AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/24/2005 3:20:51 PM EDT
| With its troubled combat history (and the Army's withdrawal of them from combat), what's been done to product improve it? |
|
Well, its more than than that. The Brits had problems with them back in 1986 or so (failure to feed the last 18 rounds) which was supposed to be due to the lower pressure of the British 5.56x45mm. In 2001 TACOM issued a contract for them for use in M249 SAWs. In Afghanistan the system proved unreliable in combat and in 2002 TACOM issued Ground Precautionary Message GPM-02-017 "Commercial 100-Round Magazine for Use in M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)." This addressed C-Mag failures and recommended they not be used operationally. The tests conducted in July 2002 with the 82nd in Afghanistan bore out the earlier findings. |
| I have heard reports that even standard 30 round mags havea fair rate of failure in SAWs. People have said they should leave out the mag well and save some weight. From what I hear I wouldn't crawl through a mudhole with one but I wouldn't hesitate to buy one to mess around with. I was saving up the cash for one until I came across a firepower drum. I figured for $150 less I would take the 75 round drum and spend the rest on ammo. |
while yer at it post some more of this: http://photos.ar15.com/Galleries/Avatars/32956.jpg 
|
AR Sponsor