akginmaster
I was referring to those persons who have publicly stated that they will not try or use these, despite no experience with them. I do not believe that describes your statements.
Some have reported problems with first generation ProMags and some QC issues with individual later ProMags. Sort of like some AR magazine makers have had QC issues, which have been fixed - or haven't. I haven't had those problems, but then again, its a $10.99 magazine (that's all I'll pay for one) from a company that will replace them.
I had a totally screwed up Colt 9mm magazine, which - after spending $65 for (it wasn't one of Grant's $55 ones) I destroyed rather than sell because I could not get it to work at all (changed followers and springs, etc.). That's a 20% failure rate (1 out of 5) though to be far, it was used (that was before I learned not to pay over retail for used stuff).
And one of the rationales for using modified Uzi magazines (or Sten magazines) was that they are so cheap (compared to Colt magazines) that a 9mm AR carbine user could work up (or find) reliable ones at half the cost of Colt magazines.
At $10.99 (which is all I will pay for ProMags) I'm willing to take the chance that the magazine might need to be sent back (or tweaked). At $55 (which is the upper limit of what I will pay for a Colt magazine) that's a bigger chance.
My experience (which is only relevant for me) is: Colt's - 20% bad; ProMags - 100% good.
Anyone else's experience may vary from mine.