Yes that's exactly what I meant.  For the vast, vast majority of people on this forum any of the top their magazines will work fine.  All the rest is fandom and sales pitches.

And what was your point?  That you purposely set out to damage the brownells mag?

You tried stomping on it on pavement and when you didn't get the results you wanted, you switched the medium you were stomping on (asphalt to rocks) until you did.

BTW, the 10k+ lbs truck ran over the mags on a dirt road, and all large rocks (the size of all the ones in your gravel pit) were removed.

You understand how ground pressure works, right? A 200 lb person’s heel can actually exert as much or even more pounds per square inch of pressure than the tire of a 10,000 lb truck. It’s easy napkin math to do. It works the same way with tracked vs. wheeled vehicles. A 70-ton tank will exert less pressure per square inch than a 4-wheeled truck, because the weight of the tank is distributed across the tracks.

So Lancers are bad now?

I don't think so.  But strangely for the last 10 years or so the only thing that mattered  was if your magazine could withstand being run over by a truck or shot through.  Now it seems that there is a whole new set of criteria and being unbreakable is not to important anymore.

I think its just adorable how these "Which mag is best" threads always end up.

It's a disposable item......Yet everyone has a love affair with them....

I summed the whole thing up about 5 years ago and it rattled the cage of one of the manufactures/sponsors.  This is the magazine forum in a nutshell:

1. Our magazines are indestructible.
2. Hey mine broke!
3. What do you expect, they are disposable....

Basically, the #1 function of a magazine is reliably feeding ammunition to its host weapon.  After that, durability / longevity come into play.  Then you can argue egronomics, weight, features, etc.

So assuming 100% reliability, one would obviously want the magazine to be as durable as possible.  However, if a magazine is bulletproof but not 100% reliable, it is preferable to choose the less durable more reliable magazine over the more durable one, unless the differences in each border on the extremes (magazine A is 99.99% as reliable as magazine B, but is 10x more durable).

The Gen 3 PMAG has proven more reliable than anything else out there in testing.

That's its job. To feed my weapon ammunition until I have shot it all up.

Inquisition is good, but sometimes you just buy the best hardware money can acquire you and train the software some more.

The emphasis here has always been durability trumps everything.  Very few discussions ever mentioned reliability.

My take away from this is Pmags are supposed to be more reliable while Lancers are more durable. Am I wrong?

I just bought some lancers to try for a new build. Just wanted to try something different. I've never had a problem with any of my Magpuls or Okays w/grey followers. I'm hoping my Lancers are just as good.

I've got 50+ Gen 2 magpul, half a dozen M3, and around 20 Lancers. So far they are all awesome mags. No trouble with any of them. I will definitely pick up more M3's when I can, but they all continue to impress.

This, both are gtg.  For stacking deep Okay Surefeed, cant beat those with a stick.

I haven't read through all three pages of the thread, so idk if someone has pointed this out yet. But the cool think about polymer is that it flexes rather than dents. Minor forces that cause small bends that would be permanent with metal, flex back to their original shape with polymers.

While I am also slowly coming back to MagPuls from Lancers but I respectfully submit that Point 1 is incorrect.
Nearly all SOF guys whom I have worked with in the past runs Lancers. Now technically that may not be "issued"..

I have a solid stash of PMags and Lancers. They are both good Mags.

The Lancer is slimmer than the Gen 1 and 2 PMag (just ordered Gen 3 so will compare closer soon)
Was always happy with my Gen 1s and 2s.

The main negative I noticed with the Lancer is very cold weather it seems to have feed failures.
Ran a mix of both PMags and Lancers cold soaked (including ammo) overnight outdoors.
Ammo was a Mix between Golden Tiger 56 gr FMJBT, Wolf Military Classic 62gr FMJ and the popular Wolf Gold 55gr M193 clone.

Had lots of feeding issues... thought maybe my rifle was getting too dirty of the ammo was shooting too soft (after all it was cold) but adjusted my gas to more open it kep happening... then when I changed the variables of rifle and ammo no effect. Only when I changed Mags I noticed it was only the Lancers doing it.
Patrolling a cold winterwonderland is part of my PoU so I am buying more Magpuls now..

Keep in mind that Lancer did not get picked up for the largest single source of magazines contract in DOD history!

Now?

No, they've always sucked.

Militaries rarely issue the best stuff. They buy stuff from companies that compete in trials, that pay off the right people, and/or are the cheapest. History is actually rife with examples of militaries choosing poorly, so let's not pretend that "mil issued = best". They frequently make value decisions that an individual consumer doesn't have to worry about (ie a unit cost that's $5 higher when you buy a million of something is a big deal). I'm not saying that that's why Magpul sells mags to the mil and lancer doesn't, but people keep trotting that out like it's some kind of maxim.

Magpul is selling their mags to the military because the military thought they were gonna do it the cheap way and they ended up with a hard ass bullet and a junker mag to feed it.

Shit got down to the nitty-gritty and when they needed something  that worked, they went with the one that worked.

People glossing over the M855A1 thing like it's not relevant need to remember.

Magpul feed geometry has remained largely unchanged since the first Pmag.  The fact that it beat out the others in the M855A1 trails just shows how much better they've always been at feeding ammo.

Good example of a major factor influencing a mil contract that a civilian buyer doesn't care about.

DOD contracts has very little to do with peak performance. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with peak performance.

It is about meeting a certain criteria and then offering a good price.

If you have three items and two of them pass the test, the winner is the cheapest. Even if the one that didn't get picked it a hundred times better than the winner, the winner is the winner because of cost.

Suppose you go to several race car builders and say I require a 10 second quarter mile car. Bobs Racecars will build you a 10 second car for $60k, and Tom's Dragsters will build you a 9 second car for $65k. Government rules say you buy from Bob because: A) both cars passed the 10 second test, and B) Bobs car is less expensive. Toms car is obviously faster and has better performance, but it costs more.

Now I'm not saying one way or the other about which magazine is good/better/best. I'm just simply pointing out that the DOD contract means absolutely nothing in regards to performance. Magpul may be better, Lancer may be better, Okay may be better... We just can't make a determination based on the contract award.

How well it feeds M855A1 has nothing to do with how well the feed lips hold up over time. And it means nothing for civilians who can’t even get M855A1.

Exactly.

I wonder sometimes if the people that beat the "milspec or nothing!" drum the hardest have ever served in the mil and used mil issued weaponry. Newsflash: mil stuff tends to do well with respect to general durability, but beyond that the guns often aren't all that impressive. The better guns in my civilian AR "arsenal" are much better than anything I had as an 0311 in the Marines in every way I can think to measure. Not mil spec...and that's just fine.

Whoosh!

*That was the 'point' going right over your head!* Again.

Almost 30 years now since I bought my first AR 15.I think I have tried almost every magazine made.I currently  use Lancers, pmags, and gi aluminum.The only mags that have ever caused me problems are cproducts steel 30rnd mags, and magpul straight 20 rnders.I would attribute  the 20 rnd magpul issues to old weak springs, since I use them the most.
The funny thing is,as I get older(48), I rarely use anything but 20 rnd mags anymore.If I absolutely  had to choose the mag  that is 100% all the time, never fail, I would pick my clear 20 rnd lancers.I have used the Lancers that were absolutely  covered  in  south dakota prarrie  dust, and never a failure.I have had my prarrie  dog AR so hot I could smell hot steel, and never a failure  of any kind.

Most of my Pmags are Gen1.  I actually have several that I bought in 2007 that are still loaded since I got them.  I have not really looked into mags for quite some time, because I have a decent amount.  I bought some D&H mags when I thought Hillary was going to get elected and some new Pmags for my .308, but no 5.56.  Are the Gen 3 Pmags significantly better than the Gen 1 versions?

Yes.   They're a lot tougher. Feed the same IMO.

I was an 0311 and am now an 1102 got civ.gov, so I have some insight on these types of things and this is correct. However, in this case I believe that along with being cheaper, the pmags did far better in testing as well.

I have a bunch of M3's and recently bought some Lancers. I have to give a slight edge to the M3's for the simple fact I can seat a full 30 round mag in my weapon whereas with the Lancer's I find myself having to off load 1 to 2 rounds (28-29 rds) in order to seat properly. Not saying the Lancers are bad, I actually plan on buying a few more. I just prefer the M3's.

I like lancers but spend my money on okay Surefire e2s.  Lancers are about 0.5 inch longer for the same round count.

I have to agree that the M3/Gen 3 5.56 Pmags are a real and substantial improvement over the earlier generation.  I have a couple Colt lowers that were so tight that Gen 2 Pmags would not only not drop free, but you had to really push and pull hard to get them in and out.  The Gen 3 drops free from those lowers.

Between the 2 AR15s that I have shot the most, I have over 100k rounds through them of various types (M193, M855, 77gr OTM, 62gr Federal Fusion, myriad handloads, but no crap ammo like steel-cased or magnetic-projectile), and I have many thousands of rounds through most every magazine type out there, and the main impression I have is that we are so lucky to have so many options for magazines that perform reliably and are durable.  My testing with what I believe to be, for a single user, a pretty large sample size, informs me that mags made properly today, as well as undamaged USGI surplus mag bodies with good springs and Magpul followers, are exceedingly reliable and durable.  

While I have not done any dedicated torture tests, the mags have been exposed to plenty of harsh conditions (mud, sand, blowing grit, extreme temperatures, etc.) in competitions, hunting, and hiking/shooting, and I went 15,000 rounds between cleanings on one of my rifles, and function was still not affected.  In all that shooting, the only issues I have ever had that were mag-related (I wouldn't call them malfunctions as they were not stoppages) were that some USGI 20rd retro mags with the aluminum followers occasionally fail to lock the bolt open on the last round.  Changing to new springs made no difference, and neither did using ammo with different bullet profiles or different load levels (either very hot stuff like some of my max-pressure handloads or Independence 5.56, or very mild stuff like some minimum-charge handloads I have made or PMC Bronze 55gr).  I can only surmise that the very tiltable follower in the old-fashioned straight-body 20rd mags (it actually is designed to tilt and must tilt for reliable feeding) feeds the rounds correctly, but sometimes is tilting backwards and feeds the last few rounds at a very upward angle, so while the rounds feed, the rear of the follower is too low to activate the bolt catch when the follower is tipped up.  Strangely, this problem doesn't appear with the same retro-style 20rd mags (either new-production Okay Industries or retros that were either commercial or military and retrofitted with a plastic follower) when using the black plastic followers.

I have never experienced a single magazine-related malfunction with any 30rd mag, and indeed no firearm-related; as hard a time as I have believing it, the only issues in over 100,000 rounds through my 2 most-used ARs (no issues in my lower-round-count AR15s either) that have ever happened are the aforementioned occasional failures to lock back with metal-follower retro 20rd mags, and a few rounds that had dead primers, always Federal Lake City XM193 or XM855.  These are VERY premium ARs that I built myself with an eye to reliability above all, and they have not disappointed.  

This means that, obviously, I don't have much bad to say about any make of magazine.  I have at least 4 dozen of all the following types: M3 Pmag 30rd, Lancer L5 AWM 30rd, Okay Industries Surefeed 30rd (not E2), Okay Industries Surefeed 20rd, USGI pre-ban surplus 30rd with Magpul followers, USGI preban surplus 20rd, C Products stainless steel 30rd, and ETS coupling 30rd.

While these have all performed flawlessly, I do favor Lancer over Magpul, as I have done a lot of dimensional measurements on all the types of mags, and the precision and uniformity from mag-to-mag on the Lancers is head-and-shoulders above that of the Pmag. Even if it were to become affordable and available, I would never shoot M855A1 in any of my weapons, so the feed angle is a non-issue for me.  However, this is not due to feed lip damage, but because I don't want to shoot a steady diet of near-pressure-proof loads in my rifles.  Also, the tests InRangeTV has done indicate that the M855A1 does not outperform either M855 or M193 in any category, and does so with increased chamber pressure and wear and tear on weapons.  

What may surprise many here, is that besides the Lancer, my personal favorites are actually the C-Products stainless steel.  They are very durable and solid, and I love the fact that they are steel, while only being a bit heavier than aluminum or polymer.  I have a real personal love of steel mags, as I have over 50,000 rounds through my 2 ArmaLite AR-10s that use the proprietary ArmaLite Gen 2 steel mags, and while that is only half as many rounds as through my 2 most-used AR-15s, I have a lot fewer AR-10 mags, so the rounds-per-mag rate on those is higher.  Those ArmaLite units have never choked, and I have put them through some brutal use, which while not intentional torture tests, amounted to as much, and were significantly worse treatments than any of my AR15 mags have suffered.  It may be unscientific, but I just trust those stainless steel C-Products mags in my AR-15s so much that if I could only grab one type for an SHTF loadout, I think those might even get the nod over my Lancers.

A sleeper that may become my favorite, but through which I have a comparatively smaller amount of rounds, is the ETS.  With another ~20k rounds, they may become equal in my mind with the C-Products and Lancers.

M855A1 pressures have been stepped down a long time back, to the point of being only slightly faster than normal M855.

Terminally it is far more consistent than M855 or M193, with an effective range about 3 times as long. It has also been shown to have a better chance of penetrating some level III plates.

In Garand Thumb’s latest video, he mentions an issue with his Lancer 300BLK mags where the top round will sometimes pop loose when inserting a magazine forcefully on open bolt. I’ve never heard anyone report this with Lancer 5.56 mags and was wondering if it a 300BLk-specific quirk. Has anyone had that happen with any brand of 5.56 mag? I’ve seen rounds come a little loose, but never “eject” quite like this.

Note that he still considers them reliable and prefers them over other 300BLK mags despite that “quirk.”

You can see it at the 19:30 mark in this video:

I like the Lancers better, but the M3 Magpuls are good too.  FWIW, my kid is an 11B at 101st & he likes the Lancers best too, said they hold up better than the Magpuls, but not that the Magpuls are fragile, just not as robust as the Lancers.

Is there a Ranger baseplate equivalent for the Lancer?

Just reading through the last 3 pages has me quite conflicted, I love the texture of the lancers and began buying them in leu of pmags 6 years ago or so. I have always had an issue with having to download them to 28 rounds if I wanted to have even a chance in hell of seating them on a closed bolt. Well, tonight I had an interesting failure in one of my lancers that has probably only ever fed 90 rounds tops.



To say I'm not thrilled would be an understatement. I really love how these mags feel in the hand, I've never had an issue with them feeding, but this just plain stinks. I'm going to look at the rest of my lancers in the morning to see if there is any sign of cracking on any others.

I have many of both. I dont buy M2 PMAGS because of the eventual cracking at the back. I will have to watch the Lancers for that type of crack.

I wish Magpul had 300 BLK 30 round mags in MCT, 20 round 300 BLK mags, MCT 20 round 5.56 mags, windowed 20 round mags, and SR mags in MCT. I use Lancer mags to fill those roles. I also wish Magpul made AICS mags in MCT.

All that said, if I remember to have a PMAG I prefer it when doing accuracy testing due to the feed angle appearing to be a bit less prone to messing up my very concentric ammo. If not, the Lancers do just fine. I do hate the little bits of flashing left on some Lancers near the feed lips I had to remove, but I do prefer the lighter weight of the Lancers.

I say get both...  but get Magpul M3 mags first. They just seem less prone to issues overall.

I'd contact Lancer and let them know what's happened. See what they say. I've not seen a Lancer do that before. I might just be a defective mag.

Probably the third post that I've seen now with the exact same issue. Doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

I like the Lancers.  My son does too, it's what he asked me to get him more of before he deployed.  He quit using them stateside though, cause everyone tries to steal them.

Magazines are not "disposable" per se. They have a finite life, but the idea that once the rounds are expended they are to be thrown away seems to come from a poor understanding of stores account codes.

My opinion/experience is:

-Lancers are a more durable magazine than PMAGs-i.e. they are not prone to spreading or cracking feedlips from being left loaded. For this reason I prefer Lancers for mags I am going to leave loaded for a while.

-PMAGs are more reliable. They do not need to be cleaned as often or as thoroughly and will feed better in all conditions.

While it is true that military issue does not necessarily equate to good or the best quality, there are a few times where the military gets something right. Poncho liners are an example. PMAGs are another, and the Marine Corps trials back that up. Their adoption was in large part due to the Gunner community's advocacy and not the typical acquisitions bean counter decisions.

Disposable, yes.

Consumable, no.