AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/19/2015 12:22:44 PM EDT
|
I started shooting competition in 2008, semi-sponsored by an OEM manufacturer (I was given some parts and accessories to use, and some range/travel fees paid). I was first using Gen 1 Polymer MAGazines that I was given for free. After a number of cycles loading the magazines on a closed bolt, the feedlips and spines began to crack. Manufacturer replaced the magazines for free, but I lost faith in them. I never had a Polymer MAGazine crack catastrophically, and cause a malfunction that I can remember, it was a gradual crack that would get bigger with use. I was able to replace them before they broke totally. I do remember dropping some cracking spine Polymer MAGazines that were partially loaded during speed reloads, and the rounds ejected from the top of the mag when the mag hit the deck. I had another fellow shooter experience the same cracking issues with Polymer MAGazines. To be completely fair, Polymer MAGazines manufacturer's customer service was great (can't remember the name of the guy that always helped us), and sent out replacement mags quickly. I have a suspicion that the over-insertion tabs on the Gen3 Polymer MAGazines were at least partially implemented to reduce the splitting spines and cracked feedlips, but that is just my opinion. However, the over-insertion tabs now interfere with some lowers and trigger guards, causing an under-insertion problem where the magazine will not lock into place I found the Lancer L5 as a possible solution and liked the steel insert for the feedlips. I purchased 5 of them at first with my own money at a slight discount (I think it was 25% off MSRP). The translucency was a novelty at first, but: I estimate 8k rounds between the 5 magazines based on ammo purchases. 8000/5=1600 rds per magazine. 1600/30=53+ cycles. RR1 and RR2 probably had half or more of the total rounds, and RR1 probably had 75% of that half, but since I didn't keep a record, we'll just assume at least 53 fully loaded cycles (most likely closer to 100+ cycles for RR1 though). The finish on the steel feedlips is still intact except on the very high spots and edges. There are no cracks in the feedlips or on the spine of the magazine body. The feedlips are not spread apart, and remain solidly attached to the polymer portion of the magazine with no movement between the two. . There are no cracks in the magazine body, or signs of degradation of the plastic. The plastic body has not discolored or yellowed in any way. All parts including springs are factory original and have never been replaced. TLDR; Polymer MAGazines cracked so I bought Lancers, which have lasted thousands of rounds with zero problems.  20151031_094803 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151031_094819 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151031_094837 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151031_094856 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151031_094920 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151031_094936 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151031_094957 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr |
|
Quoted:
So you compared a PMAG 1 to a Lancer L5 ? I appreciate your review, but this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... |
|
Quoted: The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... Quoted: Quoted: So you compared a PMAG 1 to a Lancer L5 ? I appreciate your review, but this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... It's still silly to compare such an old plastic mag design against a newer design. The whole review could have been done without the comparison, and everyone would still know how pleased he was with the Lancer. |
|
Quoted:
The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... Quoted:
Quoted:
So you compared a PMAG 1 to a Lancer L5 ? I appreciate your review, but this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... Most new designs (Hexmag, ETS, Lancer) are all variations of a polymer, or polymer/metal combination. Most are actually compared to PMAG in the discussion, just like you did above. As I said, I am not a fanboy of any particular manufacturer, but polymer designs have nothing to prove in relation to the USGI. Magpul got their first military order in 2002, and their products have seen extensive use in combat situations ever since. |
|
Quoted: Most new designs (Hexmag, ETS, Lancer) are all variations of a polymer, or polymer/metal combination. Most are actually compared to PMAG in the discussion, just like you did above. As I said, I am not a fanboy of any particular manufacturer, but polymer designs have nothing to prove in relation to the USGI. Magpul got their first military order in 2002, and their products have seen extensive use in combat situations ever since. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you compared a PMAG 1 to a Lancer L5 ? I appreciate your review, but this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... Most new designs (Hexmag, ETS, Lancer) are all variations of a polymer, or polymer/metal combination. Most are actually compared to PMAG in the discussion, just like you did above. As I said, I am not a fanboy of any particular manufacturer, but polymer designs have nothing to prove in relation to the USGI. Magpul got their first military order in 2002, and their products have seen extensive use in combat situations ever since. A site sponsor (DSG Arms) had a good sale on the newer AWM magazines from Lancer so I bought some and will do a comparison with the older L5 magazines in the OP. I can say already, I liked the older style of floorplate. It is more pliable and rubbery. The newer AWM floorplates are more rigid, and will have a little more "clatter" when dropped. |
|
Quoted: It's still silly to compare such an old plastic mag design against a newer design. The whole review could have been done without the comparison, and everyone would still know how pleased he was with the Lancer. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you compared a PMAG 1 to a Lancer L5 ? I appreciate your review, but this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The magazine most new designs is compared to is the good ol' USGI magazine designed in the last century. (in a few years the USGI 30 will be 50 years old) No one seems to complain or point out how that is not exactly a fair comparison, only that it is the "standard" by which all others are judged....... It's still silly to compare such an old plastic mag design against a newer design. The whole review could have been done without the comparison, and everyone would still know how pleased he was with the Lancer. |
|
Quoted: I just cut and pasted it from the translucent mag thread, so I could continue the review since I just got some of the newer Lancer AWM magazines. I've got some ETS translucent magazines I'll probably review in this thread too. Quoted: Quoted: It's still silly to compare such an old plastic mag design against a newer design. The whole review could have been done without the comparison, and everyone would still know how pleased he was with the Lancer. So then it was silly to do it twice. Why couldn't you just do a review of the mags that you're happy with? As I told you after your thread in GD, it's time to stop beating the dead horse and move on. |
|
Quoted: So then it was silly to do it twice. Why couldn't you just do a review of the mags that you're happy with? As I told you after your thread in GD, it's time to stop beating the dead horse and move on. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's still silly to compare such an old plastic mag design against a newer design. The whole review could have been done without the comparison, and everyone would still know how pleased he was with the Lancer. So then it was silly to do it twice. Why couldn't you just do a review of the mags that you're happy with? As I told you after your thread in GD, it's time to stop beating the dead horse and move on. IM me if you'd like. |
|
Quoted:
What does that mean? Why does the military need a different feed angle? IAR? Quoted:
Quoted:
Durable magazine with a less than ideal feed angle for current use if you're in the military. Because of the Steel tips on the M855A1 ammo. If that steel tip hits on the aluminum M4 feedramps it will chew them up badly. |
|
Quoted: Because of the Steel tips on the M855A1 ammo. If that steel tip hits on the aluminum M4 feedramps it will chew them up badly. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Durable magazine with a less than ideal feed angle for current use if you're in the military. Because of the Steel tips on the M855A1 ammo. If that steel tip hits on the aluminum M4 feedramps it will chew them up badly. ETA, is it something specific with the 855A1 cartridge dimensions, or just that the tip is much harder than the feed ramps? |
|
Quoted: So then it was silly to do it twice. Why couldn't you just do a review of the mags that you're happy with? As I told you after your thread in GD, it's time to stop beating the dead horse and move on. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's still silly to compare such an old plastic mag design against a newer design. The whole review could have been done without the comparison, and everyone would still know how pleased he was with the Lancer. So then it was silly to do it twice. Why couldn't you just do a review of the mags that you're happy with? As I told you after your thread in GD, it's time to stop beating the dead horse and move on. I'll do an update next week with some AWM Magazines and maybe a side by side with the Gen 1 L5 Magazines and ETS Magazine. |
|
Quoted:
What does that mean? Why does the military need a different feed angle? IAR? Quoted:
Quoted:
Durable magazine with a less than ideal feed angle for current use if you're in the military. M855A1. |
|
Quoted:
Ah, did not know that. I'll get some more pics up soon, I'll have to find an ETS mag in my stuff to compare. Thanks! ETA, is it something specific with the 855A1 cartridge dimensions, or just that the tip is much harder than the feed ramps? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Durable magazine with a less than ideal feed angle for current use if you're in the military. Because of the Steel tips on the M855A1 ammo. If that steel tip hits on the aluminum M4 feedramps it will chew them up badly. ETA, is it something specific with the 855A1 cartridge dimensions, or just that the tip is much harder than the feed ramps? The Steel tip is much harder than the M4 cut in the aluminum upper. GI mags and Lancer mags have a nearly identical feed angle, however Lancer is slightly better. In my unscientific post you can see the Lancer, while better than the GI mag still barely places the steel tip on the actual steel ramps of the barrel extension. Under the absolute best case scenario Lancers would probably be fine, however a gun that is run at a high cyclic rate like that of the M4 or the Mk18 the Lancer will not be able to present the steel tip high enough to avoid the aluminum upper. Normally this is not an issue and is why the M4 cuts are built into the upper, with M855A1 this is an issue however. So for the majority Lancers are fine. However if you use M855A1 regularly get ETS or Magpul mags. |
|
Some photos that I will later add observations to. The perspective sucks, but I'm using a phone with a tiny lens to take the photos, sorry. L->R: Lancer L5 Gen 1 Smoke, Lancer AWM Clear, ETS Gen 1 Coupler, GI D&H Industries Alum
 20151120_144716 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151120_144248 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151120_144341 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151120_144137 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 20151120_144431 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr |
|
Quoted:
Because of the Steel tips on the M855A1 ammo. If that steel tip hits on the aluminum M4 feedramps it will chew them up badly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Durable magazine with a less than ideal feed angle for current use if you're in the military. Because of the Steel tips on the M855A1 ammo. If that steel tip hits on the aluminum M4 feedramps it will chew them up badly. So at how many rounds does the barrel extension wear out when comparing M855 to M855A1??? |
|
Quoted: Edited because I think this post is worth saving. I'm pretty bummed that I'm unable to express my views on certain products if they don't match with the site's views, but ce la vie. I'll do an update next week with some AWM Magazines and maybe a side by side with the Gen 1 L5 Magazines and ETS Magazine. Quoted: I'll do an update next week with some AWM Magazines and maybe a side by side with the Gen 1 L5 Magazines and ETS Magazine. Thank you! If you come up with an issue that isn't almost a decade old, please feel free to share it. It's time for the rest to be left in the past. |
|
Quoted:
So at how many rounds does the barrel extension wear out when comparing M855 to M855A1??? It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. |
|
Quoted: It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. Quoted: Quoted: So at how many rounds does the barrel extension wear out when comparing M855 to M855A1??? It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. What determines feed angle, the height of the front of the mag that the cartridge slides over combined with length of the feedlips? |
|
Quoted:
What about aluminum mags? What determines feed angle, the height of the front of the mag that the cartridge slides over combined with length of the feedlips? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So at how many rounds does the barrel extension wear out when comparing M855 to M855A1??? It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. What determines feed angle, the height of the front of the mag that the cartridge slides over combined with length of the feedlips? GI mags have the worste feed angle of any AR magazine. They are the whole entire reason the M4 needs to have extended feed ramps cut into the upper receiver. With the feed angle of Pmags or ETS mags we could easily have rifle feed ramps and no upper receiver cuts and be just fine. Also just FYI ETS has the best feed angle of the magazines I have tested. |
|
Original Lancer L5 for the win!
Great to see the original design Lancers holding up so well. Lancer originally sold me on the beautiful translucent design where you could see all the rounds in the mag. Once the reviews came in that it was a sturdy, reliable product, I bought a case of the original L5s for myself, and they've been flawless. Originally I was a PMAG fanboy and had a ton in different colors and generations, but the Lancer won me over. I think both are great mags, but Lancer's product is overall just that much better in eliminating the feed lip issue with steel wrap, but for me it really comes down to being able to see the rounds in the mag. The blob of paint really does nothing for me, and if you wanted, you could easily put a blob of paint on a Lancer mag spring too. Magpul had actually developed a translucent PMAG quite awhile ago but never saw fit to release it to the public. I remember watching those Travis Haley videos and getting excited to see a him running see-through PMAGs, but they never came to fruition. I suspected it was a marketing thing, since a clear mag body would preclude the ability to sell windowed mags for an upcharge, but the official word was that their clear formula wasn't durable enough. Aside from a box of random magazines, I've converted my entire mag collection to the L5A and AWM. |
|
Quoted: Original Lancer L5 for the win! Great to see the original design Lancers holding up so well. Lancer originally sold me on the beautiful translucent design where you could see all the rounds in the mag. Once the reviews came in that it was a sturdy, reliable product, I bought a case of the original L5s for myself, and they've been flawless. Originally I was a PMAG fanboy and had a ton in different colors and generations, but the Lancer won me over. I think both are great mags, but Lancer's product is overall just that much better in eliminating the feed lip issue with steel wrap, but for me it really comes down to being able to see the rounds in the mag. The blob of paint really does nothing for me, and if you wanted, you could easily put a blob of paint on a Lancer mag spring too. Magpul had actually developed a translucent PMAG quite awhile ago but never saw fit to release it to the public. I remember watching those Travis Haley videos and getting excited to see a him running see-through PMAGs, but they never came to fruition. I suspected it was a marketing thing, since a clear mag body would preclude the ability to sell windowed mags for an upcharge, but the official word was that their clear formula wasn't durable enough. Aside from a box of random magazines, I've converted my entire mag collection to the L5A and AWM.  2015-11-24_12-13-34 by azoutdoorsman, on Flickr 2015-11-24_12-12-47 by azoutdoorsman, on FlickrThere's no way any sensible person would think a skinny little window with a piece of paint on the spring is better at displaying round count in a magazine than a magazine like the one above. |
|
Quoted: GI mags have the worste feed angle of any AR magazine. They are the whole entire reason the M4 needs to have extended feed ramps cut into the upper receiver. With the feed angle of Pmags or ETS mags we could easily have rifle feed ramps and no upper receiver cuts and be just fine. Also just FYI ETS has the best feed angle of the magazines I have tested. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So at how many rounds does the barrel extension wear out when comparing M855 to M855A1??? It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. What determines feed angle, the height of the front of the mag that the cartridge slides over combined with length of the feedlips? GI mags have the worste feed angle of any AR magazine. They are the whole entire reason the M4 needs to have extended feed ramps cut into the upper receiver. With the feed angle of Pmags or ETS mags we could easily have rifle feed ramps and no upper receiver cuts and be just fine. Also just FYI ETS has the best feed angle of the magazines I have tested. |
|
Quoted:
what is the optimal feed angle? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So at how many rounds does the barrel extension wear out when comparing M855 to M855A1??? It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. What determines feed angle, the height of the front of the mag that the cartridge slides over combined with length of the feedlips? GI mags have the worste feed angle of any AR magazine. They are the whole entire reason the M4 needs to have extended feed ramps cut into the upper receiver. With the feed angle of Pmags or ETS mags we could easily have rifle feed ramps and no upper receiver cuts and be just fine. Also just FYI ETS has the best feed angle of the magazines I have tested. Optimal? The angle on the Gen M3 is Optimal (which is why it's being copied), but overall presentation height, control of the round, friction of the round against the lips and in the mag body, follower performance under various cyclic rates, drag of the round tip inside the mag body, the effects of dirt grit on all of this, etc., all plays into it--so it's not just a presentation angle thing. The GEN M3 has pretty much crushed anything else for reliability running M855A1, as in the other thread on 855A1. If you're a DoD user and authorized to receive test data, you can request it. There can still be chamber lead-in damage, though it's not as severe as with other feeding devices, and it doesn't effect performance within the usable barrel life span. |
|
Quoted:
Original Lancer L5 for the win! Great to see the original design Lancers holding up so well. Lancer originally sold me on the beautiful translucent design where you could see all the rounds in the mag. Once the reviews came in that it was a sturdy, reliable product, I bought a case of the original L5s for myself, and they've been flawless. Originally I was a PMAG fanboy and had a ton in different colors and generations, but the Lancer won me over. I think both are great mags, but Lancer's product is overall just that much better in eliminating the feed lip issue with steel wrap, but for me it really comes down to being able to see the rounds in the mag. The blob of paint really does nothing for me, and if you wanted, you could easily put a blob of paint on a Lancer mag spring too. Magpul had actually developed a translucent PMAG quite awhile ago but never saw fit to release it to the public. I remember watching those Travis Haley videos and getting excited to see a him running see-through PMAGs, but they never came to fruition. I suspected it was a marketing thing, since a clear mag body would preclude the ability to sell windowed mags for an upcharge, but the official word was that their clear formula wasn't durable enough. Aside from a box of random magazines, I've converted my entire mag collection to the L5A and AWM. We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. 
|
|
Quoted:
We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=81892 Quoted:
Quoted:
Original Lancer L5 for the win! Great to see the original design Lancers holding up so well. Lancer originally sold me on the beautiful translucent design where you could see all the rounds in the mag. Once the reviews came in that it was a sturdy, reliable product, I bought a case of the original L5s for myself, and they've been flawless. Originally I was a PMAG fanboy and had a ton in different colors and generations, but the Lancer won me over. I think both are great mags, but Lancer's product is overall just that much better in eliminating the feed lip issue with steel wrap, but for me it really comes down to being able to see the rounds in the mag. The blob of paint really does nothing for me, and if you wanted, you could easily put a blob of paint on a Lancer mag spring too. Magpul had actually developed a translucent PMAG quite awhile ago but never saw fit to release it to the public. I remember watching those Travis Haley videos and getting excited to see a him running see-through PMAGs, but they never came to fruition. I suspected it was a marketing thing, since a clear mag body would preclude the ability to sell windowed mags for an upcharge, but the official word was that their clear formula wasn't durable enough. Aside from a box of random magazines, I've converted my entire mag collection to the L5A and AWM. We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=81892 That's just... like your opinion philosophy man 
But seriously stop teasing us with that pic Also FWIW.... I have been unable to break an clear AWM Lancer or M3 PMAG You guys at Magpul really mastered the Polymer mag, specifically the opaque type Lancer has mastered, in my opinion, the translucent mag |
|
Quoted: That's just... like your opinion philosophy man You guys at Magpul really mastered the Polymer mag, specifically the opaque type Lancer has mastered, in my opinion, the translucent mag plus all other Polymer mags.  Maybe at one point Magpul had it all figured out but in my opinion, they've become a restaurant with a huge menu. It can be good but not as great as a place that does a few things that are the best of the best. Magpul just has way too much shit going on as a company to do anything phenomenally. But, that's okay. They make good stuff and their business is growing by leaps and bounds. Their newly released D-60 mag highly interests me. Santa will be looking extra hard for a few to throw in some stockings this year. |
|
Quoted:
Thought I would stir shit up
Maybe at one point Magpul had it all figured out but in my opinion, they've become a restaurant with a huge menu. It can be good but not as great as a place that does a few things that are the best of the best. Magpul just has way too much shit going on as a company to do anything phenomenally. But, that's okay. They make good stuff and their business is growing by leaps and bounds. Their newly released D-60 mag highly interests me. Santa will be looking extra hard for a few to throw in some stockings this year. Quoted:
Quoted:
That's just... like your opinion philosophy man
You guys at Magpul really mastered the Polymer mag, specifically the opaque type Lancer has mastered, in my opinion, the translucent mag plus all other Polymer mags.
Maybe at one point Magpul had it all figured out but in my opinion, they've become a restaurant with a huge menu. It can be good but not as great as a place that does a few things that are the best of the best. Magpul just has way too much shit going on as a company to do anything phenomenally. But, that's okay. They make good stuff and their business is growing by leaps and bounds. Their newly released D-60 mag highly interests me. Santa will be looking extra hard for a few to throw in some stockings this year. The D60 is a perfect example of developing and improving current products as well as designing and building new ones. It has a dust test reliability rate in excess of many standard current 30 magazines on the market. The D60 would not exist without the PMag and the PMag would not exist without the original Magpul. Expansion using sound design philosophies leads to better designed products and more of them. |
|
Quoted: We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=81892 Quoted: Quoted: Original Lancer L5 for the win! Great to see the original design Lancers holding up so well. Lancer originally sold me on the beautiful translucent design where you could see all the rounds in the mag. Once the reviews came in that it was a sturdy, reliable product, I bought a case of the original L5s for myself, and they've been flawless. Originally I was a PMAG fanboy and had a ton in different colors and generations, but the Lancer won me over. I think both are great mags, but Lancer's product is overall just that much better in eliminating the feed lip issue with steel wrap, but for me it really comes down to being able to see the rounds in the mag. The blob of paint really does nothing for me, and if you wanted, you could easily put a blob of paint on a Lancer mag spring too. Magpul had actually developed a translucent PMAG quite awhile ago but never saw fit to release it to the public. I remember watching those Travis Haley videos and getting excited to see a him running see-through PMAGs, but they never came to fruition. I suspected it was a marketing thing, since a clear mag body would preclude the ability to sell windowed mags for an upcharge, but the official word was that their clear formula wasn't durable enough. Aside from a box of random magazines, I've converted my entire mag collection to the L5A and AWM. We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=81892 Why would you take 8 years of time and resources developing a translucent magazine body if the maglevel is superior? That's an admission of its the inferiority of maglevel. Not to mention that the translucent mag bodies have been a commercial success, proving that despite any one's opinion on their usefulness, there is a strong demand. The reasoning that translucent material did not meet magpul standards implies that the material itself was not strong or resilient enough, when, contrarily, other companies have successfully brought magazines with translucent bodies that defeat pmags in several durability tests. Is magpul unable to independently develop a viable material (unlike Lancer or ETS), or was the translucent magazine not deemed profitable enough to sell over allocating resources to opaque magazine refinement? Finding a small blob of paint in a thin window that is easily obscured by dust, mud, or simply distance makes the maglevel paint less useful in almost any situation EXCEPT training where conditions are controlled. If a magazine is laying flat on the ground 20 feet away, the perspective of a standing human is going to show a large portion of the side of the magazine. A translucent magazine body still gives the observer visual information about what is contained inside the magazine, and an opaque body magazine (window or not) gives no visual information from the side. Furthermore, any user can add a paint blob to their own spring. Translucent Lancer and ETS magazines provide MORE visual information to the user, period. Another useful advantage of a translucent mag body is that any contaminant or debris that may have entered the magazine is more readily visible. Additionally, steel feedlips reduce the chance of malfunctions due to deformation or failure of feedlip material.  |
|
Quoted: Optimal? The angle on the Gen M3 is Optimal (which is why it's being copied), but overall presentation height, control of the round, friction of the round against the lips and in the mag body, follower performance under various cyclic rates, drag of the round tip inside the mag body, the effects of dirt grit on all of this, etc., all plays into it--so it's not just a presentation angle thing. The GEN M3 has pretty much crushed anything else for reliability running M855A1, as in the other thread on 855A1. If you're a DoD user and authorized to receive test data, you can request it. There can still be chamber lead-in damage, though it's not as severe as with other feeding devices, and it doesn't effect performance within the usable barrel life span. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's not the barrel extension, it's the upper receiver. The bullet gouges out the ramps below the barrel extension that makes a nice place to hang up a bullet tip on the way to the chamber. The higher angle is why the Pmags and ETS do better. What determines feed angle, the height of the front of the mag that the cartridge slides over combined with length of the feedlips? GI mags have the worste feed angle of any AR magazine. They are the whole entire reason the M4 needs to have extended feed ramps cut into the upper receiver. With the feed angle of Pmags or ETS mags we could easily have rifle feed ramps and no upper receiver cuts and be just fine. Also just FYI ETS has the best feed angle of the magazines I have tested. Optimal? The angle on the Gen M3 is Optimal (which is why it's being copied), but overall presentation height, control of the round, friction of the round against the lips and in the mag body, follower performance under various cyclic rates, drag of the round tip inside the mag body, the effects of dirt grit on all of this, etc., all plays into it--so it's not just a presentation angle thing. The GEN M3 has pretty much crushed anything else for reliability running M855A1, as in the other thread on 855A1. If you're a DoD user and authorized to receive test data, you can request it. There can still be chamber lead-in damage, though it's not as severe as with other feeding devices, and it doesn't effect performance within the usable barrel life span. For the sake of this discussion are percentages available showing consumption of M855A1 vs. other cartridges in military, law enforcement, and commercial use? I've never seen or heard of M855A1 used outside of the military, or available for sale but perhaps I'm not well informed. If this is the case, I don't think feed angle optimized for M855A1 is important to any retail user. |
| Just a casual thought here, if Magpul is unable to brew up a usable formula for translucent mags but apparently ETS has, it would seem that Magpul could just pay a small royalty to ETS to use their formula. Perhaps egos get in the way of that, but everybody likes the clear mags. My next mags will be ETS,,,, not stirring the pot here, just a random thought. |
| We have tested the materials ETS uses, numerous other materials in that category, and ETS magazines themselves. None meet our performance requirements for reliability, especially when dirt or grit is introduced, when there is pressure on the magazine body during firing, and presentation geometry suffers in general in order to get the feed lip thickness required for that class of materials to maintain any semblance feed lip geometry. It's tough, yes. We've been testing those materials for years. Too soft. |
|
To address some other points, no, we don't agree that translucent mag bodies are superior to the mag level for determining rounds remaining, at all. We merely see that customers request a translucent mag, and as Richard has stated, we do see value for being able to clearly identify ammunition type at a glance with the mag in the rifle.
Yes, there were some feed lip failures with some colors. Completely impossible with GEN M3 in either black or sand, and hasn't happened with anything other than colors in the older M2, which can be harder to QC for that issue. M855A1 is not commercially available, and performance with that ammunition is currently irrelevant to the consumer market, except with respect to the fact that PMAG presentation has, from day one, been designed to minimize feed ramp issues and porpoising of the round on the way into the chamber, which affects overall reliability with all ammunition types. How do we know it was copied? There was a test by a service component with M855A1 and Gen M3 vs USGI when M855A1 was first coming around. After that test and the results, the new, new feed angle for the USGI program appeared. you cannot IP protect feed angle however, but as we stated before, that's not the whole picture...just helps address the impacts and ramp wear. |
|
Quoted:
To address some other points, no, we don't agree that translucent mag bodies are superior to the mag level for determining rounds remaining, at all. We merely see that customers request a translucent mag, and as Richard has stated, we do see value for being able to clearly identify ammunition type at a glance with the mag in the rifle. Yes, there were some feed lip failures with some colors. Completely impossible with GEN M3 in either black or sand, and hasn't happened with anything other than colors in the older M2, which can be harder to QC for that issue. M855A1 is not commercially available, and performance with that ammunition is currently irrelevant to the consumer market, except with respect to the fact that PMAG presentation has, from day one, been designed to minimize feed ramp issues and porpoising of the round on the way into the chamber, which affects overall reliability with all ammunition types. How do we know it was copied? There was a test by a service component with M855A1 and Gen M3 vs USGI when M855A1 was first coming around. After that test and the results, the new, new feed angle for the USGI program appeared. you cannot IP protect feed angle however, but as we stated before, that's not the whole picture...just helps address the impacts and ramp wear. Even though M855A1 isn't currently easy to get on the civilian market I find feed angle to be very important. As my photos have shown your mags have the best presentation of the rounds and feed angle of the magazines I have at my disposal, offering the widest margin of error to account for different cyclic rates. I think M855A1 has just made obvious something that wasn't before. The fact that the M4 cuts in the upper receiver are practically a requirement for Lancer and GI mags if one has a full auto gun or any AR that runs at a high cyclic rate is telling IMO of the magazines performance. Personally I prefer a magazine that doesn't rely on the upper to feed properly. We should have never needed anything more than rifle feed ramps the M16 had, and with PMAGs you don't need anything more. I think Lancer makes a very durable magazine but could use some improvement in how they present and feed ammunition. |
|
Quoted:
We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=81892 Quoted:
Quoted:
Original Lancer L5 for the win! Great to see the original design Lancers holding up so well. Lancer originally sold me on the beautiful translucent design where you could see all the rounds in the mag. Once the reviews came in that it was a sturdy, reliable product, I bought a case of the original L5s for myself, and they've been flawless. Originally I was a PMAG fanboy and had a ton in different colors and generations, but the Lancer won me over. I think both are great mags, but Lancer's product is overall just that much better in eliminating the feed lip issue with steel wrap, but for me it really comes down to being able to see the rounds in the mag. The blob of paint really does nothing for me, and if you wanted, you could easily put a blob of paint on a Lancer mag spring too. Magpul had actually developed a translucent PMAG quite awhile ago but never saw fit to release it to the public. I remember watching those Travis Haley videos and getting excited to see a him running see-through PMAGs, but they never came to fruition. I suspected it was a marketing thing, since a clear mag body would preclude the ability to sell windowed mags for an upcharge, but the official word was that their clear formula wasn't durable enough. Aside from a box of random magazines, I've converted my entire mag collection to the L5A and AWM. We have stated before that Maglevel (window) magazines are better for remaining round count as the marker coil can estimate the last 12 rounds or so obscured by the magazine well in a translucent magazine. That said we do see a role for a translucent magazine in the training environment where visual identification of the round tips (blank vs frangible vs 855 etc) can aid in range safety. To this end we have actually tested many translucent materials over the last 8 years even building 2 production translucent molds. To this date we have not found a material that preforms to a level that we require for release although the testing is ongoing. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=81892 That's a gorgeous PMAG!!! 
Hopefully one day we'll get it. Would love to add some PMAGs back to my collection to go with my PMAG AKs. |
|
I just shot 300 rounds of Federal xm193 through a rifle with no m4 feed ramps in the receiver using the Lancer clear magazine in the pics I posted on this page. The rifle fed 100% and had no malfunctions of any kind. I don't think there is any problem with the feed angle using commercially available ammo in semi auto. The rifle was functioning very fast with that ammo, and fed without incident. Maybe the feed angle is more critical in auto, with m855a1 ammo, but since there is zero chance I'll ever shoot that combination of variables it makes no difference to me. |
|
Quoted:
I just shot 300 rounds of Federal xm193 through a rifle with no m4 feed ramps in the receiver using the Lancer clear magazine in the pics I posted on this page. The rifle fed 100% and had no malfunctions of any kind. I don't think there is any problem with the feed angle using commercially available ammo in semi auto. The rifle was functioning very fast with that ammo, and fed without incident. Maybe the feed angle is more critical in auto, with m855a1 ammo, but since there is zero chance I'll ever shoot that combination of variables it makes no difference to me. Well. 300 rounds. There ya go. A statistically significant number. |
AR Sponsor