Brownells tactial 30's stamped 3-13

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Brownells tactial 30's stamped 3-13

Posted: 6/3/2013 12:54:59 AM EDT

Got my backorder of 30 of these 30 rounders with the magpul followers.
Tested 3 of the 30 in two Colt 6520 Govt Carbines and a Bushmaster Patrolman Carbine, Failures to feed in all three guns.
One was left loaded for a week, one for a day, and one new out of the wrap.
Any one else tried these mags with 3-13 dates.
Would like to hear if you have an issue and compare notes

Posted: 6/2/2013 11:19:10 PM EDT

[#1]

Ammo was Federal XM193 5.56 55gr ball, and the issue showed up on every run of all 3 mags in all three guns, several hundred rounds were fired and always the same problem.
Bolt over with 23 to 10 rounds left in the magazine, always when feeding from the right side.
The first 7 to 10 fired fine, then several malfunctions, always on the right, then the last 10 fired fine.

Posted: 6/3/2013 12:54:35 AM EDT

[#2]

I'm going to move this to the Brownell's forum for you

Posted: 6/2/2013 7:09:02 PM EDT

[#3]

Dont have any of the 30 rounders but I bought a 20 rounder, and its the only Brownells mag i have and ive had a malfunction both times ive used it. one failure to feed and one failure to hold the bolt open. kinda shitty since its the only one of my mags ive had trouble with and its my only 20 rounder which i like to use at the range.

Posted: 6/2/2013 7:15:51 PM EDT

[#4]

What ammo? did it happen with multiple types or just one?

Posted: 6/2/2013 7:24:46 PM EDT

[#5]

i have not had ANY probs with my Brownells mags.

ETA - Just check my recent backorder from Brownells. My BROWNELLS Tactical 10 pack is also marked 3-13

I compared the front cutout on those with the same mags marked 4-09 and 10-06 and the front cutout is the same on all dates.

NO probes with the 06 and 10 mags.

I will try to test my 3-13 mags this week and report back.

Posted: 6/2/2013 8:55:25 PM EDT

[#6]

There was another thread somewhere where people were having trouble with Brownell's mags. They isolated the problem. It turns-out front of the mag wasn't notched-out at the front/top and the bullets were catching on the front wall of the magazine. They dremmeled-out the front of the mag and the problem was fixed. (I know a picture would be better, but I'm to lazy, sorry)

Posted: 6/4/2013 12:49:42 PM EDT

[#7]

tested 5 of my 03-13 marked Brownells Tac mags today.

28 rds. of Fed XM193 in each - been using this ammo lot for a rifle school this week with no ammo related issues that we can tell.

Colt 6920

2 double feeds Each out of mag #1 and #3

I didn't clean my 6920 from training yesterday, so I will further investigate 2 mags

Posted: 6/5/2013 11:30:04 AM EDT

[#8]

just tested mag #1 and #3 with a clean 6920 - multiple double feeds.

tested in a Rock river with same results.

I will be contacting Brownells for replacement of all mags from this lot - I do not trust this lot of mags.

Posted: 6/5/2013 8:14:53 PM EDT

[#9]

I just got a 10 pack and every one of them have the same problem as described above. All are stamped 3-13. You can see the front of the mags in the pics below. The Brownells is on the right, D&H on the left and NHMTG in the middle for comparison.

Posted: 6/6/2013 1:22:52 AM EDT

[#10]

I have 20 of these mags on order... but based on the comments in this thread I'm going to cancel them - PSA has D&H mags with the Magpul followers in stock for the same price I ordered these at, and D&H mags are always good to go.

Posted: 6/7/2013 1:31:18 AM EDT

[#11]

I compared random 03-13 dated Tactical mags received recently to 03-09 Tactical mags with Ranger plates received in March AND 04-13 dated standard mags received today and they were all like this.

When comparing them to USGI Okays and Centers, it appears initially that the front isn't relieved enough but in looking closer it just appears the folds at the very front of the feedlips are deeper on the Brownell's mags making it appear as though not enough was removed when in actuality it's equally as deep, it just doesn't look like it.

If you're having issues though you're having issues so obviously you're not wrong - I'm just cringing trying to figure out how I'm going to test every one of 50 mags at full capacity (or even half-capacity) when they were intended to be for the stash and I don't have an extra 750-1,500 rounds laying around to burn up.

I'm very interested in hearing others' experiences.

Posted: 6/7/2013 7:31:09 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I compared random 03-13 dated Tactical mags received recently to 03-09 Tactical mags with Ranger plates received in March AND 04-13 dated standard mags received today and they were all like this.

When comparing them to USGI Okays and Centers, it appears initially that the front isn't relieved enough but in looking closer it just appears the folds at the very front of the feedlips are deeper on the Brownell's mags making it appear as though not enough was removed when in actuality it's equally as deep, it just doesn't look like it.

If you're having issues though you're having issues so obviously you're not wrong - I'm just cringing trying to figure out how I'm going to test every one of 50 mags at full capacity (or even half-capacity) when they were intended to be for the stash and I don't have an extra 750-1,500 rounds laying around to burn up.

I'm very interested in hearing others' experiences.

I didn't test all of mine, but when 4 out of consistently double feed, there is a problem. I told Brownells that I did not trust any of the mags with that date on them. Brownells has excellent customer service and will take care of you.

Posted: 6/10/2013 12:12:06 PM EDT

[#13]

Randomly grabbed one each of NIW 03-09 Tactical with Ranger plate and CS spring, 04-13 Tactical with SS spring, and 03-13 Standard with CS spring, all of which appear like the ones shown.

Loaded each with 20 rounds of WPA and all ran without issue in a Colt 6720 that had 280 rounds through it before firing.

I realize one of each style isn't all that convincing but given the less than potent ammo combined with steel cases stripping from new feedlips, varied dates of manufacture and mix of springs and followers, I'm inclined to hold on to what I've received.

If any of you do get new replacements with drastically different front ends, please share, it'd be interesting to see what Brownell's does to remedy the issue.

Finally, does anyone have any actual Brownell's USGI mags with brown followers? What do their front ends look like?

Posted: 6/16/2013 8:15:34 AM EDT

[#14]

I believe the issue is more a "stack" issue in the magazine when loaded to full capacity, possibly coupled with an issue at the front edge of the mag. Mags run fine for first rounds and last rounds but not in the middle, since the front of the mag and the feed lips are not changing the presentation of the round in the mag must be. I changed the follower and spring with another brand they still malfunctioned in the middle of a mag.
One responder said he had double feeds, it seem the lower round is attempting to pass the upper round in the magazine. In my experience it was only when the upper round is on the right it would not "strip" properly from the magazine.

Posted: 6/16/2013 12:07:30 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Randomly grabbed one each of NIW 03-09 Tactical with Ranger plate and CS spring, 04-13 Tactical with SS spring, and 03-13 Standard with CS spring, all of which appear like the ones shown.

Loaded each with 20 rounds of WPA and all ran without issue in a Colt 6720 that had 280 rounds through it before firing.

I realize one of each style isn't all that convincing but given the less than potent ammo combined with steel cases stripping from new feedlips, varied dates of manufacture and mix of springs and followers, I'm inclined to hold on to what I've received.

If any of you do get new replacements with drastically different front ends, please share, it'd be interesting to see what Brownell's does to remedy the issue.

Finally, does anyone have any actual Brownell's USGI mags with brown followers? What do their front ends look like?

I got a full refund + shipping and got Gen2 P-Mags

Posted: 6/17/2013 12:13:00 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Randomly grabbed one each of NIW 03-09 Tactical with Ranger plate and CS spring, 04-13 Tactical with SS spring, and 03-13 Standard with CS spring, all of which appear like the ones shown.

Loaded each with 20 rounds of WPA and all ran without issue in a Colt 6720 that had 280 rounds through it before firing.

I realize one of each style isn't all that convincing but given the less than potent ammo combined with steel cases stripping from new feedlips, varied dates of manufacture and mix of springs and followers, I'm inclined to hold on to what I've received.

If any of you do get new replacements with drastically different front ends, please share, it'd be interesting to see what Brownell's does to remedy the issue.

Finally, does anyone have any actual Brownell's USGI mags with brown followers? What do their front ends look like?

I got a full refund + shipping and got Gen2 P-Mags

Straight across exchange?! If so, that's decent of them.

I guess if I'd had issues I'd give it a shot but you guys had numerous issues right away with decent ammo so I can appreciate your desire to get trustworthy mags. I am wary of mine but probably not enough to attempt an exchange.

Still interested in any of Brownell's actual USGI mags with brown followers if anyone has a pic of the front.

Posted: 6/17/2013 3:20:16 PM EDT

[#17]

no, brownells refunded my $ + shipping, then i bought the P-Mags.

Great customer service!

Posted: 6/22/2013 4:13:49 PM EDT

[#18]

Anyone get mags with other dates that look the same?

Posted: 6/23/2013 9:52:52 AM EDT

[#19]

Anyone receive mags in the last week dated the same or dated something else?

Posted: 6/25/2013 12:56:07 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Anyone get mags with other dates that look the same?

03-09 and 04-13 as indicated in my post unless I don't count.

Posted: 6/25/2013 5:46:47 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Anyone get mags with other dates that look the same?

03-09 and 04-13 as indicated in my post unless I don't count.

Lol, you count! I meant other than those two dates.

Posted: 6/25/2013 6:31:29 PM EDT

[#22]

I compared my 2009, 2012 and 2013 mags. They all look the same to me.

Will be shooting some of the 13's tomorrow.

20's and 30's

Posted: 6/27/2013 8:44:42 PM EDT

[#23]

I took my 30rd tac mags dated 01-13 and my 20rd tac mags dated 02-13 to the range today.

I shot full loads of Federal, Fiocchi, PMC, Tulammo, Wolf, Monarch and even did some mix and match.

Not one single problem. I have about 30 of the 30rd mags and 6 of the 20rd mags.

I only used two of each and shot about 250 rds. No problems

Posted: 8/4/2013 5:13:48 PM EDT

[#24]

Has anybody tried any of the brownells 30 rounders with mfg dates newer than 03-13?

Posted: 9/11/2013 1:14:56 AM EDT

[#25]

Does anyone have additional info to add?

I would think (perhaps wishfully) that if this were a common issue, there'd be more than 25 responses to this thread.

Posted: 9/27/2013 8:38:37 PM EDT

[#26]

I'm tempted to order a few to test out...

Posted: 12/18/2013 1:38:16 AM EDT

[#27]

I just picked up a bunch of the tan follower mags off the EE that were made in 2009 and 21 out of 55 have cracked feed lips. They're all like new too.

Posted: 12/20/2013 8:15:01 AM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
I just picked up a bunch of the tan follower mags off the EE that were made in 2009 and 21 out of 55 have cracked feed lips. They're all like new too.

View Quote

Damn! Are you going to get your $ back?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Brownells tactial 30's stamped 3-13

Industry » Brownells

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us