Back in the Gulf War of 1991 fame, most front line units had new magazines.  I blame the 1994 AWB for the reluctance to DX old magazines since they have to be mutilated now...although many aren't.



Back in the early 1990s, defective magazines were simply pitched in the trash as the SMR code was PAOZZ.


 

Yeah, that's a problem. USGI mags were intended to be expendable. But Army is all crazy about sensitive items and holding soldiers accountable for equipment that they fucking treat magazines like sensative items and make Soldiers sign for them. When they should be the crushing the bad ones and just buying new ones.



 

this is one of your best posts

Even back in the 1980s, rifle barrels which had to be replaced were cut into 1" long segments so they couldn't be reused.  So DS/DOL trashed many bandsaw blades because they didn't want trashed barrels to be reused.



They probably require defective magazines to be field stripped into steel, aluminum and Zytel, then cut the springs into 1" segments while the bodies are crushed and then cut into 1" segments.
 

We don't have those problems today. You can crush magazines and toss them. You just have to order more.

Then it is a budget issue?  I don't have access to AMDF.  What is the current cost for a magazine?



 

yep

kinda sad he has lost all touch with reality

I've heard this a lot, but I thought it was only the original aluminum 20 rounders?

I'll have to get with my Supply SGT tomorrow, but there is no real reason that we can't afford them.

Aren't alot of units using their budget to buy PMags instead now?



 

You should. Those guys got jokes


That's gotta be a troll vid.

Thats where I stopped watching. Too much Derp for me.

 

It's all the same shit.   Car engines work the same way too.

The old original 20 rd with the metal followers are the best , just bought 8 on EE last saturday. Just a random thought from an old guy but if you are trying to shoot from cover (6" pile of dirt) won't a long magazine be a bit in the way

Another thought I just had, If you are wearing a plate carrier with a pile of mags on the front how do you take cover on the ground, looks like it would be really in the way. Only 11b need reply.

11b dont care!

Make that "honey 11B don't care".

Geezers fall behind. They repeat the same outdated info for so long that they believe it. He obviously has no clue about modern squad tactics or house to house fighting.

If you put him in charge of a company of soldiers, the first thing he would have them do would be to start digging trenches.

Also he probably does not own a laptop or cell phone and has no clue about CAD drawing.

Fuck plate carriers. At least the issued ones, they suck donkey nuts.

Yeah, because 11Cs don't know what's up!

Probably, but I don't know. I know my unit is not.

Better then an IOTV, side plates was the only thing i really had an issue with. And a 12B here

AD Infantry. We got brand new yellow follower USGI mags pre-deployment. I haven't seen issued PMAGs yet, if they're out there.

That's whey we have the M-4, rather than the original M-16.  Incremental improvements in the design which still allow a consistent manual of arms and a reasonable level of parts commonality.



Exactly what do we gain by "redoing the whole thing", that doesn't compromise the weapon system in some other way?  Issuing P-mags, by contrast, solves the number one issue with the reliability of the system, is pretty damn cheap, and requires no changes to training or anything else.



Until we have the technology to really replace the 5.56mm round with something significantly better, I have a REALLY hard time seeing where your going to get meaningful improvement.



 

Root cause analysis of failures is the scientific method to improvement.  Seems like many dismiss such science with the idea "it should just work".  That is pure bullshit.
 

You can't sell the latest snake oil with that kind of thinking.

I agree completely.  I'm not the biggest fan of the M16 or M4 as some of you know (although I sure used to be), but PMags would go a long way towards improving reliability IMO.

I think the problem with MagPul is they aren't a minority owned, "small business", so getting a contract to supply the DoD with millions of mags wouldn't benefit the current suppliers (who use govt. owned machinery to fabricate the mags until they don't qualify as a  "small business" anymore, then the contract can get solicited and awarded to another company from what I've read).

Or, I could be talking out my ass.  Brownells magazines with the improved "Magpul knockoff" followers were being sold at Clothing Sales in '07 or '08, so maybe jumping through the demographic hoops isn't an issue.

I know MARSOC uses  PMags that are issued to them, and the fellers I talked to loved 'em.  

Don't you know we live in a disposable society?  



It's not like the AR rifle is a complicated system.  It's wear parts are easily identified and replaced.  It's need for appropriate lubrication is well documented, and many lubricants are available that will meet the needs of the system.
 

That dumbfuck had been shilling that Singaporean piece or crap for decades

Welcome to fucking 2007 OP!!!
 

What I find interesting and very informative is Armalite's technical notes on their webpage.  Using high-speed cameras, they'be been able to determine how some very minor differences in tolerances-undetectable by the unaided human eye-contribute to common malfunctions such as FTE.  

IMO, everything that Eugene Stoner did with that weapon when he designed it was the result of keeping the functioning parts "balanced" so they operated reliably together.  Sure, there were minor changes like chrome plating the chambers and bores, adding weight to the buffer (to slow down the RPM), changing the twist in rifling, materials used for the receiver (6061 changed to 7075 due to corrosion issues) furniture, propellants, etc.  Having said that, barrel length, chamber pressures, gas curves-all that added up to reasonably reliable weapon.  From everything I've been able to read, even the strength of the extractor was designed to be neither too strong nor too weak in the original AR-15 / M16.  Much thought went into designing the extractor spring to be "just right" in terms of tension-not enough to rip the case head off with a stuck cartridge, but enough to get the job done.

When parts are worn, the weapons fail, just like any other system.  ANG rifles were the worse I've observed.  A1 lowers upgraded with A2 uppers.  They were junk.  We spent twice the amount of time on the range that day while Soldiers and our coaches were clearing malfunctions.  When I asked the company commander about it (a squared away captain IMHO) his reply was "hey, it's the Guard.  Our equipment is crap"  Those weapons were in serious need of rebuild.  Or being scrapped.  Take your pick.

When the CAR-15 and XM-177 were first fielded, the Army noted the increased failures in parts and malfunctions, which from what I understand is why it was never adopted in large numbers.  It took years for the problems with feeding and extraction to be addressed before the M4 was fielded.  AFAIK, Colt led the effort to make the 14.5 inch barreled M4 carbine reliable enough for general issue.  Incidently, it's my understanding that the length of 14.5 inches was arrived at by the USMC when, after testing,  they found that it was minimum length for a barrel to provide reliable operation.  

I know the Coast Guard guys at SMTC at Lejeune were using ultra short barrels in their Mk 18 carbines, and the bolts were breaking on the range with some frequency due to the higher pressure curves caused by the short barrels.  All the instructors were former CAG or Recon retirees.  That was an interesting bunch to talk to when we were next door to them on K406B.   Of course, those were weapons from the school house armory, so they were fired quite a bit.  Still the bottom line is that I think we're asking the design to do something that Eugene hadn't intended it to do, hence the problems being spoken of.

 

That is what designers often do.



 

I'd take an M4 over any other rifle/carbine out there.  I did not have a favorable opinion of the M4 after my time in the Army was over.  Back then, I didn't know that AR mags were supposed to be disposable, and in my unit they were treated almost like sensitive items.  I developed bad habits, some things I was taught that I later found out were wrong, and I also blame myself for not getting more information on my own.  I had the web at my finger tips, but I spent most of my time talking to girls.  Hell, for all that I knew I was doing it the Army way, I was fast tracking in rank, and for the most part I made things work when they needed to.  

Thinking back to my first deployment in 2003 to Iraq, I didn't have one single failure out of my M4 the whole time, and it bugged me why A-stan was so different.  Now that I think about it, I think the problems on my 2nd deployment were the mags, I used the same mags on both deployments, and all the training in between.  As a 11B, as a team leader, I would tell my guys to know their weapon, and looking back on it I didn't know my weapon.  There were 2 times that my M4 failed to fire in combat, those 2 moments gave me a negative opinion, and being irrational I disregarded all of the other times that my M4 saved my ass.  

Knowing what I know now, I can't get my ARs to fail, and if I had to go back into the Korengal Valley my first choice would be an M4.  Keep it lubed, know your mags, and you will be GTG.

Senility sucks... Sensationalism sells....