Is there much of a difference (other than price)?  I have the two that came with my new AR (one came with the Bushmaster, the other I bought, an aluminum one).  

Just wanted to ask.  I know for Glocks for example, most people recommend using Glock magazines over the other brands, and I've heard similar stories regarding 1911 mags (that's my next toy!  hanks!

steel normally means USA brand. while most will bitch about USA brand, I have 3 that I got before reading up on them and they work fine
noticably heavier than my USGI aluminum mags though
I think some of the british military mags are steel

Steel mags suck other than the H&K's. Your Bushy mag is aluminum as well.

There are Royal Ordnance British mags and HK mags that function reliably. All others are SHIT, hands down. Taking the relaible steel magazines you still have this to contend with"for doing the SAME job as aluminum, they are heavier and  prone to rust all for a price that is no cheaper than aluminum (unless they're the shitty mags that don't work)" . Considering this, Why even give steel a second thought?

Stick with the USGI mags, you can't beat em for the price or function.

my steel mags worked for a short while but quit after a few months, I used them all for target practice as targets.
My USGI are still working fine and that is all I use

T-65 steel mags are my favorite mags, work every time and no rust yet after a half dozen feild trips.

I took both 6 Brit and 3 T65 mags and put Magpul follower, other than having to move 1 catch hole, they have gone several hundred rounds apiece without a issue yet.   But they are heavier, much heavier than issue mags.

USGI mags.

Max

Interesting, does anyone have any pics of the T65 mags?  I'd like see how they look and what markings they have.

I have some British steel that work perfectly as well as the t-65s. They both feed perfectly fine with no trouble. The only downfall is that they are very heavy compared to aluminum when loaded. The t-65s have no markings at all, but they are completely black and usually wrapped in paper that is heavily greased. I'll try scrounge a way to get pics of my t-65s so you can see them, they actually look really nice being black and the rifle being black.

ETA: No way to post pics, all I can use is my girlfriends camera cellphone which was destroyed due to an incident involving my truck. However, if/when I can post pics of them I will. Also, I do not know that I would completely trust these steels mags with my life, but they were very cheap and make for good plinking/range mags for anyone looking for that, that is all I use them for. I got the t-65s for I think around 10.50/mag while they were on sale at midwayusa.com and the british steel were 11 or so at a local shop. Too good of a deal to beat in my opinion for kick around range mags.

Sportsmans Guide has picture in the online catalog. Out of 22 mags they sent me 2 had low mag catch holes and were trashed after removing spring and base plate. They sent me 2 more without having to send any back. I did install Mag Pull followers before ever trying the originals. They all still hold 30 rnds. afterwards unlike some GI. mags I've heard about on this board.

My SA-80 steel mags work as well as my USGI's.  As a matter of fact I'm looking for a deal on some more of this mag.

The T-65s have no markings whatsoever. The floorplate is blank. The mags are rather crudely made but seem to function fine w/ the Magpul followers.

I like the SA80 mags.  I got 20 of them from r guns for $10  each.

Quoted: The T-65s have no markings whatsoever. The floorplate is blank. The mags are rather crudely made but seem to function fine w/ the Magpul followers.

Thanks for the info, I was very tempted by Sportsman's Guide selling 10 for $100.

My buddy in AZ has been using the Royal Ordnance mags- he had to lower the holes on all of them with his two DPMS lowers and brand new Stag M4gery 16" uppers- the mags would seat with the bolt back, but would drag on the bolt and were very difficult to seat with the bolts forward.  No problems with the USGI and Orlites.  All fed fine before and after catch hole mods with  milspec 55 grain.

The guns wanted to short  cycle with Wolf and Silver Bear in the unmodded mags- in one upper they sometimes didn't even go back far enough for the case to eject, and in both the Russky stuff would kick the bolt back far enough to eject but not strip the next round or strip the round with the carrier instead of the bolt and jam.    One upper still wouldn't cycle 100% with the Russky stuff with the modded mags or the USGI or Orlites-  the other just ate it up.  Weight differential between steel and Aluminum  isn't an issue for me.  Before moving to CA and selling my AKs and converting my FALS to fixed mag, all I had were steel mags, and i still distrust aluminum and plastic.hijackThe Russian ammo seemed marginal in power- even with a short gas system and 16" barrel, which should give more dwell time and give the carrier a longer push, the buffer hit the back of the tube very softly if it hit at all. It was what I'd call a half recoil.  With the true milspec surplus 55 grain ball, the buffer smacked the back of the buffer and transmitted a shock through my cheekbone, exactly like I remember my M16A2 did when I was in the Army.  Bottom Line: Russian stuff is marginal for functioning, and excess friction from dirt, out of spec mags, and not broken-in new gun in can cause difficulty.  



Like everybody here has said many times- use the Russian stuff for blasting and malfunction drills

Quoted: My buddy in AZ has been using the Royal Ordnance mags- he had to lower the holes on all of them with his two DPMS lowers and brand new Stag M4gery 16" uppers- the mags would seat with the bolt back, but would drag on the bolt and were very difficult to seat with the bolts forward.  No problems with the USGI and Orlites. Like everybody here has said many times- use the Russian stuff for blasting and malfunction drills

I'm blessed with one of those crappy Olympic Arms PCR carbines.  It shoots Wolf like there's no tomorrow and all my SA-80 mags work flawlessly too.

USGI are 4 oz each, most steel are around 8 oz each. While the weight isn't a huge deal, it does add up...7xsteel mags would be abot 28oz more; nearly 2 lbs. 2 more lbs food/water you could carry, or a lighter load.

I would only use USGI or HK mags, and my preference is for USGI with magpul upgrades over the HK mags.

Steel mags (Not including HK) totally suck.  I once purchased a few 20 rounders because I thought they were a great deal and they were new.  2 out of the 4 that I purchased would not feed properly the first time I used them.  I was so pissed because those were the only ones I brought with me to the range that day and I was sharing my AR with a buddy.  We were constantly loading, and reloading, and reloading.  After that, I splurged and bought 4 new Colt mfg aluminum 20 rounders at a hefty $23 ouch... i mean each.  Worth every penny.

Quoted: Steel mags (Not including HK) totally suck.  I once purchased a few 20 rounders because I thought they were a great deal and they were new.  2 out of the 4 that I purchased would not feed properly the first time I used them.  I was so pissed because those were the only ones I brought with me to the range that day and I was sharing my AR with a buddy.  We were constantly loading, and reloading, and reloading.  After that, I splurged and bought 4 new Colt mfg aluminum 20 rounders at a hefty $23 ouch... i mean each.  Worth every penny.

The Royal Ordnance steel mags are fine, especially with the addition of a magpul follower make reliable and durable magazines.  Some seem to like the "T-65" (Singapore?) mags but I have no personal experience with them.  Aftermarket type steel mags are crap, but it's not because they are made out of steel.

BTW, if you want to reduce the "ouch" factor, don't buy the mags with the horsey logo, get the same mags with NHMTG or Okay stamped on them

Quoted: BTW, if you want to reduce the "ouch" factor, don't buy the mags with the horsey logo, get the same mags with NHMTG or Okay stamped on them

You may be right, however usually I'm a bit of a brand whore, and experiences like the one that I had with those steel mags just reinforces my opinions about sticking with tried and true companies.  Not saying that NHMTG & Okay aren't good... Just that Colt's are less risky than most others.  Plus, if anything goes bad, I know some local Colt dealers who would gladly replace them for me.

Quoted: Quoted: Steel mags (Not including HK) totally suck.  I once purchased a few 20 rounders because I thought they were a great deal and they were new.  2 out of the 4 that I purchased would not feed properly the first time I used them.  I was so pissed because those were the only ones I brought with me to the range that day and I was sharing my AR with a buddy.  We were constantly loading, and reloading, and reloading.  After that, I splurged and bought 4 new Colt mfg aluminum 20 rounders at a hefty $23 ouch... i mean each.  Worth every penny. The Royal Ordnance steel mags are fine, especially with the addition of a magpul follower make reliable and durable magazines.  Some seem to like the "T-65" (Singapore?) mags but I have no personal experience with them.  Aftermarket type steel mags are crap, but it's not because they are made out of steel. BTW, if you want to reduce the "ouch" factor, don't buy the mags with the horsey logo, get the same mags with NHMTG or Okay stamped on them

+1

My Royal Ordinance mags (SA-80) have been 100% reliable through hundreds of rounds.  They may be even less prone to cracking at the rear of the feed lips than the aluminum.  Only time will tell.

steel is heavier and is more prone to rusting

the only steel mags i use are the British/Singapore mags--100% reliability for me (range mags)

overall, stick w/ USGI mags

I personally prefer my aluminum mags over my steel ones.  I have some SA80 mags that work perfect but I only use them for range work.  When you compare the weight, price and reliability of USGI mags there is no reason to buy steel ones.  

If you buy Govt issure steel mags like the SA80 or T65 you will be fine. They are good mags. Yes they do weigh more then USGI mags. Myself, I don't think the fact they can rust is a propblem, the steel on your rifle can rust too, so you have to take care of it. I have some USGI mags that have cracks at the feed lips, and I don't think that will ever happen with a steel mag.

SO I guess I'm trying to say stick with govt. issue mags, and pick the ones you like best. Run away from anything not govt issue.

Quoted: There are Royal Ordnance British mags and HK mags that function reliably. All others are SHIT, hands down. Taking the relaible steel magazines you still have this to contend with"for doing the SAME job as aluminum, they are heavier and  prone to rust all for a price that is no cheaper than aluminum (unless they're the shitty mags that don't work)" . Considering this, Why even give steel a second thought?

If your talking HK mags their the hands down best choice if you want a mag that will last forever. GI mags work as intended and are reliable. But their durability leaves a lot to be desired. They were designed to be cheap to produced and basically disposable. WHich is great for the military. But if your a citizen who wants his items to last in case there is another ban you can't beat HK mags.  There is not enough difference in weight to worry about. Rust is not an issue with the maritime mags. Besides alluminum mags will be cracked and useless long before a HK mag rusts out.  I agree on the other steel mags like pro mag being junk. But HK mags are the best I have used period. Their spendy but worth it as they cure one of the major flaws of the M16/M4/AR15 family of weapons namely crappy disposable mags.
Pat