so he wanted to see how durable they were. It's data, and I appreciated seeing it, like I would any data.  

Same here. If we can't discuss issues we disagree on, the whole forum is just a circle-jerk.

I don't want to speak for Sven here. He needs to have the opportunity to address your concerns, without some random dumbass like me speaking up. I just think you should've worked this out with him prior to making a thread like this.

I don't see the value in comparing Scorpion mags to AR or AK mags. There's way too many variables. Just look at the difference in the bolt hold open mechanism on an AR mag compared to a Scorpion mag. What kind of limitations does that impose on the strength of the mag body? What about the location of the retention notch?

I don't know shit about AKs. I like what I saw in the video you posted, but that's not a Scorpion. I don't see the Scorpion itself doing well in a test like that. The Scorpion is put together like a cheap 80s toy. It's a light plastic PCC, not an infantry rifle. If I want a gun that I can swing like a bat, I'm taking a Garand. That doesn't mean the Scorpion isn't a great gun. Mine has never had a failure and is accurate. It even has the Butter Hammer^TM that a bunch of people are freaking out about.

I go out into the woods and shoot steel, often in the rain. The Scorpion is by far, the favorite gun to shoot for everybody that comes out. I've never had someone run over a mag with a truck or repeatedly drop it on the same exact spot while out there. That's the extent of my experience and most likely over 90% of other shooters out there, as well. I have no doubt that the Manticore mags will either do well, or PGS will replace them.

I want a clear magazine!

And a dark one.

Everything was reported to Sven, before the thread was posted. There's really not much to 'work out', I provided a data point from a limited range/scale test. He can ignore it, use it, try similar tests himself or whatever, that's his choice. I've never designed a single product, gun related or otherwise, in my life. I'm not the expert here, he is. I'm a security expert, which has no relationship with product design (or testing for that matter). If the results aren't repeatable, no one else will ever have a similar problem and this thread will fade into obscurity, which frankly, I'm just fine with.

I dropped a couple AR mags in addition to the CZ mag for a couple reasons: 1. to address the notion that no mag could withstand the forces at work here and 2. because any mag, from any gun, is likely to fall from a similar height. Whether you shoulder a AR, or a Scorpion, or aim in with a pistol, or whatever, the distance the mag will fall will be pretty much the same. Not identical, but close. That height is different for each person, sure, but then again you can't just design a mag for short people so they won't fall as far. Now, with loaded/partially loaded mags there would certainly be an varied amount of weight in the mags and that could add a variable that might make dropping other mags less relevant, I would agree with that. I didn't get to do any partial/full mag tests though.

I agree that it's not a battle rifle, but it is being marketed by CZ as a military / police weapon and has been adopted by a few mil units and police forces around the world. Surely it's been tested to whatever qualifies as mil-spec in the countries that have adopted it. Not sure if those people ever did a loaded-mag test though...kinda surprising that they missed that. At any rate, just because it's light and uses polymers doesn't mean it's a 'toy'. They built the A1 for LEO/mil, and one presumes it was designed with those uses specifically in mind and tested as such.

One thing we agree on completely is our love of the Scorpion. Fantastic gun, I love mine and can't wait to put it back together (post-testing I took it apart to have the bbl threaded). Gonna be a pretty fun build....there will be a thread.

You can't be serious.  

of course they are.

l



Oh I'm as serious as a heart attack

I am a newbie to the Scorpion, so what you think is a silly question I see as legit because I wanna know before I buy a dozen mags.

Factory mags have feed lips that crack into nothing randomly, and they're apparently fine until they're not.

I'll be buying some of Sven's mags sometime in the next week or two.

Prepper guns and Manticore together are answering the call of many Scorpion owners for failed factory feed lips on OEM magazines. We have yet to see any generation of factory magazines that have not had a failure yet. So with this in mind Prepper had Manticore design and make these magazines. We needed and wanted an American made option with steel feed lips, and we now have it. I have mine on the way. Buy OEM if you wish. More of the PGS mags for us.

As of the moment I own oem gen 1 and gen 2 mags, manticore mags and Uzi pro with adapter mags.

Of the mags listed, my favorite are the Uzi with adapter mags. They are steel and so far the adapters seem tough enough for duty type use.

I think adapters are neat but using a secondary device to adapt another platforms magazine is not the most reliable option in the long run. Maybe I am wrong, but I am just sure we can have another better option than adaptors to make magazines reliable for us. though I love the idea of adaptors but will I rely on one not sue yet.

I have the uzi pro mag adapters...and they are not the answer. If they were injection molded or otherwise made out of some more durable polymers...maybe. I can't imagine using the current version for anything but photo ops and fun times at the range. Just my opinion based on handling/inspecting them. I haven't been able to do anything more with them yet because the mags themselves were on backorder when I ordered them.

Anyway, I PMd back/forth with the guy making these and he agrees that injection molding is how it should be done...he just doesn't have the resources to produce such a product at this time.

Printing will advance and my bet is very soon. I like the metal mags and my guess is that as polymer printing comes around, the adapters will be strong enough.

A banged around a couple of my adapted uzipro mags and so far so good.

Thanks Sven. Don't let these guys get you down. I ordered a bunch and am grateful you made them.

im happy with the mags I ordered.

my initial testing went well last weekend, more to do this weekend.
feeds no problem and im not afraid to leave them loaded.

ill be picking a few more up, my ONLY grip is the freaking shipping from prepper gun shop.

$12 for 2 mags that were in a flat rate priority box thats costs $5 to ship.
the 12 dollar flat rate shipping is good if you order alot of stuff but if you only need 1-2 small things they need to have another shipping option.

I agree I don't love the shipping cost. Preppers are a great online shop. I think sometimes you just have to pay for first class service and products.

That is how flat rate shipping works. Personally I prefer it.

These magazine torture tests are always so ridiculous.

Fire 1000 rounds. How did it work?

Do 500 mag exchanges.  Is there visible wear on the products?

Go outside, drop from standing to prone and use your mag as one point of contact.  Do it in a real world manner. Do it a bunch of times.  Did it break?

With the mag in a pouch on your gear, extract a mag and let it fall to the ground as if dropped.  How did it do?

What does freezing it in a block of ice, baking it in an oven, etc, simulate?

Fired 400, the remaining 600 were going to be post-drop test.

Nothing unreasonable/expected on this front.

Are we talking USMC style running-to-prone with mag hitting first? Done it plenty of times in the grunts. Not here though, that kind of testing was going to be post-drop test.

Do you generally drop your mags from your pouch or from the gun?

There are places in America where the temp is often below 32 degrees? Correct? Finding a battlefield pick up that's been laying around outside for days/weeks is entirely possible. I used an oven for heat tests because it doesn't get that hot here outside in January. As noted previously, arfcommers have measured mag temps, after the mags sit in a sun for a bit, of over 170 degrees F. Magpul etc. do all kinds of hot/cold torture tests, at even more extreme temps...you think they are just wasting their time or...? serious question.

The good news here is that the mags are available to everyone now, so feel free to buy some and test them in whatever manner you see fit. I look forward to seeing your posted results.

I don't see what the fuss is in this thread, you're free to test the mags how ever you want.
I personally like the drop test, because I drop my mags all the time. When I'm training for time and the mag won't fall free, I'll strip it out in almost in a throwing action to get my reload back in the gun.
The drop test is always the most important test to me, I don't want to worry about breaking mags when I'm stripping them out of my gun.

Yes, some people seem to be very offended on a personal level, and very selective in their reading..and it's a bit surprising to me outside of the GD.

There are flaws in any/every small scale non-scientific test regime. All that testing like this CAN do, regardless of the method, is lead one to ask a question...or questions. Namely: "I saw X Result...is that repeatable, or even a problem at all?" It's not designed to ANSWER that question, only to provide the impetus to ask it. In many cases, especially with an abusive test, the answer is "no", but the only way to know that for sure is a larger scale / scientific test. Now that these mags are widely distributed to the public, we will see more non-scientific tests. Collectively, they will provide still more data, which may or may not be similar to mine. There might be 100 other drop tests that don't result in any damage to the mag. I have no way of knowing. We'll see. If others do have problems, I would suggest a scientific testing regime be applied that IS capable of determining the specific reasons for the results found in the field. That's a pretty normal/common response in engineering/product design, I would think.

Alternatively we can freak out / get emotional. That 'works' too, I guess.