Our mags can he had at some dealers for $13.99. I am still not sure why some people insist on comparing our MSRP prices to others selling magpul at large discounted prices. Our MSRP is exactly the same as a Pmag.

Here is one of our dealers that I believe is an industry partner on the forum as well...
Primary Arms ETS mag for $13.99

I just want to make sure that when people do comparisons of our mags as far as price is concerned it's apples to apples...

I would love to see how our mags hold up for you in your field conditions. Would you be willing to give them a try?

FYI we have been "acting like this" (providing information) as a industry sponsor of the site since 2002. A full 12 years before you got here.

That said to better understand the statement above here is the background on what we believe makes a good M16/M4 magazine...

Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249

Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices.

The “Job” of a Magazine
In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles.

The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability.

Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring.

It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in.

Materials

Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction.

If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures.

Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions.

If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling.

So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features.

The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums.

After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material.

A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here.

So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables.

The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages.

So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum.

The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested.

Construction
After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can.
An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function.
All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit.

Feed Lip Stability Over Time
There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues.
As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover. This is another area where softer polymers fail, but you may not notice until an extended period left loaded, especially with heat cycling, like the trunk of a car, etc.

Testing These Criteria
Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed.
We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations.
We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops.
Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments.
All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping.
All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available.

Service Life and Deadline Criteria
As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops.

Cost
This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with USGI aluminum magazines, especially when lifecycle/service life is considered.

Features and Improvements

The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed.
The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability.
The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod.
The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance.
The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure.
The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round.
The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly.
The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion.

The PMag M3 is rated down to -60 and still will run after being dropped from a height that will kill a USGI at room temperature. We test this in both 100% and 0% humidity

We test through a variety of temperatures at various humidity levels. PMags are also successfully deployed in many areas that duplicate Chicago with no issues, even then damage through drops is almost never catastrophic. I am not saying the incident did not happen but to my knowledge no such report or story has been forwarded to us. Of course we could trade tensile strength for impact strength (by making the material softer) but that, as we expressed in the previous page, would adversely affect reliability for multiple conditions.

Out of interest. Are you with Picatinny? If so it would be good for those here to know. Also if you are from Picatinny Arsenal we would be happy to have our engineers talk with you about our specific test protocols in detail (just not in a public forum).

OK after a little searching I found the "story". I can see now why you did not reference it. PMags are not even mentioned by name, just a "polymer magazine".

The story is not actually a story at all, it is a C Products Defense press release promoting their metal mags.

As expected from such a press release there is a lot of "polymer is bad hypotheticals"- because it deforms under heat (does not affect the PMag) and breaks under cold (PMag Gen M3s are rated down to -60).

I like how it leads with the statement "Polymer magazines, which have been banned by the United States military since May of 2012".

In reality a TACOM memo specified only approved magazines (USGI) could be used was briefly issued but this was clarified a week later (after outrage from those deployed) with this statement saying the original memo "was just a suggestion".

Hello Pete,
I have seen many of your posts on this forum and I have always felt that you conduct yourself in a very logical and productive manner, thanks for that.

As for the subject at hand, I believe the term we are looking for is hygroscopic, this refers to a materials ability to absorb and retain water. A Hydroscope is a device that allows one to see under water. I am not trying to be a stickler here with words, I just didn't everyone to think I am misspelling the word several times in my post.

That out of the way, our material is not hygroscopic. This means it does not absorb, and more importantly, the molecules do not react with the water in any way. This allows our material to be completely unaffected by moisture. Polymers that are hygroscopic not only swell when they absorb water, many like Nylon, change their physical properties. Water acts as a plasticizer for nylon making it less rigid.

Since our mags are not hygroscopic, they can not be dyed with Rit dye. Someone on this forum tried and he said his pot was more stained than the mag.

I would like to address the original issue that brought this topic up, and that is low temp performance of the polymers. One of the best aspects of our material is it's wide range of thermal stability, It melts at a very high temperature so we don't have to worry about it becoming too soft in high heat. It also retains a large amount of its impact resistance down at -60F. In fact, our mag was more impact resistant at -60F than the other polymer mags we tested at room temperature.

So I want to be clear so there is no room for confusion, our mag will survive a 6ft drop on the feedlips, fully loaded, at -60F and it is not damaged in any way. No cracks or any other kinds of breaks. So not only will our mag function after the -60F drop, it is not broken or damaged in any way.

Auto correct has gotten me more times than I can count.

I mention C Products Defense as it is their press release you cited as evidence. Those with previous dealings with C-Products can judge the source for themselves.

As for the hygroscopic reference in the press release, there are truth’s to the science but they are being twisted and misrepresented to meet the intent of the conclusion. The science behind this relationship of moisture absorption in polymer is defined in Flick's Law.

In short The rate of absorption is not that quick and happens over months, not hours, to reach the moisture content which would have a measurable  of an effect on the product. 2 weeks to 2 months of 100% nylon under water at elevated temperatures may drive the partial pressure differentials enough to vary the moisture content up to just 2%. The moisture content variables are well within in the noise of operating ranges of a PMag. For example almost all polymer frame guns are much more hygroscopic than a PMag and none have had issues over the last 30 years that forced them to develop a non hygroscopic solution. Again we are happy to go into more detail in a non public forum.

Both links you show are with early generation of PMags (2009) and the second with older colored magazine. This is the problem when you develop and constantly improve a product over many years and generations, everyone likes to reference old data as if it was relevant today. Processing and material changes several years ago eliminated these issues and are part of the current M2 (MOE) and M3 production. Our product improvement program is always ongoing and no doubt future PMags will continue improve on performance as polymer technology continues.

To answer your last question regarding the USMC. Over 200,000  MRev (NSN) PMags were purchased by USMC units during the height of combat operations and these were exceptionally popular by those in the field. Unfortunately due to the implementation of the IAR (HK416) with it's non standard magazine well (which was elongated on the front for compatibility with a SA80A2 blank firing magazine) the original PMag would not lock into the IARs magazine well causing a safety issue between systems. As such we supported the decision here and are currently in process to have the PMag M3 (which is IAR compatible) authorized.  

You still did not answer the question if you are affiliated in any way with Picatinny or a government entity.

No he does not, but it is always good to know where someone sits before they tell you where they stand.

We have had another user here called Hotgun back in 2010 that posted all sorts of stuff about how it would be interesting to watch a PMag pop rounds out of the top at 180 degrees along with inferred PMag reliability issues.

All this was completely false but a little internet search of his screen name revealed he was a US Army /DOD Civilian General Engineer for Individual Weapon Systems at Rock Island Arsenal with a vested interest in the USGI mag contracts. We did not reveal his name but our posting of his full job title resulted in him never responding or posting again. Probably good reason for this as using government computers to spread disinformation on a third party product, that increases solider survivability, during a time of war (so as to keep funding/control for the program in house) is at best, unethical and at worst, treasonous.

My intention was to reply to you in the Magpul forum so as not to derail a technical thread but to answer your question. All Magpul products have a 60 day no questions asked return policy. After that defective products are replaced at no charge for the life of the product so long as that item is still in production.

In reality we do not have a PR dept at all, although we finally hired dedicated graphics people back in 2011 after being in business (without any) for over a decade. All marketing decisions, videos, catalogs etc are made, as we have always done it, internally by those designing and using the products.

As for the forums, if you read our Magpul Foundations you will understand the importance we place on education. These items are posted here to provide context to the debate within a technical discussion. The above essay is an in-depth analysis into our requirements for the ideal M16/M4 Polymer magazine. This is the same document we have prepared for large contract buyers and so is very relevant to the discussion here.

If the document is too much of a read for you, it basically describes the design priority of the PMag which is functional reliability under all conditions.

We can make the material softer (lose tensile strength) and gain impact strength which is what many other designs do. We choose not reduce tensile strength because it is our view that reliability comes from specific geometry that is consistently maintained by high "tensile" strength material. This concept has been combat proven in 8 years of the GWOT and while the PMag will constantly increase in impact strength (through advancement in polymers) the tensile strength will remain the same for reliability. On impact resistance the PMag M3 already exceeds the venerable USGI by several fold in all tests and is consistently more reliable, especially after the magazines have been combat deployed for a few weeks.

Thanks, it has been interesting to watch the PMag M3 reported in public forums to be the only magazine to reliability feed the new M855A1 ammunition in service M4s/M16s, without accelerated wear to the barrel extension This has forced a just announced, unplanned, redesign of the USGI mag to better match the feed angle and presentation of the PMag.

In any case I sometimes get so caught up in responding to the negative comments I don't often get time to thank all who post the positive comments. You guys make all the effort we put in here worthwhile. I cannot thank you all enough.

We have been working with a variety translucent polymers since late 2007 (2008 HK416 TMag test). We even built several production molds for planned translucent PMag release in 2010 and 2014. In both cases issues came up in final testing that resulted in the program heading back to development. Again details on this are not something we are willing to share in an open forum but if you are within the .gov small arms community we will be more than willing to share some data with you regarding our test results.