Actually the science behind polymer compounding, processing and it's associated testing is a game of engineers and phDs and so is akin to 'rocket science'.

In short reliability IS the primary goal of a rifle magazine.

Durability is important but there comes a point of diminishing returns. Watch the PMag M3 vs USGI testing (high speed video with live fire full auto testing) and tell me how much stronger does the magazine need to be? The key is the PMag IS far more durable than the USGI but more importantly it is FAR more reliable under all conditions. We only focus on durability as it affects real world reliability.

Scientific reliability testing is both boring and expensive (we do a lot of it) and it is without a doubt the most important thing to look for in a magazine. But then again what do we know.

I stated that the logic behind choosing a mag that is both reliable and more durable is not rocket science, I did not say anything about the chemistry behind polymers. I also stated that the primary function of a magazine is to feed the weapon. I also listed several magazines that will accomplish this goal. I then stated that if you can choose a magazines that both feeds reliably and is MORE durable than a Pmag that is a no brainer.

As far as your question on how much more durable a mag needs to be than the M3, well I will just say in our opinion, a good bit. I have dropped over 100 pmags in drop testing. This included gen 2 and 3s, and even a few of the new sand mags. I have yet to see a single pmag survive a 6 foot drop fully loaded on concrete on the feedlips without developing a crack. Not once. I would say that leaves some good room for improvement in the durability department.

In your durability testing videos they show the drop, then they show the mag being live fire tested. I have to assume from what I have seen in impact testing that in these videos the M3 developed a crack but was able to still function in the weapon. And I do agree that is most cases, in a drop where the pmag develops a crack that it will most likely function once inserted into the mag well, and that is great. But you know what is better? Your mag not developing a crack in the first place and continuing to feed the weapon for years to come after being dropped.

I don't think that is the case at all. Every time someone talks about magazine toughness Magpul comes into the thread and pastes their novel about their "philosophies" any why their way is unquestionably the best. When anyone disagrees with it they are seen as bashing Magpul. This discussion has now become about why a mag can and should be tougher than a pmag because Magpul keeps pushing the narrative that a mag has to be as rigid as their or it can not hold proper feeding geometry and therefor will not be reliable. This is simply not the case and a reliable and extremely durable mag can and has indeed been made.

This is not bashing. It is just as much our right to respond to Magpuls "philosophy" as it is their right to post it in the first place. Plus, he asked a question about how much more durable a mag needs to be than a pmag and I gave an honest answer. Everything I have posted is the truth, if someone doesn't like it, or disagrees with it, then that is certainly their right.

Edited

Thank you for keeping an open mind. I think your approach to this issue is great, test things yourself, form your own opinion, and ultimately choose the gear that works best for you.

Not intentional I assure you but there is a lot of good info in this thread regarding the following...

-Old Translucent Magazine Designs- SteyrAUG vs Ramline

-Magazine Design Philosophy -Detailed Synopsis

-Magazine Intellectual Property - Founding Fathers view vs Communism

-Magazine Strength -Tensile vs Impact

-Primary Magazine Mission - Reliability vs Durability

-TOS definition  - The Other Site vs Terms Of Service

...there is more usable information in three pages here than in a 50 page thread in General Discussion.

That is funny and I agree 100%

Other manufactures have different standards in terms of mission requirements that determine what level of product they are comfortable releasing.

Do not confuse us holding to our standards with us not being able to make something on par with another companies standards. As stated before we have been experimenting with translucent materials since 2007 (One is seen in the original Art of the Tactical Carbine DVD) and we have built 2 production molds for translucent materials that showed promise but ultimately fell short of our internal standards in final testing.

On the AUG magazine, round retention (rounds escaping on impact during a hard impact, reload on an open bolt) is far worse on the AUG than a conventional AR polymer magazine due to the non reinforced material. This retention drops dramatically as the heat rises. At 165-180 degrees (armored vehicle in the desert) the AUG magazine feed lips start to yield under the spring pressure and can self unload rounds.

This is mostly due to the state of polymer technology when the AUG was developed. I do not know if material was changed in the life cycle of the product but I have never seen dramatically different results in the testing we have done here during the AUG PMag program.

I understand your doubt, most people, especially Magpul fans, either can't or don't want to believe it. When we do drop testing we make sure the mag hits towards the back of the feelips near the spine. The reason? This is the weak area of all AR mags, so it's the best place to judge. I don't want to argue with any forum members, so please don't take this response as such. I simply want people to understand that we are not lying, bullshitting, or exaggerating in any way. If need be to prove the point, we can make a new video, uncut, unedited showing us cutting the pmag bags open and dropping them from 6ft and the results. We are not afraid of the truth...

So let me get this straight. You are not calling us out by posting a video, You are just saying you COULD call us out by describing a video that you want to post but cannot because it would be seen as calling us out?

Technically we stand by the robustness of the PMag.  If you have found a new and inventive way to inflict visual damage it has not been a hinderance in actual combat operations for either the PMag M3 or M2.  Both are specifically designed to run even with damage from impact.

So we are back to the Magazine Design Philosophies posted on page one-  Did you actually fire the magazines after dropping them? If you did you would have found they run 100%, If you did not, then there is a problem with your testing protocol being focused on durability as a primary focus while ignoring the magazines primary mission which is to reliably feed ammunition.

Developing a crack is way more than visual damage. The mag will work for the time being, but in relatively short order, those cracks get bigger. Bottom line, once there is a crack that mag needs to be replaced. SO NO, its not just visual damage.

Alright, I want to clarify a couple of things just to set the record straight. This thread was started asking about how TOUGH clear plastics were now days. Several good question were asked and answered about clear plastics by us and lancer. Magpul even hopped in trying to genuinely answer with some good info. Then, someone posted this:



And at this point, as per usual, Magpul posted their book about why they make mags the way they do and how even though their mags aren't as tough, they are better because they are more rigid. Then someone posted this gem:


People then began pilling on magpul about their layers, spin and what not. I said nothing. There was much back and forth between Magpul and forum members and I watched as magpul continued to post over and over again how it was their mission to "educate" people on why their way if making a mag is the best way. Then Magpul posted this in response to KurtVF (which we all know is a thorn in Magpuls side on this forum):


Once again, Magpul is trying to downplay the importance of durability because this is an area where they not only aren't #1, they aren't #2, #3, or even #4. They spent years with videos on youtube showing the Pmag being so much more durable than the USGI mag (which is true). Then when it's to their disadvantage, they try to downplay it's importance and shift focus to feeding reliability. They always state that in order for our clear mags to be as impact resistant as they are, they can't feed as reliably because they are too flexible and won't hold their geometry. After seeing this posted many times over the last year and a half, I felt the need to respond and let people know that there are other mags (not just ours) that feed this platform reliably. Some of these mags are even more robust than a pmag. This toughness we speak of is not opinion, it its fact and easily proven with tests.

Now I want to set another record straight because every time someone speaks out against Magpul they are labeled haters, or in our case competitors, and we are some how bashing magpul. It perfectly fine for magpul to repeatedly come on here and post how others way of doing things (just because they don't name names) is inferior to theirs, and when we respond, people think we are out of line. Also, PursuitSS, never did we say the pmag sucked, was a bad mag, or wasn't gtg. We have respect for Magpul and their Pmag, it is unquestionable a proven good magazine.

The main reason for this ridiculously long post is that I want to give Magpul their due, they make a great mag. And while we will probably continue to disagree on the best way to make an AR mag, there is no need for pissing contests. But also, please understand that when we respond to Magpul's philosophies, claims, or anything else, please don't post that we are bullshitting or lying because we have no choice but to respond to that. If I say we see magpuls mags break from a certain kind of drop and that we felt there was room for us to make improvements in that area of our AR mag, there is nothing wrong with that. When you call us liars, then we have to be ass holes and say something lame like we can prove it with a video.

This will promise you this, I will never mention magpuls mags breaking again, if magpul stops posting how their way of making mags is better. If they continue to post that, we will continue to respond with why we disagree.




No one asked Magpul to come into this thread and post their opinion or the philosophy on why their way of making a mag is the best, but as usual, they did.

And they are free to do so, just like you. The only condition is to be professional, polite and business like  





I'd would be careful on calling Magpul out, it's not allowed.


The same applies the other way if someone is calling you or your company out





This is a tag




 

I'm trying sort this out myself



It will not be tolerated from anyone

I'm not sure if you were asking this question to me, but it's a good question. I can't speak to other makers mags, but our test mags have been fully loaded for 2 years now with no cover or support and the feedlips have not spread even .001". At the stress level our mags see, they should last indefinitely without damage to the feedlips.

Fair enough. I would like to get this thread back on topic and stop wasting the forum members time with this back and forth.

If this question is directed to PMags...

PMags can be stored loaded without a cover for years and through daily heat cycles without issue.

We had one of the first PMags loaded for a long term test but we stopped bothering  to measure it after four years or so.

The heat question is also a very good question, as most clear polymers don't do very well at elevated temps. One of the main objectives with our polymer was to be very stable at varying temperatures, both high and low. So with that said, we tested the mags fully loaded at 180 degrees. We left them in for a couple of weeks. We took them out periodically to test round retention, firing, and dropping them to make sure they worked properly and there was no problems. Our polymer melts at a very high temperature so it didn't even break a sweat at 180*. We also froze them at -60 degrees. Left them there for 48 hours. We then took them out, drop tested them and then fired them. They were not damaged from the extreme cold.

I disagree with your premise that protecting ones intellectual property is a somehow a "cowardly" action. We are also not indiscriminate either and settle the majority of cases out of court (both when we are prosecuting or defending)

When we engage topics on this (and other forums) we do so openly so people reading know where our bias resides and treat others, including competitors, with respect in our answers.

Some people do not like their world view challenged. As such we tend to make people such as yourself very angry by our participation online.

Again l disagree with your premise that our expertise in overall magazine design, material composition and building /testing translucent magazines somehow does not give us enough expertise to comment on the subject. Even then the Thread title is "Translucent mags as strong or not brittle vs solid color polymer mags ?"

As stated before and outlined in the Magazine Design Philosophies (that people comment about but never actually appear to read). Since we first started testing translucent materials back in 2007 no material we have experimented with (including those with a enough promise to build molds) met our own standard for release (that said neither do any of the offerings currently on the market).

All this does not mean all other magazines are not well made or engineered. They are just designed/manufactured upon different requirements founded on different philosophies.

If you are looking for a call out video or a description of one I am afraid you will be disappointed. As I stated above your comment, "All this does not mean all other magazines are not well made or engineered. They are just designed/manufactured upon different requirements founded on different philosophies".