Glock mag or Colt mag?

Traditionally one of the most controversial topics for PCC, similar to the 9mm vs .45 AARP debate. (Two world wars! ...OK, boomer.)

Pros and Cons:

Colt mags:

Double-feed. Easier to load without a tool.
32 rounds, 20 rounds, or 10 round capacity.
Colt (Metalform) are carbon steel. Can rust.
Aftermarket mags available in stainless, or polymer with metal reinforcements. Some are better than others.
More likely to require "tweaking" to run correctly.
Based on the Uzi mag. Uzi mags can be modified to work in Colt mag setups (but no LRBHO).
32 round Metalform are 7.9 oz. empty.
Mags are not in common use.
Not compatible with any common sidearms.
Magwell adapters for AR are "mature" technology, easy to adapt an existing AR lower and keep original AR 'manual of arms'.
Lefty? Both dedicated receivers and magwell adapters can use AR ambi mag releases.

Glock mags:

Single-feed. More difficult to load without a tool.
33, 27, 24, 21, 19, 17, 15, 12, or 10 round capacity.
Polymer with stainless steel reinforcement. No rust.
Aftermarket mags are mostly polymer only.  Some are better than others.
Factory Glock mags are known for their reliability.
33 rounders (Glock) weigh 4.6 oz. empty.
Found practically everywhere.
Compatible with common sidearms.
Magwell adapter technology for AR still relatively new. Mag release button has to be relocated, often causing confusion.
Lefty? No left side mag releases.  You'll need something with a bottom of the magwell mag release.

For people concerned about weight; Unloaded, six 33rd. Glock mags weigh 19.8 ounces (1.24 lbs.) less than six 32rd. Colt mags. Ounces=pounds, pounds=pain.

I personally have 2 builds, one of each.  Colt mag adapter in a standard lower, and a dedicated Glock lower.

If SHTF and I had to choose one or the other, I'd lean toward the dedicated Glock lower due to mag weight and availability, but I'd carry a tool for reloading.  Dedicated lowers can usually fit any mag capacity, from the 10 rounders to the drums.

For adapting an existing AR lower, whether standard, SBR, MG, or "papered" with the .gov ("ban" state), I'd go with the Colt mags because of the more mature adapter technology, and to keep the same manual of arms.

Which do you prefer, and why?


(Edited to add to the list.)

You seem to fail to mention this alternative:

https://torkmag.com/product/magdapt-17-conversion-kit/

MHO. YMMV, etc.  Be well.

Glock AR 15's look goofy.

FUGLY

Mine AR-9 is Endomag, but if I were to go with one of the choices, Colt all the way.  I don't own a Glock so cross-compatibility is not an issue.  Colt AR-9's aren't as prone to feed issues as Glock are.

From their site:

"Modify your Glock™ magazines to lock into AR15 mag catches with the included trim guide, or use TorkMag 20rd G17 magazines that are pre-molded with an AR15 mag catch slot. "

The adapter kit won't accept factory Glock mags without "modification".  That's a no-go in my book. Sort of defeats the purpose.

Where are you finding info that Glock mag fed are more prone to feeding issues?  I've read about feeding issues with both mag types about equally.

In the past Colt mags were the only real option and there were plenty of reports of feeding issues.  Historically it seems to have had a lot to do with mag height or feed ramp height not set right in the lower or the adapter, misaligned feed lips, and the crappy tiny feed cone most manufacturers use.

Now, as Glock mag setups were invented/developed, they had to go through the same "teething" issues.  I think we are seeing more reports of these issues with Glock mags currently just because of their overwhelming popularity relative to Colt mag setups.

In my experience, done right, they'll both feed just as reliably.

With all due respect, in your original post you specifically note modifying Uzi mags for use in a 'Colt mag' adapter in lieu of using Colt mags.  How is modifying Glock mags to work in a Glock mag adapter any different?

Be well.

Modifying Glock mags to fit a non- "factory Glock mag" adapter
Vs.
modifying a non-Colt mag to fit a Colt mag adapter.

I would not count it as a "Glock mag adapter" if Glock mags don't work in it without significant modification. At that point it becomes something else entirely (proprietary).

The Glock mag to Torkmag-mag conversion, by cutting a new mag catch, is more akin to the Uzi mag to Colt mag conversion by Colt re-using the Uzi design but cutting a new mag catch.  

For all intents and purposes it is a Torkmag-mag adapter, not a Glock mag adapter.  Glock mags are the subject of the conversion, not the result, and they won't work as-is.

No worries either way.

My pocket book made my decision for me.......PSA had a sale on Colt style mags.

Colt mags all the way.

Election day build.

Attached File

Read about them right here on this board on a regular basis.  We have a member, Rudy, who makes a fair living recutting feed cones on barrels so the they will accept delivery from a Glock lower.

  Practicality......  Glock mag works in glock pistols of same caliber.  Colt style mags do not.

  Support......Glock mags and Colt style mags are widely available, extensions and other mods are available.

   Cost.......Colt style mags can be found for a little less than Glock mags (or at least use to be)

  Function....I have had great success with factory Glock mags alone and with Kriss extensions. (springs are the weakest link on both)
                     I have had great success with ASC (lip mod) and Metalforms/PSA. (Once again springs are the only item that wears out)

   Style.......Colt straight mag just looks normal and correct. (Think Tommy gun, MP44, and other sub guns)   Glock mag does not really look right, and is unattractive from a aesthetic standpoint.

                 BUT......the forward curve of MP-5 mags and Scorpion mags is the sexiest look for a magazine feed sub-gun or pcc.
     Sorry....that's just the way it is.

          So that will be my next build......MP-5 mag lower.

Agree 100%.  Also Endomag.  Which was one reason why I went that way.  Now that the Scorpion lowers are becoming available, I will be looking that way

Rudy's modification isn't exclusively for Glock fed setups. Both my Colt and  Glock builds have Rudy's modification. The Colt had feeding issues, prompting me to send him the barrel. I bought the second barrel directly from him.

With a little research you'll see Colt mag setups have, and have always had, the same exact problems. The problem isn't with the magazine feeding the system, it's the "that's the way we've always done it" approach to 9mm AR conversions that most manufacturers take, and the rush to make a profit over testing and engineering a reliable system. Rudy's feed cone fix should be standard for all blowback 9mm ARs, not an aftermarket add-on.

Now as for the Endomag... that's for another thread.

I’ve had both Colt SMG & Glock AR setups that at one point used the same RRA upper that had no feed cone at all.
With fmj, no feed issues at all, but I did have one hollow point load that fed in the Colt smg setup (Hahn adaptor) but not in the a Glock so IMHO getting a proper feed cone is needed if you want full reliability with ALL loads.

Colt smg mags did NOT like to seat when loaded on a closed bolt, even downloaded a few rounds. Glock mags seated just fine on a closed bolt.
My BHO on the Colt smg setup was 100% reliable.

Lots of other PCCs run Glock mags, no so with smg mags. For 30 rounders, cost is pretty much the same either way, but for 20 or less rnd capacity, Glock mags are cheaper.

As for loading by hand, for me, getting the 30th round in a Glock mag is easier than the smg but both have loaders available from Maglula, so why?

My preference is Colt smg, I just prefer the horizontal feed straight into the chamber so no worries about the feed cone. But the only Glock mags I run are 10mm & .357sig so there’d be no sharing between platforms. I agree the smg setup looks better too. I prefer the heavy steel mags for holding 30 rounds of 147 gr. 9mm.

Been hanging around here for a while and I see a lot more complaints by Glock mag lowers than Colt so I go with what I know.

You do realize like 500 glock lowers are sold for every 1-2 colt lowers right ??

Got stats?

Got stats?

(Sorry, but you kinda asked for it. )

As I said, 13 years of being on this forum.  I see what I see.

I have both........bought the glock first and thought it was funny looking and the LRBHO was not reliable...........then switched to Colt..........MY go-to is the Glock.............Colt is relegated to safe queen.

I think we can say that fair points go to both sides when it comes to the reliability debate.  

Anecdotal evidence based on the number of people currently complaining on the internet may cause the perception that Glock mag fed may have more reliability issues, but that comes with with the following caveats:

1) Glock fed are currently much more popular with consumers than Colt mag. This is obvious based on the sheer number of Glock fed systems on the market.  As a result, a proportionally larger number of Glock related complaints will show up in the forums which could skew perceptions.

2) When Colt rolled out their 9mm in 1982, the only choice was to take the gun to a gunsmith/armorer/store for fixes, rather than asking for advice on the internet.  In 1982 the Commodore 64 was introduced as the "everymans" home computer. The Apple Mac? 1984. The internet as we know it now wasn't even online untill 1990. AR15.com? 1996 - a full 14 years after the Colt 9mm was introduced. Add to that how PCCs back then were never as popular as they are now, and you have the reason why fewer Colt mag complaints show up on the internet.

Personally, I have both and like both, "fugly" or not.  Years ago I had a RRA 9mm Colt mag (only option available) I sold due to reliability issues.  My new Colt mag setup had reliability issues.  My Glock didn't because I used the same core PCC parts for the build as what fixed the Colt.

I contend it's not the mag, it's the proper design/use of the other PCC elements (mag height, feed cone, bolt, buffer, etc.) that determine reliability. Get parts with decades of "lessons learned" engineered in for reliability and you should have a reliable system.  Buy cheap "this is the way they made it in 1982" parts (tiny feed cones, unramped bolts, carbine solid buffers,  etc,), and poor reliability is more likely.

Good discussion so far!

Got that right! PCCs in the 80's were pretty much limited to Colt, Marlin Camp Carbine (S&W 5900 mags), Ruger Police Carbine (P series mag), HK 94, and Uzi. I'm sure there are a few others I forgot.

When the Kel-Tec Sub-9 (precursor to the sub-2000) came out, most were S&W 5900 mag, and a very few Glock mag. I think they were the first PCCs to take Glock mags.

I built one of each. The Glock mag gun had some feeding problems at first, but after Rudy worked his magic with the feed cone it now runs flawless. The both can have their issues, but they are usually easy to work out. I shoot the Colt mag gun more than the Glock simply because I think it looks better.

I've got both and an AR-V I've built.  I think I'd rank them as AR-V, Colt, Glock for what I'd prefer to shoot. And the mags for the AR-V are the least expensive as well as light.   I don't know about long term durability on it though.

All this consternation over Glock vs. Colt and neither one is the best, IMO. Olympic Arms had it figured out over approx. 30 years ago with their Sten mag conversion upper receivers. With the addition of a Hahn mag-well adapter that allows the use of um-modified Sten mags, the combination is flawless and works perfectly. I have an Oly conversion upper and used it with the original mag-well adapter that used modified Sten mags, another aftermarket adapter that used un-modded Sten mags, and finally purchased the Hahn Sten version. They all work, but the Hahn is my favorite. I even purchased one of the new polymer mags that Oly supplies now with their kits, but, in my estimation, the Sten mags work the best if you can live with no LRBHO.

I also have Glock and Colt 9mm ARs, but neither of them work as well as the old Olympic Sten mag conversion.

Didn't the Oly setup have a really deep feed cone and a cone-shaped bolt face that mated into the feed cone cavity? I remember seeing that and thought that was a novel solution to the feed issues commonly encountered in 9mm that were still using the 1980's Colt-esque feed cone cut.

Rudy's feed cone fix provides the same benefit without the need for the mated cone-shaped bolt face.

Link to Olympic Arms' blow back system patent:
https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=05499569&IDKey=048BAFF90C7F%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D49%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D5499569%2526OS%3D5499569%2526RS%3D5499569

Thanks!  Interesting read.

I see on their web site they have/had a Glock mag fed pistol AR.  They just cut a big hole in the magwell and literally bolted on a huge kludgy BHO lever to activate the ping-pong paddle.



Fake useless front sight block, foam covered pistol buffer tube, no m-lok handguard, castle nut on backwards, huge 5.56 magwell profile...

I'm amazed, but not surprised, at how many of these companies are living in the past, trying to stay in business by riding on their past successes. No innovation, or half-hearted attempts at innovation, and I bet they sit there wondering why all these new companies are eating their lunch.

"Because that's the way we've always done it" (BTTWWADI) is the death knell for any company...

If your sidearm is a glock 9mm then the glock mags make the most sense. If you are not using a glock then the colt style mags make more sense. The weight difference is laughable at best. You’re not carrying 25 mags into combat with a 9mm ar.

I have both. I prefer my colt fed ones for manual of arms. Both are reliable. I like the look of the colt setup better as well. Drums are available for both.

The weight difference is a data point, nothing more. Personally, if everything else is equal, I'd rather carry less weight on my person no matter what the circumstances; range practice sessions, competitions, hiking, camping, travel, or God forbid, combat.

This doesn't apply to every Glock mag build, but the manual of arms on many new builds are, for all intents and purposes, identical to any other AR. The mag release is a different shape, but is in the exact same place. The LRBHO looks different internally, but performs the same. All the other controls and operational modes are the same. Good excuse for you to upgrade your Glock build?

Sounds like most people chiming in against the Glock just don't like the aesthetics of Glock mags sticking out at a backward angle.

If the Glock mags were straight vertical and everything else the same, would that change minds?

My 2 cents...

I have both but for 9mm I don't use either.  
I prefer the Endomags over both.  
I don't care about sharing mags with my pistol.
For me, It is about convenience and training.
Convenience - With the CMMG RDB and Endomags, I can use the same lower with zero changes when going to/from 556/300BLK and 9mm.
Training - using the same mags and carriers that I would use for 556/300BLK.  Same capacity.

Endomags are a great option (with the CMMG RDB bolt-mounted ejector), especially if you have a MG or SBR lower. Makes perfect sense. The RDB is a slick system. I went with a S&W 15-22 for training. I'm cheap and have a pile of .22lr.

I have several 22 configurations as well...also great for training and suppressing.   However still prefer the 9mm CMMG for the training for the recoil impulse, manual BHO and release.

As a sidenote in these times I'm using my 40SW CMMG with ETS Glock mags due to ammo availability.

My upcoming pistol build will be Glock magazines, using Stern adapter...

I like Colt pattern for the same magazine release, and easy LSBHO. But when you are issued a Glock 19, Glock magazines tend to be a smarter idea. I'll probably get a few 33 rounders and some of the 24 rounders, but worst case, I can shove a magazine off my vest/belt into it... which is partly why I'm doing a 9mm build.

With the Stern adapter, I'm actually going to get a CA/NY magazine lock... one that I can still remove with tools if needed... so the adapter is locked in the lower, and I won't have an actual button to get confused on. If you are using standard AR lowers, I do say Colt is a more optimal design. My .45 is a Macon D/I upper, using their magazines/adapter... and that is pretty close to the Colt design. If I didn't have a standard lower already for this build, I'd probably go CMMG (Glock lower).

I also went Endomags for many of the same reasons.  I don't have RDB but it is a simple task to swap out the buffer when swapping out to 5.56 or 300.  I also have a 22LR upper that shares the same lower for practice so there is that.  All use the same magazine footprint/pouches.  All feel the same in hand and all lock in and release the same.

I think absolutely, and it they were curved like Scorpion or MP5 even moreso.

I have both.  I'm working out some bugs with the Colt setup, but the LRBHO is a deal-breaker for the Glock setup.  It bothers me so much that I went out and bought two Colt pattern lowers to replace the Glock ones. That and the weird angle with the Glock mags just kinda looks gay.

As for my Colt pattern lowers, I'm having a problem where one of the bolts gets stuck against the lip of the receiver extension/buffer tube and I can't pull the charging handle back. If I release the takedown pin and let it hinge forward 0.5mm, It pulls back fine.  If I swap the bolts the one that gets stuck on one of my lowers pulls back fine on the other and vice-versa.  All uppers, lowers, and bolts are from the same manufacturer.  Once I get that all sorted out, the Colt SMG pattern wins, hands down.

So when married up that way they both work?  Sounds like problem solved to me.

Since you can get a mag well adapter for anything. I’d suggest you just find why you’re happy with. If weight is your only concern then the glock mags are lighter by a small amount. Go glock. Asthetics mean something. But ignoring that part. The angled back glock mags have a slightly different input angle and it’s not standard. The colt fed straight mags feed into the mag well straight like a AR mag well. I’ve been drinking a bit. Not sure if that’s gonna make sense.

Do you have a 9mm carry gun?

Glock lowers can’t go ambi mag release.  A non starter for left handed shooters.

I just don't trust a metal mag release with a loaded 33rd Glock mag.  Sooner or later the slot in the mag is going to fail.

I'm sure I'm the only one that thinks that but that's the reason I went Colt mag.

I went with a New Frontier C-5 lower since I'm already vested in MP5 mags.

Same scenario with 556 Pmags...Is that an issue?  I don't recall hearing about the slot wearing out on them or Glock mags in ARs either for that matter

I haven't seen PMAG's really deform, however, all of my Glock mags have rounded edges in the mag catch slot after being used.

Like I said though I'm probably the only one with that reasoning.

I could not get a stack of Uzi mags to run for shit.  Do not bank on this.  

Metalforms run fine.

I have a kit that uses unmodified Uzi mags without an issue.

VMhytech made it.

3-D printer goes whir.

Metal mags don't print.