Marine Corps bans the PMAG from use? - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Marine Corps bans the PMAG from use? (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 6/12/2011 7:26:28 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

It wont take standard aluminum magazines?

It will. They forgot to design the rifle around the as of yet unreleased magazine, and put a change on the rifle that they felt made it better, and that it still would be able to use the 50+ year old mag design.

rabble rabble rabble

Posted: 6/12/2011 7:32:45 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It wont take standard aluminum magazines?

It will. They forgot to design the rifle around the as of yet unreleased magazine, and put a change on the rifle that they felt made it better, and that it still would be able to use the 50+ year old mag design.

rabble rabble rabble

If 100% of the existing rifles in NATO have a particular dimension for a magwell, it stands to reason that any future magazine will be designed to that spec. If you are introducing your fancy new rifle, and it will corner, at best, 2% of the NATO rifle market, the idea of changing a magwell a different dimension, thereby, making future magazines designed to the other 98% of the NATO rifle spec useless for your 2% without making a revolutionary improvement in said magazine well is designed to do one thing, and one thing alone: require that those who buy your 2% buy magazines exclusive to your magwell.

When your magwell looks the same and is VERY close to the same as other battle implements of friendly forces, you should be prosecuted for extortion, endangerment and just bad engineering. So, too, should those who approve your idiotic marketing scheme.

Posted: 6/12/2011 7:35:29 PM EDT

[#3]

Does the Marine Corps actually buy and issue P-Mags in any significant quantity? I thought they were still using aluminum.

Posted: 6/12/2011 7:41:41 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It wont take standard aluminum magazines?

It will. They forgot to design the rifle around the as of yet unreleased magazine, and put a change on the rifle that they felt made it better, and that it still would be able to use the 50+ year old mag design.

rabble rabble rabble

If 100% of the existing rifles in NATO have a particular dimension for a magwell, it stands to reason that any future magazine will be designed to that spec. If you are introducing your fancy new rifle, and it will corner, at best, 2% of the NATO rifle market, the idea of changing a magwell a different dimension, thereby, making future magazines designed to the other 98% of the NATO rifle spec useless for your 2% without making a revolutionary improvement in said magazine well is designed to do one thing, and one thing alone: require that those who buy your 2% buy magazines exclusive to your magwell.

When your magwell looks the same and is VERY close to the same as other battle implements of friendly forces, you should be prosecuted for extortion, endangerment and just bad engineering. So, too, should those who approve your idiotic marketing scheme.

dude it takes standard mags, you don't have to buy the HK mags...which are...dun dun dunnnn...standard mags. The pmags are fucking fatter where the bottom of the magwell is, that is why they don't fit. There is no vonder/uber mag that hk is pimping that is vastly different from stanag mags. Shit the Pmag doesn't fit the FS2000, is FN trying to endanger our troops.

No one forced the Corps to buy the fucking thing. If they woulda asked HK to change the fucking mag well, I think the thought of a govt contract would have made them change it. They provided what the customer wanted.

Posted: 6/12/2011 7:44:59 PM EDT

[#5]

meh..........i joined the Army i just have to deal with stupid berets and velcro..............

Posted: 6/12/2011 7:45:47 PM EDT

[#6]

It's been that way with my BS unit ever since I got here.

ES' STOOPID.

Posted: 6/12/2011 8:15:31 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The fact that HK designed the M27 to not accept magazines that are in widespread use is downright irresponsible. STANAG specs aside, there was no purpose for redesigning the magwell other than looks.

Personally, I would NOT be surprised at all if HK did it on purpose to force the Marines to buy HK mags or USGI mags, in a pathetic attempt to try and keep their competition down.

HK 416 released in 2004 or 2005...PMAG in '07....yeah it was a conspiracy to fuck the Marines out of not yeat developed/released PMAGs 6yrs down the line.

A PMAG fits in every AR15 I've ever held in my hands. I know that SOME AR makers have lowers that are out of spec and PMAGs will not fit.

Why would HK not follow the industry standard and goto a smaller magwell that less credited AR15s had?

Posted: 6/12/2011 8:19:35 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that HK designed the M27 to not accept magazines that are in widespread use is downright irresponsible. STANAG specs aside, there was no purpose for redesigning the magwell other than looks.

Personally, I would NOT be surprised at all if HK did it on purpose to force the Marines to buy HK mags or USGI mags, in a pathetic attempt to try and keep their competition down.

HK 416 released in 2004 or 2005...PMAG in '07....yeah it was a conspiracy to fuck the Marines out of not yeat developed/released PMAGs 6yrs down the line.

A PMAG fits in every AR15 I've ever held in my hands. I know that SOME AR makers have lowers that are out of spec and PMAGs will not fit.

Why would HK not follow the industry standard and goto a smaller magwell that less credited AR15s had?

This is what confuses me to. I can understand if it is something like an FN 2000, which is entirely different. But the IAR/HK 416 is just an AR-15 variant. They essentially went out of the way to redesign the mag well. I don't see why they needed to narrow the mag well in the first place?

Posted: 6/12/2011 9:24:15 PM EDT

[#9]

FWIW, I own several HK 3rd gen. mags. They are well built, and I've never had a problem with them. The infantry battalions chopped out to the MEUs back in 2006 or so were getting them. I ended up with a few after they were done in-country in Iraq. They work fine. I have several that were purchased new and work great.

They are not perfect. They are heavy, they rattle around in the magazine well (smaller dimensions), and since they are longer, they won't fit some web gear out there (although not a problem with the CIF or "IIF" gear I've been issued.

On the other hand, one can leave the mag loaded for long periods of time without any problems or excessive maintenance. That is, if the spring isn't defective like I've read about.

That said, they are way overpriced. PMags, on the other hand, are a thousand times better than the stuff we get issued, and compared to HK mags much more cost effective. USGI mags suck. Argue with me all day long, but I've lived USGI magazines since 1984, and they suck. Hard.

My last job took me to the range twice monthly, and new mags worked well, but after several iterations of Table III by multiple classes, they started having problems. That's under training conditions, not the abuse you see in combat. It's generally accepted that USMC units deploying should use mags no more than two combat tours (generally 7 months each, excluding training work-ups) AT MOST. After that, toss 'em in the dumpster.

All my USGI mags have Magpul followers. With that upgrade, they're not bad, but I still wouldn't use them for more than one deployment. That's just me.

Yea they're cheap, but can we not spend just a few dollars more and have a mag that lasts, instead of being cheap and delicate?

Anyway, HK needs to fix that shit. Until someone proves otherwise, I'm skeptical of the whole nonsense, and this new bit of info just pisses me off. This certainly doesn't give me much confidence in the procurement process.

Posted: 6/12/2011 9:27:55 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Does the Marine Corps actually buy and issue P-Mags in any significant quantity? I thought they were still using aluminum.

Not that I'm aware of. Units may have purchased them with slush funds prior to deployment, but I've never seen them issued from any armory.

The only two mags I've seen issued were USGI aluminum, and HK 3rd generation. Older generations of the HK mag were issued, but I heard it from friends and employers-never saw it with my own eyes.

MARSOC issues them to their operators. Sage green was the only color I saw, FWIW.

Posted: 6/12/2011 9:54:20 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Pmag never solved anything to begin with.

I'll jump on this band wagon and completely agree.

The anti-tilt follower wasn't an improvement?

Sure was but the follower is not a pmag. Now they have a govt anti-tilt follower that comes spec from the maker. Why they just didn't purchase them from Magpul I don't know.

Price?

More like lack of political connections.

Posted: 6/12/2011 9:58:09 PM EDT

[#12]

This simplifies my decision. I was in the market for an HK, no more. Thanks for your shitty engineering hk assholes.

Posted: 6/12/2011 10:01:23 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that HK designed the M27 to not accept magazines that are in widespread use is downright irresponsible. STANAG specs aside, there was no purpose for redesigning the magwell other than looks.

Personally, I would NOT be surprised at all if HK did it on purpose to force the Marines to buy HK mags or USGI mags, in a pathetic attempt to try and keep their competition down.

+1

Posted: 6/12/2011 10:01:37 PM EDT

[#14]

Seems like a pretty stupid move if so.

Posted: 6/12/2011 10:14:15 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that HK designed the M27 to not accept magazines that are in widespread use is downright irresponsible. STANAG specs aside, there was no purpose for redesigning the magwell other than looks.

Personally, I would NOT be surprised at all if HK did it on purpose to force the Marines to buy HK mags or USGI mags, in a pathetic attempt to try and keep their competition down.

HK 416 released in 2004 or 2005...PMAG in '07....yeah it was a conspiracy to fuck the Marines out of not yeat developed/released PMAGs 6yrs down the line.

They could have updated it.

There was no reason to make the magwell a size different from that of the other hundreds of thousands of M-16 and AR-15 lowers already on the market... except to force people to buy their shit.

It wont take standard aluminum magazines?

It will. But there's still no reason to change the dimensions on the magwell, any more than if your computer manufacturer suddenly decided to start modifying the size and shape of the USB port on your machine. There's absolutely zero valid fucking reason to do so, and about a hundred really good reasons not to.

Posted: 6/13/2011 2:31:42 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that HK designed the M27 to not accept magazines that are in widespread use is downright irresponsible. STANAG specs aside, there was no purpose for redesigning the magwell other than looks.

Personally, I would NOT be surprised at all if HK did it on purpose to force the Marines to buy HK mags or USGI mags, in a pathetic attempt to try and keep their competition down.

HK 416 released in 2004 or 2005...PMAG in '07....yeah it was a conspiracy to fuck the Marines out of not yeat developed/released PMAGs 6yrs down the line.

They could have updated it.

There was no reason to make the magwell a size different from that of the other hundreds of thousands of M-16 and AR-15 lowers already on the market... except to force people to buy their shit.

It wont take standard aluminum magazines?

It will. But there's still no reason to change the dimensions on the magwell, any more than if your computer manufacturer suddenly decided to start modifying the size and shape of the USB port on your machine. There's absolutely zero valid fucking reason to do so, and about a hundred really good reasons not to.

So let me get this straight.

2004-2005 Hk develops a weapon, they change the angle of the magwell, but it still accepts all available/current STANAG magazines. I thought i remember reading that they believed it aided in reloading or some shit.

2007 Magpul develops a magazine, they change the outside dimensions of it, and it won't fit in all weapons that can take a stanag magazine.

HK is the bad guy here

That's it, that is why PMAG, Lancer Gen1s, and some Tango down mags don't work in the HK416. they have ribs, or are thicker near the magwell opening thus preventing use with the hk uber fuck stick.

Oh and magpul produces a STANAG mag, that they label STANAG, and guess what...it'll work in the 416.

"The EMAG (Export MAGazine) is a lightweight 30-round 5.56x45 NATO polymer magazine that features a number of aesthetic and functional changes from the original PMAG®. While EMAG remains 100% compatible with the AR15/M16 platform, its unique geometry is optimized for foreign-made weapons such as the HK 416, British SA-80, Beretta ARX-160, IMI Tavor, and others."

So again. Fuck HK for developing a weapon system that utilizes the same magazines that have been used for the last 50+, that are STANAG, that can be shared with any M4, A2, A4, in the squad, and before most of these new polymer mags came to market/inception. Fuck them for not future proofing. Fuck them for going with their customers requests. Fuck them for not changing their system so that it may use a magazine that is not standard issue in the US military. May so much fuck be upon them that they fuck.

If you want to hate anyone hate the Corps, they didn't ask for the changes (as far as I know from the press releases) and HK didn't deny them the changes (again, as far as I know).

I know there is no need to argue here, I already lost this argument, no matter what. Whatever

Posted: 6/13/2011 2:50:58 AM EDT

[#17]

...and there you have it.

Posted: 6/13/2011 4:15:00 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Pmag never solved anything to begin with.

I'll jump on this band wagon and completely agree.

LOL... in theory, plastic can't rust. Oh wait, the USGI mags are aluminum...

Then you have the fun things you get with plastic mags like easily cracked/distorted feed lips, and.... melting, ala Thermold mags and XM-8 handguards.

OK, I guess I have to hop on the bandwagon, too.

USGI mags can't take nearly the abuse that a PMAG can take though.

This is relative to the type of abuse.

Fortier did a test in Shotgun News comparing several of the new Wündermags a while back.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/25/shotgun-news-test-ar-15-magazines/

He also posted here about it.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=17&t=468826&page=1

The black plastic fantastic is good, but has its own failings.

Posted: 6/15/2011 8:55:46 AM EDT

[#19]

There are many statements of conjecture I could comment on in this thread, but these are the facts:

- There is NO official "STANAG magazine". Draft STANAG 4179 was a proposed standardization but was never adopted.
- The PMAG was optimized for the Colt M16 family of rifles.
- The EMAG was optimized for various foreign-made weapons that do not adhere to the Colt magwell specification.

Some National Stock Numbers (NSN) for reference:

- MAG210-BLK, PMAG 30 MagLevel #1005-01-576-5164
- MAG211-BLK, PMAG 30 #1005-01-576-5159
- MAG241-BLK, EMAG 30 MagLevel #1005-99-667-5926 (NATO Stock Number)

While I of course cannot predict the future, there are currently hundreds-of-thousands of PMAGs in use with the U.S. Marine Corps and plenty more with the other branches...

Posted: 6/15/2011 9:54:19 AM EDT

[#20]

Certain BN Cmdrs will not allow ANY gear that is non-issue.

Posted: 6/17/2011 9:25:59 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Side track thread time: Has anyone ever done an a test to see which between Lancer and PMAG could take the most abuse?

Forum member David Fortier did a torture test published in Shotgun News. Lancer was the only mag he couldn't break. He also found that aluminum mags were tougher than most people think. His results were of course attacked but never discredited.

Posted: 6/17/2011 9:29:54 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't care, aluminum USGI mags still work fine...

Yup. Only issue with them is they're rarely replaced/maintained. When you're working with mags from the 80's/early 90's with the same springs/followers...bad things sometimes happen. I still have some black follower ones...they feed just fine, every time.

Units can replace 10% of their magazines annually. They are considered expendable items, not something you hang onto for decades.

Posted: 6/23/2011 12:01:22 AM EDT

[#23]

HK isn't at fault here. A bunch of people with heavy collars tried to address an issue, and frankly they screwed the pooch. When the Corps starts making sense it's time to get out. The IAR has it's own pros and cons, and IMHO the pros don't make up for the cons. The SAW was heavy and bulky and wasn't made for clearing houses: the IAR addresses those issues but takes away form the other thing the SAW was good for. If they were going to go this route they should have just dropped some full auto FCG's into the M16A4's they already have. My first deployment I was a SAW gunner, and I had over 600 rds on me everywhere I went. My second deployment I had a 203, I carried as many mags as I could which was 12. That's a lot less rounds for your automaic weapons. The sustained fire rate is a lot less. On top of it all to bring in conformity gear that people have been using successfully for a while can no longer be used. In Afghan there's a lot less room clearing and a lot more bad guys at longer distances. They would have been better of improving the SAW than swapping out for a new weapon system, but the guys with heavy collars call the shots not me. The USGI mags get messed up easily. I've dented more than I can remember, and I had the but plate dislodge while rushing and rounds went everywhere. The IAR is a great concept, but like anything new needs to be hashed out more before employed.

Posted: 6/23/2011 12:09:08 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't care, aluminum USGI mags still work fine...

Yup. Only issue with them is they're rarely replaced/maintained. When you're working with mags from the 80's/early 90's with the same springs/followers...bad things sometimes happen. I still have some black follower ones...they feed just fine, every time.

You need to go kick your supply guy and company XO in the dick. Order the fuckin things and they show up. We have too many mags....

No shit, they are class 9....I crush every black follower mag I come across and toss it....if we have mag failures on the range, samething, crush, toss, order more...pretty simple and the new mags are coming with the new magpul type followers..

Posted: 6/23/2011 12:18:57 AM EDT

[#25]

I like polymer mags because they break instead of bend. In the army any time you are issued a metal mag its a crapshoot if it will feed correctly. I've crushed metal mags several times.

I've crushed metal mags climbing walls, or just eating the dirt too fast. Shit, leaning against the turret ring warped one of my mags over time.

The problem is I don't have a count on how many mags I may have slightly distorted enough to where they are going to cause issues.

Posted: 6/23/2011 12:24:45 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Purchase requests for dozens of 2 point VTACs for a unit heading overseas. Answer? 3 point Mamba's or whatever they are called. Toss them in the trash.

I love when they send you "the next best thing"

Pmags turned into cammengas

VTAC's turned into blackhawks

benchmade turned into gerber
Shit, I remember when we ordered some serpa holsters and got in some of the old black leather cavalry shoulder rigs

Posted: 6/23/2011 12:28:47 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact that HK designed the M27 to not accept magazines that are in widespread use is downright irresponsible. STANAG specs aside, there was no purpose for redesigning the magwell other than looks.

Personally, I would NOT be surprised at all if HK did it on purpose to force the Marines to buy HK mags or USGI mags, in a pathetic attempt to try and keep their competition down.

HK 416 released in 2004 or 2005...PMAG in '07....yeah it was a conspiracy to fuck the Marines out of not yeat developed/released PMAGs 6yrs down the line.

They could have updated it.

There was no reason to make the magwell a size different from that of the other hundreds of thousands of M-16 and AR-15 lowers already on the market... except to force people to buy their shit.

It wont take standard aluminum magazines?

It will. But there's still no reason to change the dimensions on the magwell, any more than if your computer manufacturer suddenly decided to start modifying the size and shape of the USB port on your machine. There's absolutely zero valid fucking reason to do so, and about a hundred really good reasons not to.

So let me get this straight.

2004-2005 Hk develops a weapon, they change the angle of the magwell, but it still accepts all available/current STANAG magazines. I thought i remember reading that they believed it aided in reloading or some shit.

2007 Magpul develops a magazine, they change the outside dimensions of it, and it won't fit in all weapons that can take a stanag magazine.

HK is the bad guy here

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e296/wombatturd/colt_m4_6920.jpg

That's it, that is why PMAG, Lancer Gen1s, and some Tango down mags don't work in the HK416. they have ribs, or are thicker near the magwell opening thus preventing use with the hk uber fuck stick.

Oh and magpul produces a STANAG mag, that they label STANAG, and guess what...it'll work in the 416.

"The EMAG (Export MAGazine) is a lightweight 30-round 5.56x45 NATO polymer magazine that features a number of aesthetic and functional changes from the original PMAG®. While EMAG remains 100% compatible with the AR15/M16 platform, its unique geometry is optimized for foreign-made weapons such as the HK 416, British SA-80, Beretta ARX-160, IMI Tavor, and others."

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e296/wombatturd/stanag.png

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e296/wombatturd/emag.png

So again. Fuck HK for developing a weapon system that utilizes the same magazines that have been used for the last 50+, that are STANAG, that can be shared with any M4, A2, A4, in the squad, and before most of these new polymer mags came to market/inception. Fuck them for not future proofing. Fuck them for going with their customers requests. Fuck them for not changing their system so that it may use a magazine that is not standard issue in the US military. May so much fuck be upon them that they fuck.

If you want to hate anyone hate the Corps, they didn't ask for the changes (as far as I know from the press releases) and HK didn't deny them the changes (again, as far as I know).

I know there is no need to argue here, I already lost this argument, no matter what. Whatever

I'm no HK fan but you're right on this one. I don't think the other people understand your point or they just need to reinforce their purchase decision. Or their tinfoil is way too tight.

Posted: 6/23/2011 12:29:38 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

No shit, they are class 9....I crush every black follower mag I come across and toss it....if we have mag failures on the range, samething, crush, toss, order more...pretty simple and the new mags are coming with the new magpul type followers..

I wouldn't be so quick to toss them, the new mags were a 1 for 1 swap.

Posted: 6/23/2011 1:02:47 AM EDT

[#29]

The simple solution is for folks to get EMAGs instead of PMAGs... the problem is that they aren't priced competitively - the EMAG is significantly higher in price, if you can even find them for sale.

HK was stupid for changing the magwell on the 416 and USMC was stupid for failing to simply require that the magwell be compatible with the M16/M4 magwell and magazines in the IAR solicitation.

Posted: 6/23/2011 7:09:19 AM EDT

[#30]

I bet two minutes with a file would solve the problem. BTW there are some really psychotic posts in this thread.

Posted: 6/23/2011 7:21:21 AM EDT

[#31]

Is the magwell on the IAR different than an MR556? Because I had no problems putting a Pmag in one a few days ago. Wouldn't drop free, but it fit.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 6/23/2011 10:21:47 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Side track thread time: Has anyone ever done an a test to see which between Lancer and PMAG could take the most abuse?

Forum member David Fortier did a torture test published in Shotgun News. Lancer was the only mag he couldn't break. He also found that aluminum mags were tougher than most people think. His results were of course attacked but never discredited.

Ours tests involving drop fixtures and high speed video discredited those findings pretty quickly.

The PMag will withstand feedlip and side impacts far better then current issue USGI ALU mags.

Posted: 6/23/2011 10:24:23 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
I bet two minutes with a file would solve the problem. BTW there are some really psychotic posts in this thread.

Yes but that is not a good solution for a fielded weapon.

Emags (Export version of the PMag) is the current standard for those running 416s (and variants like the IAR)

The inability to lock into the IAR is due to the non standard HK416 magwell. It is longer at the front to mimic the magazine well of the SA80A2 (also designed by HK) and thereby be compatible with the SA80A2 blank firing magazine which the USMC does not even use!

So for compatibility with a rarely used euro blank firing mag, the USMC are giving up compatibility with a magazine that is fielded in the millions in combat environments over the last 5 years. The USMC also lose the ability to use the new quad stack Surefire magazine which would enhance the effectiveness (and survivability) of a Marine Corps rifle team.

I love the Corps and it was good to me, but I wonder at it's logic when it comes down to stuff like this.

Posted: 6/23/2011 11:21:41 AM EDT

[#34]

Anyone want to take a guess how long it will take Congress to get involved in this and what it will take for them to bring it up?

Posted: 6/23/2011 11:36:39 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
No shit, they are class 9....I crush every black follower mag I come across and toss it....if we have mag failures on the range, samething, crush, toss, order more...pretty simple and the new mags are coming with the new magpul type followers..

I wouldn't be so quick to toss them, the new mags were a 1 for 1 swap.

Not anymore....we just order more..

Posted: 6/23/2011 11:40:06 AM EDT

[#36]

totally screwed up decision. Hope they correct ASAP.

Posted: 6/23/2011 11:57:57 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Pmag never solved anything to begin with.

I'll jump on this band wagon and completely agree.

LOL... in theory, plastic can't rust. Oh wait, the USGI mags are aluminum...

Then you have the fun things you get with plastic mags like easily cracked/distorted feed lips, and.... melting, ala Thermold mags and XM-8 handguards.

OK, I guess I have to hop on the bandwagon, too.

Have you seen any reports of melted Pmags?

Posted: 6/23/2011 1:47:11 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Pmag never solved anything to begin with.

I'll jump on this band wagon and completely agree.

LOL... in theory, plastic can't rust. Oh wait, the USGI mags are aluminum...

Then you have the fun things you get with plastic mags like easily cracked/distorted feed lips, and.... melting, ala Thermold mags and XM-8 handguards.

OK, I guess I have to hop on the bandwagon, too.

Have you seen any reports of melted Pmags?

To many people one magazine is just like another. God and the Devil are in the details. For example it was stated that the USGI Bodies don't rust but the springs do as we found out during our testing.

Here are some differences that may (or may not) be important to you. There is probably more but these are some that pop into my head awhile back. NOTE: In quantity the Mags costs the US government the same as a USGI ALU magazine.

PMag internal geometry uses an aggressive constant curve to improve reliability (the USGI has a curved then straight section to work with the M16 straight mag well)
PMag has a corrosive resistant stainless steel spring, USGI uses stock music wire
PMag has a 4 way anti tilt follower as standard (only very recent USGI mags have this)
PMag has a floorplate that is easier to remove and more robust than a USGI
PMag body has better crush strength than a USGI
PMag feedlips have better impact strength than a USGI
In combat deployment after-action reports, the PMag far out lasts USGI mags in theater.
PMag is functional after a 500 hour simulated salt spray test (the USGI fails)
PMag has a dust cover (that is optional) but will keep dust and debris out of the magazine during long term storage.
PMag has a much, much lower IR signature than a USGI
PMag body is easier to handle in both extreme hot and cold temperatures.
PMag has color options and it's color is embedded. USGI finish can wear off.
PMag has an option for a round cound window that can read rounds remaining obscured by the magazine well.
All PMags go through the same QC control (internal and external gauge check for EVERY magazine that leaves the factory)
Not all USGI mags are built for the US GOV and not all a built to remotely similar standards.

Polymer is progress

Posted: 6/23/2011 1:51:35 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This is required it is the corps fault for adpoting an H&K rifle the IAR- why the F H&K decided to make a rifle that soes not accept STANAG mags for the corps is only elusive than why the corps accepted a rifle with an out of spec mag well for the SAW role.

H&K wanted to F everyone to make a profit by having a special mag design the corps let them it all a bunch of bull and it hurts our guys.

I had no idea that the IAR doesn't accept STANAG. That's nuts.

Me too. I thought the IAR is a more beefier HK416, which accepts STANAG mags. Er maybe I am wrong?

If that's the case then that makes the whole IAR concept even dumber than what I thought it was in the first place.

ETA: Now I see it uses the STANAG but you have to use the E-Mag instead of the P-Mag. Oh well the whole concept of the IAR still seems silly to me. But I'm just some a-hole typing on a keyboard so you know how much my opinion is worth.

Posted: 6/23/2011 2:06:35 PM EDT

[#40]

P mags are not STANAG and load badly from stripper clips which I think is the bigger problem!

Posted: 6/23/2011 2:16:01 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
P mags are not STANAG and load badly from stripper clips which I think is the bigger problem!

Stripper clips are an anachronism and need to have been done away with when the M16 was originally adopted. Their continued use is, well, stupid.

For the cost of the stripper clips, spoons, and the manufacturer loading the ammo onto the stripper clips, I'll bet they could just include a LULA with every bandoleer of ammo and it would be exponentially more user friendly.

I'd rather just load mags by hand than use stripper clips.

Posted: 6/23/2011 2:19:46 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is required it is the corps fault for adpoting an H&K rifle the IAR- why the F H&K decided to make a rifle that soes not accept STANAG mags for the corps is only elusive than why the corps accepted a rifle with an out of spec mag well for the SAW role.

H&K wanted to F everyone to make a profit by having a special mag design the corps let them it all a bunch of bull and it hurts our guys.

I had no idea that the IAR doesn't accept STANAG. That's nuts.

Me too. I thought the IAR is a more beefier HK416, which accepts STANAG mags. Er maybe I am wrong?

If that's the case then that makes the whole IAR concept even dumber than what I thought it was in the first place.

The issue comes from the HKs 416 Magazine well which is longer than any other AR15/M16 magwell.

Why? Well here is the reason behind it.

In 2000, Heckler & Koch, at that time owned by the British small arms manufacturer Royal Ordnance, was contracted to upgrade the SA80 family of weapons. Two hundred thousand SA80s were re-manufactured at a cost of £400 each, producing the A2 variant. This included the famous HK SA80 Steel magazines.

In addition to the regular steel magazine they produced a blank firing version with a sliding round inhibitor.

So this magazine was fielded with the UK military as part of their blank firing kit for ages. The lower edge of the SA80 mag well moves the round inhibitor down so the blank rounds can be fed into the chamber.

Fast forward to 2005 and the HK 416 was being developed they used the same SA80 steel magazines but to make the blank magazines work they had to lengthen the front of the magwell to engage the switch.

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:14:56 PM EDT

[#43]

So then I guess the question is: why did magpul not take the HK design into account when making the p-mag?

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:18:53 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
So then I guess the question is: why did magpul not take the HK design into account when making the p-mag?

They were designing a magazine to work in th M-16/M-4/AR-15 series of rifles not some overpriced German mechanical abortion. The better question is just what is the Marine Corp going to do for their higher capacity magazines since the higher capacity magazines that are being designed or in the process of being marketed are also designed fro the M-16/M-4/AR-15 series instead of some Odd Duck that is probably only going to befielded by the Marines?

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:23:44 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
So then I guess the question is: why did magpul not take the HK design into account when making the p-mag?

Probably because the PMAG is a design optimized for the standard AR15/M16/M4 magwell, of which there are probably 5 orders of magnitude more of in service than the SA80 and HK416. It includes features that would be desirable to enhance function and reliability in that type of firearm.

Rather than point the finger at Magpul, I would point the finger at the USMC for not specifying magwell compatibility and to HK for perpetuating their little niche of proprietaryness.

I'll repeat my opinion from previous threads that the IAR is a really dumb idea and it seems to get dumber every day, versus the seemingly obvious solutions to the "problem" that they described.

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:27:34 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
So then I guess the question is: why did magpul not take the HK design into account when making the p-mag?

Good question. The longer front of the mag well affects the curvature of the round stack in a negative way.

We overcomed this in the EMag design but a round stack closest to the natural taper of the 5.56 round is always preferable.

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:30:33 PM EDT

[#47]

On the second page of the Denver Post there is a picture of a M4 w/ a P-Mag.

I have trusted them with my life, and will continue to.

EDIT: I will try and find the link.

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:35:53 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This is required it is the corps fault for adpoting an H&K rifle the IAR- why the F H&K decided to make a rifle that soes not accept STANAG mags for the corps is only elusive than why the corps accepted a rifle with an out of spec mag well for the SAW role.

H&K wanted to F everyone to make a profit by having a special mag design the corps let them it all a bunch of bull and it hurts our guys.

I had no idea that the IAR doesn't accept STANAG. That's nuts.

Me too. I thought the IAR is a more beefier HK416, which accepts STANAG mags. Er maybe I am wrong?

If that's the case then that makes the whole IAR concept even dumber than what I thought it was in the first place.

The issue comes from the HKs 416 Magazine well which is longer than any other AR15/M16 magwell.

Why? Well here is the reason behind it.

In 2000, Heckler & Koch, at that time owned by the British small arms manufacturer Royal Ordnance, was contracted to upgrade the SA80 family of weapons. Two hundred thousand SA80s were re-manufactured at a cost of £400 each, producing the A2 variant. This included the famous HK SA80 Steel magazines.

In addition to the regular steel magazine they produced a blank firing version with a sliding round inhibitor.

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30219

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30218

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30217

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30216

So this magazine was fielded with the UK military as part of their blank firing kit for ages. The lower edge of the SA80 mag well moves the round inhibitor down so the blank rounds can be fed into the chamber.

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30215

Fast forward to 2005 and the HK 416 was being developed they used the same SA80 steel magazines but to make the blank magazines work they had to lengthen the front of the magwell to engage the switch.

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30214

Good information. That's what's great about this site. Sometimes you get the answer straight from the horses mouth.

Posted: 6/23/2011 3:47:26 PM EDT

[#49]

And every old mag with a black follover gets smashed by me.

This way it never gets reissued.

Free

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't care, aluminum USGI mags still work fine...

Yup. Only issue with them is they're rarely replaced/maintained. When you're working with mags from the 80's/early 90's with the same springs/followers...bad things sometimes happen. I still have some black follower ones...they feed just fine, every time.

Posted: 6/23/2011 4:03:13 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So then I guess the question is: why did magpul not take the HK design into account when making the p-mag?

Probably because the PMAG is a design optimized for the standard AR15/M16/M4 magwell, of which there are probably 5 orders of magnitude more of in service than the SA80 and HK416. It includes features that would be desirable to enhance function and reliability in that type of firearm.

Rather than point the finger at Magpul, I would point the finger at the USMC for not specifying magwell compatibility and to HK for perpetuating their little niche of proprietaryness.

I'll repeat my opinion from previous threads that the IAR is a really dumb idea and it seems to get dumber every day, versus the seemingly obvious solutions to the "problem" that they described.

Your emotions are getting the better of you.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Marine Corps bans the PMAG from use? (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us