Quoted:
Just to clarify, that's an empty mag, and your concern is that the orange marker on the spring is showing as though it had roughly 15 rounds in it, correct?

Quoted:


Your lower is out of spec.

Quoted:
It's one of those hollywood bottomless mags.

Quoted:
Your lower is out of spec.

Quoted:
Your lower is out of spec.

Quoted:
I have a defective MagLevel P-Mag as seen below.  It has the paint on the wrong spring coil.  Nothing a little paint can’t fix, I was just wondering if anyone has seen this before.  Also, for those of you not familiar with the guts of this thing, the spring cannot be simply flipped around.

http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd498/libalj/DSCN0069.jpg

ETA for clarification

Quoted:
Interesting.

I did recently get a couple old maglevel mags, with no round count numbers on them.  So, I loaded up the mags and marked the numbers on them with a sharpie.

I'm sure magpul would swap it for you.  Well, as long as you don't live in Hawaii.  

Quoted:

Yeah, the first generation MagLevel PMAGs did not have round count numbers on the body.  We didn't introduce that feature until the second generation which was first released around June 2009.

Quoted:
#3 FTW.

Quoted:
I have a defective MagLevel P-Mag as seen below.  It has the paint on the wrong spring coil.  Nothing a little paint can’t fix, I was just wondering if anyone has seen this before.  Also, for those of you not familiar with the guts of this thing, the spring cannot be simply flipped around.

http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd498/libalj/DSCN0069.jpg

ETA for clarification

Quoted:
Your lower is out of spec.

Quoted:


Excellent Argument - Looks like I will have to bust out the Polymer is Progress list again...

To many people one magazine is just like another. God and the Devil are in the details. Here are some differences that may (or may not) be important to you. There is probably more but these are some that popped into my head awhile back. NOTE: In quantity the Mags costs the US government the same as a USGI ALU magazine.

PMag internal geometry uses an aggressive constant curve to improve reliability (the USGI has a curved then straight section to work with the M16 straight mag well)
PMag has a corrosive resistant stainless steel spring, USGI uses stock music wire
PMag has a 4 way anti tilt follower as standard (only very recent USGI mags have this)
PMag has a floorplate that is easier to remove and more robust than a USGI
PMag body has better crush strength than a USGI
PMag feedlips have better impact strength than a USGI
In combat deployment after-action reports, the PMag far out lasts USGI mags in theater.
PMag is functional after a 500 hour simulated salt spray test (the USGI fails)
PMag has a dust cover (that is optional) but will keep dust and debris out of the magazine during long term storage.
PMag has a much, much lower IR signature than a USGI
PMag body is easier to handle in both extreme hot and cold temperatures.
PMag has color options and it's color is embedded. USGI finish can wear off.
PMag has an option for a round cound window that can read rounds remaining obscured by the magazine well.
All PMags go through the same QC control (internal and external gauge check for EVERY magazine that leaves the factory)
Not all USGI mags are built for the US GOV and not all a built to remotely similar standards.

It is also worth noting that PMags are in a constant state of revision based upon feedback we receive and new production methods. While the PMag retains the same basic look it started with, it has been continually updated and it's performance far out shines the original from 5 years ago.

The newest generation PMag, the M3, which was shown at SHOT last week is the strongest by far. It has the additional benefits of being fully compatible with the the HK 416, SA80A2 and the FN SCAR. It also has a slim line floorplate option, additional gripping texture and a paint pen matrix for individually marking your magazines.

Polymer is progress

Quoted:


This is getting old really fast......

Quoted:


Excellent Argument - Looks like I will have to bust out the Polymer is Progress list again...

To many people one magazine is just like another. God and the Devil are in the details. Here are some differences that may (or may not) be important to you. There is probably more but these are some that popped into my head awhile back. NOTE: In quantity the Mags costs the US government the same as a USGI ALU magazine.

PMag internal geometry uses an aggressive constant curve to improve reliability (the USGI has a curved then straight section to work with the M16 straight mag well)
PMag has a corrosive resistant stainless steel spring, USGI uses stock music wire
PMag has a 4 way anti tilt follower as standard (only very recent USGI mags have this)
PMag has a floorplate that is easier to remove and more robust than a USGI
PMag body has better crush strength than a USGI
PMag feedlips have better impact strength than a USGI
In combat deployment after-action reports, the PMag far out lasts USGI mags in theater.
PMag is functional after a 500 hour simulated salt spray test (the USGI fails)
PMag has a dust cover (that is optional) but will keep dust and debris out of the magazine during long term storage.
PMag has a much, much lower IR signature than a USGI
PMag body is easier to handle in both extreme hot and cold temperatures.
PMag has color options and it's color is embedded. USGI finish can wear off.
PMag has an option for a round cound window that can read rounds remaining obscured by the magazine well.
All PMags go through the same QC control (internal and external gauge check for EVERY magazine that leaves the factory)
Not all USGI mags are built for the US GOV and not all a built to remotely similar standards.

It is also worth noting that PMags are in a constant state of revision based upon feedback we receive and new production methods. While the PMag retains the same basic look it started with, it has been continually updated and it's performance far out shines the original from 5 years ago.

The newest generation PMag, the M3, which was shown at SHOT last week is the strongest by far. It has the additional benefits of being fully compatible with the the HK 416, SA80A2 and the FN SCAR. It also has a slim line floorplate option, additional gripping texture and a paint pen matrix for individually marking your magazines.

Polymer is progress

Quoted:


It looks like the spring slipped down during the painting process. This is not surprising with the volume of magazine springs we use. Our customer service will send another spring to you upon request.

Quoted:
Maybe someday....someday....I'll discover all these "flaws" in the USGI aluminum mags that everyone else is finding.
But until that day, I'll just stick with the mag that has been serving us (US) well for the past 45 years or so.
If the USGI mags were actually so terrible, I'd think they would have been replaced long before now.
But the 20 I recently ordered from Brownells are functioning just as I expected....perfectly!
And they added up to $8.65 each.... delivered.

Quoted:
Actually the magazine has long been considered the weak point in the M16/M4 system.

Quoted:

Yeah, I'm aware of the aluminum magazines shortcomings.
But all, and I do mean ALL magazines have their flaws.
Including Magpul's Pmags.
Please don't take that as a complete condemnation of the Pmag, because it's not.
I just feel that the Pmag isn't the do-all end-all that it's hyped up to be.
And, as has already been mentioned, the "Polymer is Progress list" is getting a bit tiring.
Don't get me wrong, I like your mags.
They are extremely popular, and have an enviable following.
I don't own any, because I don't need any.
They apparently "fix a problem" that I, and apparently many, many other people don't have.
But Pmags aren't without their issues either.
So, if you want to continue to sing the "we're so much better" song, let's wait until about forty million or so
of them have been in service for four or five decades, just so we can have a fair comparison, then we'll see.
But the old "buy my product because the other guy's is a total piece of dog crap" sales pitch is just a bit hokey.
It kinda reminds me of the political ads we're getting way too much of lately.
Do the GI mags need to be revamped, or even replaced?...Probably.
But for most of us in the civilian sector, they're just fine. And I have had very little trouble with them.
They're all I've used for the last three decades, and they are what I prefer.
I have used Pmags, and they too are a fine magazine.
I have never slammed them, simply because I don't prefer them.
But I still don't see where they're any better than the aluminum mags.
Different? Yes. Cooler? Maybe. Do they make a lot of guys rifles look studlier? Apparently.
"Polymer is Progress"? Hell, let's just make the whole damn rifle out of plastic.
The Plum Crazy M4 in FDE for everyone!

You guys make some fine products.
Including Pmags.
But they don't cure cancer. Or heal the blind.
They're just magazines.
Good magazines, but still, just mags.
Sorry for the rant. I'll shut up now.

Quoted:

You are not kidding. I cannot go a week without having to respond to a one line statements like "A PMAG don't do anything a USGI does". It is almost a full time job.

Quoted:

Yeah, I'm aware of the aluminum magazines shortcomings.
But all, and I do mean ALL magazines have their flaws.
Including Magpul's Pmags.
Please don't take that as a complete condemnation of the Pmag, because it's not.
I just feel that the Pmag isn't the do-all end-all that it's hyped up to be.
And, as has already been mentioned, the "Polymer is Progress list" is getting a bit tiring.
Don't get me wrong, I like your mags.
They are extremely popular, and have an enviable following.
I don't own any, because I don't need any.
They apparently "fix a problem" that I, and apparently many, many other people don't have.
But Pmags aren't without their issues either.
So, if you want to continue to sing the "we're so much better" song, let's wait until about forty million or so
of them have been in service for four or five decades, just so we can have a fair comparison, then we'll see.
But the old "buy my product because the other guy's is a total piece of dog crap" sales pitch is just a bit hokey.
It kinda reminds me of the political ads we're getting way too much of lately.
Do the GI mags need to be revamped, or even replaced?...Probably.
But for most of us in the civilian sector, they're just fine. And I have had very little trouble with them.
They're all I've used for the last three decades, and they are what I prefer.
I have used Pmags, and they too are a fine magazine.
I have never slammed them, simply because I don't prefer them.
But I still don't see where they're any better than the aluminum mags.
Different? Yes. Cooler? Maybe. Do they make a lot of guys rifles look studlier? Apparently.
"Polymer is Progress"? Hell, let's just make the whole damn rifle out of plastic.
The Plum Crazy M4 in FDE for everyone!

You guys make some fine products.
Including Pmags.
But they don't cure cancer. Or heal the blind.
They're just magazines.
Good magazines, but still, just mags.
Sorry for the rant. I'll shut up now.

Quoted:


You are not kidding. I cannot go a week without having to respond to a one line statements like "A PMAG don't do anything a USGI does". It is almost a full time job.

Quoted:
.....I keed i keed
On a serious note what does a pmag do that a lancer doesnt?

I keed i keed
On a serious note what does a pmag do that a lancer doesnt?

Quoted:


Prior to the AWMs, they resisted DEET better, but thats the only major difference that comes to mind atm.

Quoted:


Prior to the AWMs, they resisted DEET better, but thats the only major difference that comes to mind atm.

Quoted:


I have found that my pmags are better at cracking than my Lancers.

Quoted:


Quite a few people saying they have cracked Pmags, but they never post pictures........

Quoted:


There have been a bunch of pictures posted in the past.

But once the thread gets "resolved" it disappears.

ETA- http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_17/474993_.html

ETA2- http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_17/532662_.html

ETA3- http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_17/421896_.html

ETA4- http://www.souls.org/archive/topic.html?b=2&f=124&t=162886

ETA5- http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=2&f=124&t=201329

ETA6- http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=17&t=551074

And I give up.  The info is out there.

Quoted:

Touché.

I'll fix it: Quite a few people saying they have cracked Pmags, but they never rarely post pictures.......

Quoted:

Touché.

I'll fix it: Quite a few people saying they have cracked Pmags, but they never rarely post pictures.......

Quoted:

I'm not sure, but you sure hear a lot more about it....whatever it is.
And I hear that they do it with much more pizzazz.
But again, I post this in jest. I'm sure Pmags are excellent mags.

Quoted:


There have been a bunch of pictures posted in the past.

But once the thread gets "resolved" it disappears.

Quoted:

Since the PMag was introduced in 2007 there has been a lot of new entries in the Polymer M4 magazine market.

Since the PMag far out numbers all other polymer magazines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, by a large margin, it is understandable that you would hear more about them. We do little to no advertizing on them specifically, other than post technical responses on this forum.

As for other polymer magazines on the market we have to be careful about releasing information that might help them duplicate what makes the Pmag work.

In short there is a constant battle between function, strength, durability (different than strength), value, compatibility, and consistency in production. How you approach these will determine the final product. I will say with the Pmags the number 1 priority is function, but how we prioritize the others affects what decisions we make in our constant ongoing development.

Quoted:


I dislike passive/aggressive personalities. If you wish to accuse us of deleting threads we don't like and suppressing something, come out and say it.
For the record we don't delete threads for stuff like that (check out our forum) and a quick search of Magpul related posts will also confirm the mods here don't either (unless of course you are breaking the COC)

Quoted:

Hey, I understand the fact that you guys produce an excellent product.
I won't dispute that in the slightest way....I'd be wrong if I did.
I don't have a problem with your magazines. I really don't.
I just see a bit of P.T. Barnum type of ad pitching occasionally, that's my only issue.
The Pmag is undeniably a fine mag.
But then so is the USGI aluminum mag.
The US mag could use some refinement, sure.
And they're doing just that. In fine, rapid, government fashion.
But it's still serving well.
The Pmag has flash and a panache that the aluminum mag lacks.
But I don't need any of that.
Your mag works. My mag works. We can co-exist.

Quoted:

I don't use your magazines, sorry, but I had problems with them.

Quoted:

OK I will take back the P/A statement. The technical forums are full of hit and run comments like that and it generally gets a negative reaction from me.

From your IM, your exposure on PMags was very early on and we have learned and improved the PMags a lot along the way (M Rev then now the M3) including increasing compatibility between AR15 receivers (which was why you got rid of them).

As soon as the first production M3s come out I will send you a batch to test with and you can evaluate and post your results.

Quoted:


I will try them out if you are willing to let me test the new magazines.

I will test them next to new GI mags and document the results.

IM me if you are serious.

Quoted:
Since you are a USGI mag guy we should get you a Lancer AWM. Would be a perfect test, because not many mag comparisons come from people with a bias for USGI mags.

Quoted:

I am serious. I will let you know when we are ready to go.