User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 2:28:30 PM EDT
I recently bought the 7 new M series of Pmags and my rifle didn't like them at all. Every time it would try to feed a round into the chamber it wouldn't go in all the way. The round would get stuck somewhere along the feedramp and the bolt would crush the round collapsing the projector part of the round into the casing. I almost sh!t my pants when it happen. I started messing around with the mags and found out it would only take my windowless black pmags (the ones that have the window cutout poly). Now I have 10 paper weights here at the house.
I have an Essential Arms lower and I think it's an Essential Arms upper too. Edit: I also tried 3 windowed taned ones that didn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 2:30:22 PM EDT
[#1]
What brand of lower?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 2:38:41 PM EDT
[#2]
sell sell sell
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 3:27:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 3:33:25 PM EDT
[#4]
You're hardly left with paperweights, more like pieces of gold.
If your rifle mfgr. or magpul cannot resolve, sell them. You should at least get your money back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 3:41:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. For your information Mr. Knowitall all the Pmags I've bought fit my Bushmaster just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 4:03:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. Haha It seems like EVERY brand of lower has had a problem or two with PMAGs. There have been more than a few guys with 6920s bitching about PMAGs also. Not to mention that there are only a handful of companies that actually make receivers, and some different "rifle brands" are using receivers from the same source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 4:10:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. For your information Mr. Knowitall all the Pmags I've bought fit my Bushmaster just fine. Bushmasters are notorious for having problems with PMags... It appears you are one of the lucky ones that got the newer Bushmasters, after they modified their out-of-spec lowers to accept PMags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 4:18:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. Haha It seems like EVERY brand of lower has had a problem or two with PMAGs. There have been more than a few guys with 6920s bitching about PMAGs also. Not to mention that there are only a handful of companies that actually make receivers, and some different "rifle brands" are using receivers from the same source. I wouldn't know... I refuse to deal with a politically defective company like Colt. The Double Star/ CMMG lowers I have experience with (They are both made by the same manufacturer) have had zero problems with magazines fitting in the magazine well, and dropping free. This includes... PMags (Both 20 and 30) Windowed PMags FN USGI Centers USGI Colt USGI NHMTG (same as Colt, but I will mention it anyway) CProducts Adventure Line USGI Cammenga EasyMags The sample size is at least 3 lowers for all of these, and some of these have been tested in as many as 8 Double Star/ CMMG lowers. Needless to say, I trust them a lot more than Bushmasters, DPMS, etc. which have had large numbers of complaints of magazine compatibility problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 5:12:14 PM EDT
[#9]
I find it funny that since PMAGS have come out, that there is so many "shit" lowers when USGI mags worked with no problems. No one never seems to discount their now "shit" lowers when they go to sell them though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 5:39:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Like I said, not all my Pmags are giving me problems. Just the new M series ones and for some reason 3 tans that I have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 5:48:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: I find it funny that since PMAGS have come out, that there is so many "shit" lowers when USGI mags worked with no problems. No one never seems to discount their now "shit" lowers when they go to sell them though. PMags are made to a tighter tolerance than most aluminum USGI magazines. PMags fit tighter in the magazine well, they don't rock as much. The down side is when companies make lowers that are out of spec, but worked with the loose USGI mags, they don't work well with PMags. I don't consider Colt, DPMS, RRA, etc. to be on the same playing field as CMMG or Double Star... The general "fit and finish" is much nicer, and functionally they have proven themselves to be compatable with a large variety of magazines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 5:57:29 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
I recently bought the 7 new M series of Pmags and my rifle didn't like them at all. Every time it would try to feed a round into the chamber it wouldn't go in all the way. The round would get stuck somewhere along the feedramp and the bolt would crush the round collapsing the projector part of the round into the casing. I almost sh!t my pants when it happen. I started messing around with the mags and found out it would only take my windowless black pmags (the ones that have the window cutout poly). Now I have 10 paper weights here at the house.
I have an Essential Arms lower and I think it's an Essential Arms upper too. Edit: I also tried 3 windowed taned ones that didn't work. Interesting. We have quite a few stock lowers in house that we use to test fit but no EA versions. Give jbeard @magpul an email and we will open a case and see if we can see what is happening. If all else fails we can swap your mags out with the older style black mags seeing that is the only type that seems to run ok in the lower/upper combo. FYI. All our Bushmasters (pre and post Cerbus to include the Carbon15) run just fine with all the PMag revisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 6:07:26 PM EDT
[#13]
3 Bushies here and the only problem was them not dropping free in 2 of the 3 lowers. They feed just fine. Sanded off the little humps on the back and now they are great. I have 11 of the new ones but haven't had a chance to check them out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 6:09:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Funny, my Bushie fits Pmags just fine, but about 1/3 of all Center USGI are too big.
So you can't generalize about "spec." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 6:13:49 PM EDT
[#15]
out of spec Bushmaster??? Bushmaster is a U.S. defense contractor.and mil spec in every way execpt for the 1/9 twist in the barrel for civilian rifels wich would not effect the mag well. My xm15 has never had a problem with any mag, and yes, it has seen a variety. Most receivers are bought from the same place anyway and just stamped with the companys logo and serial #. At least Busmaster doesn't block their lowers like Colt does for the gun hateing democrats. A rifle with a blocked lower, no bayonet lug, no threaded barrel or flash hider and a fixed stock with a ten round mag isn't exactly spec, is it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 6:39:23 PM EDT
[#16]
The two new "M" version mags I got fit a little snug in my two RRA lowers. They drop free, but hang there for a second. My other PMags drop/function just fine. The new version seems a little less slick and maybe a bit more textured than my old ones. I'm betting that a few range trips, the first of which will be this weekend to function test, will smooth them out fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 8:34:21 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. Vailed attemp at Bushmaster bashing. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2009 9:14:43 PM EDT
[#18]
I just tired it on a friends Bushmaster and had the same problems. I sent magpul a email, we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2009 4:29:54 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Bushmasters are notorious for having problems with PMags... It appears you are one of the lucky ones that got the newer Bushmasters, after they modified their out-of-spec lowers to accept PMags. So I guess that means my two circa-2004 (ordered and delivered right after the ban expired) Bushmaster XM-15E2S rifles shouldn't work with PMags? Actually, both rifles work perfectly with them, from the earliest production run shipped to the public to the last runs prior to the M revision. I've not gotten any M-rev mags to try yet. Perhaps you're confusing Bushmaster with the S&W M&P-15 rifles, which did have fit issues with their early rifles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2009 12:59:26 PM EDT
[#20]
My bushmaster is over 8 years old and all 30 of my pmags work fine in it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2009 5:34:11 PM EDT
[#21]
That's funny, I have 3 bushy lowers, 2 older L's and a new BFI. All my Pmags drop free just fine. Some Bushy stuff might not be the best, but I think their lowers are consistently in spec.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2009 5:55:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
out of spec Bushmaster??? Bushmaster is a U.S. defense contractor.and mil spec in every way execpt for the 1/9 twist in the barrel for civilian rifels wich would not effect the mag well. My xm15 has never had a problem with any mag, and yes, it has seen a variety. Most receivers are bought from the same place anyway and just stamped with the companys logo and serial #. At least Busmaster doesn't block their lowers like Colt does for the gun hateing democrats. A rifle with a blocked lower, no bayonet lug, no threaded barrel or flash hider and a fixed stock with a ten round mag isn't exactly spec, is it? You've never seen the chart have you. Bushmaster is pretty far from milspec. Id also like to remind everyone posting here that Pmags arent to USGI mag specs (they're thicker) So they're going to have some problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 6:28:38 AM EDT
[#23]
ok....I'll bite, lets see your CHART. Could you get ant more vague?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 7:39:26 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
I just tired it on a friends Bushmaster and had the same problems. I sent magpul a email, we'll see what happens. Here, I'll save you the email. I sent one to Justin Beard on the same issue and here's what he sent back: Thank you for contacting us. All our PMAGs are individually gauged to drop
from a Colt M16 lower but since all AR15’s have been reversed engineered tolerances can vary widely. However, manufacturing variances with the PMAG will allow them to vary in size by a slight bit but none will leave the warehouse if they are too big for the Colt spec (that would explain why older PMAGs may still drop). Many times just running them in and out of the magwell a few dozen times will ‘burnish’ in the surface texture and allow them to drop free. Also, a light coat of silicone spray or Armorall or the like will help reduce surface friction. If necessary you can also very lightly sand or file the ‘line’ above the 5.56x45 bullet imprint on the sides of the body. Usually only a thousandths off or so is all it will take. ETA: I took his advice and ran them in and out of my Colt lower while watching TV and now they drop free. My wife thought I was nuts. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 8:15:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
out of spec Bushmaster??? Bushmaster is a U.S. defense contractor.and mil spec in every way execpt for the 1/9 twist in the barrel for civilian rifels wich would not effect the mag well. My xm15 has never had a problem with any mag, and yes, it has seen a variety. Most receivers are bought from the same place anyway and just stamped with the companys logo and serial #. At least Busmaster doesn't block their lowers like Colt does for the gun hateing democrats. A rifle with a blocked lower, no bayonet lug, no threaded barrel or flash hider and a fixed stock with a ten round mag isn't exactly spec, is it? You've never seen the chart have you. Bushmaster is pretty far from milspec. Id also like to remind everyone posting here that Pmags arent to USGI mag specs (they're thicker) So they're going to have some problems. Not necessarily. Pmags are "thicker," but they fit my bushy just fine. Centers are milspec, but about 1/3 are too fat for my magwell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 8:20:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just tired it on a friends Bushmaster and had the same problems. I sent magpul a email, we'll see what happens. Here, I'll save you the email. I sent one to Justin Beard on the same issue and here's what he sent back: Thank you for contacting us. All our PMAGs are individually gauged to drop
from a Colt M16 lower but since all AR15’s have been reversed engineered tolerances can vary widely. However, manufacturing variances with the PMAG will allow them to vary in size by a slight bit but none will leave the warehouse if they are too big for the Colt spec (that would explain why older PMAGs may still drop). Many times just running them in and out of the magwell a few dozen times will ‘burnish’ in the surface texture and allow them to drop free. Also, a light coat of silicone spray or Armorall or the like will help reduce surface friction. If necessary you can also very lightly sand or file the ‘line’ above the 5.56x45 bullet imprint on the sides of the body. Usually only a thousandths off or so is all it will take. ETA: I took his advice and ran them in and out of my Colt lower while watching TV and now they drop free. My wife thought I was nuts. FYI This issue has now been taken care of on our end. M rev PMags should drop free fine in Colts and most other AR lowers without any break in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 8:41:57 AM EDT
[#27]
I heard a rumor that Magpul was exchanging these tight fitting 'M's with others?
Any truth to that? I bought a few and they are extremely tight front to back |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 9:02:30 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
I heard a rumor that Magpul was exchanging these tight fitting 'M's with others? Any truth to that? I bought a few and they are extremely tight front to back We have always replaced mags when we thought it would do some good. Give Jbeard@ magpul.com and we will see if we can adress the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 4:17:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Pmags work just fine in my Bushmaster, which was made before Pmags existed.
They work fine in my brother's Bushmaster, which is a newer one. And they also work fine in our father's Colt made in the 1970s. We must be, like, lucky and stuff. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 4:46:48 PM EDT
[#30]
I absolutely love pmags but I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the new "M" windowless mags. They will not drop free in either of my LMT lowers, my brother's LMT lower, or my friends RRA lower. All of
the older style and windowed mags work perfectly but for some reason the new M one's don't seem to fit near as well. I wonder if there is a way to trade them into magpul and get the older style instead? Otherwise is looks like windowed mags are my only option unless this gets fixed 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 4:54:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
out of spec Bushmaster??? Bushmaster is a U.S. defense contractor.and mil spec in every way execpt for the 1/9 twist in the barrel for civilian rifels wich would not effect the mag well. My xm15 has never had a problem with any mag, and yes, it has seen a variety. Most receivers are bought from the same place anyway and just stamped with the companys logo and serial #. At least Busmaster doesn't block their lowers like Colt does for the gun hateing democrats. A rifle with a blocked lower, no bayonet lug, no threaded barrel or flash hider and a fixed stock with a ten round mag isn't exactly spec, is it? You've never seen the chart have you. Bushmaster is pretty far from milspec. Id also like to remind everyone posting here that Pmags arent to USGI mag specs (they're thicker) So they're going to have some problems. +1 with what slimjim said. Bushmaster is pretty far down on the list in terms of being milspec. The chart in question is posted below. Colt, Noveske, and LMT are top tier for a reason. http://s3.amazonaws.com/lefora-attachments/blackgunowners.lefora.com/cdf7896f126248c98cea83e58ca964a8/080728-AR-Feature-Chart.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 5:27:01 PM EDT
[#32]
That chart isn't 100% accurate. Bushmaster's have M4 Feedramps now, but for some reason they call them "M2".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 5:48:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I absolutely love pmags but I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the new "M" windowless mags. They will not drop free in either of my LMT lowers, my brother's LMT lower, or my friends RRA lower. All of the older style and windowed mags work perfectly but for some reason the new M one's don't seem to fit near as well. I wonder if there is a way to trade them into magpul and get the older style instead? Otherwise is looks like windowed mags are my only option unless this gets fixed
Well that sucks. I've got a dozen windowless mags on backorder that I'm sure will be the new "M" mags. 
At least I've already got about a dozen of the older mags though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 5:53:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
That chart isn't 100% accurate. Bushmaster's have M4 Feedramps now, but for some reason they call them "M2". Because "M4" is a Colt trademark term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 6:08:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I absolutely love pmags but I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the new "M" windowless mags. They will not drop free in either of my LMT lowers, my brother's LMT lower, or my friends RRA lower. All of the older style and windowed mags work perfectly but for some reason the new M one's don't seem to fit near as well. I wonder if there is a way to trade them into magpul and get the older style instead? Otherwise is looks like windowed mags are my only option unless this gets fixed
Well that sucks. I've got a dozen windowless mags on backorder that I'm sure will be the new "M" mags.
At least I've already got about a dozen of the older mags though. The drop free part has been taken care of on our end and if you do have an issue with the newer mags just email us and we will take care of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2009 6:12:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I absolutely love pmags but I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the new "M" windowless mags. They will not drop free in either of my LMT lowers, my brother's LMT lower, or my friends RRA lower. All of the older style and windowed mags work perfectly but for some reason the new M one's don't seem to fit near as well. I wonder if there is a way to trade them into magpul and get the older style instead? Otherwise is looks like windowed mags are my only option unless this gets fixed
Well that sucks. I've got a dozen windowless mags on backorder that I'm sure will be the new "M" mags.
At least I've already got about a dozen of the older mags though. The drop free part has been taken care of on our end and if you do have an issue with the newer mags just email us and we will take care of you. Awesome. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 1:51:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
sell sell sell ? It is likely a small bit of sanding will allow the magazines to function properly. Or, the lower could be out of spec, in which case it would be best to replace your lower.... PMags are made to work with spec lowers... not random stuff made by Bushmaster, etc. WIth respect if his lower works with other mags It would be fool hard to replace it just so it could work with the new P Mags. Mags are cheaper than lowers. I am not defending Bushmaster or bashing P Mag.I am just stating even if his lower is out of spec. IF it works with other mags I would not junk it especially now. Just sell the mags to someone who can use them. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 3:27:03 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That chart isn't 100% accurate. Bushmaster's have M4 Feedramps now, but for some reason they call them "M2". Because "M4" is a Colt trademark term. Colt tried that in court and lost, and it was against Bushmaster. So of all companies they should know that "M4" is not a trademark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 6:48:33 AM EDT
[#39]
PMags work just fine out of my Bushmaster. It's the special LEO / Military only model :) ( yes I'm just kidding and realize it's just a stamp)
It was definitely made prior to '04 but all Pmags work but some of the earlier PMags didn't drop free but otherwise were just fine. I love Magpul. Good people and excellent products! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 7:31:41 AM EDT
[#40]
Update: Ok, I failed to tell you all that the day prior to going out shooting I used a high temp bearing grease while cleaning the rifle.
Next day, I went to the range without cleaning the rifle and had the same problem but this time with any mag I put in. After the first incident I emailed Magpul and am still waiting on a reply, it's been a couple of days and I've given up hope from hearing from them. So I traded off all the M-Series Pmags I had for the older style Pmags and cleaned my rifle (with hoppes cleaning kit) and went out at shot an aluminum mag and it all went good. I haven't gotten the the courage to try another Pmag but will soon. I keep you posted on what happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 10:09:18 AM EDT
[#41]
What part of rob's chart shows that the magwell dimentions are out of spec? That chart show's what type or grade of parts come with the rifle, not the dimentions of the lower receiver for each rifle company.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 12:34:19 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I absolutely love pmags but I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the new "M" windowless mags. They will not drop free in either of my LMT lowers, my brother's LMT lower, or my friends RRA lower. All of the older style and windowed mags work perfectly but for some reason the new M one's don't seem to fit near as well. I wonder if there is a way to trade them into magpul and get the older style instead? Otherwise is looks like windowed mags are my only option unless this gets fixed
Well that sucks. I've got a dozen windowless mags on backorder that I'm sure will be the new "M" mags.
At least I've already got about a dozen of the older mags though. The drop free part has been taken care of on our end and if you do have an issue with the newer mags just email us and we will take care of you. Damn. Nice customer service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 3:35:45 PM EDT
[#43]
+1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 4:08:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
What part of rob's chart shows that the magwell dimentions are out of spec? That chart show's what type or grade of parts come with the rifle, not the dimentions of the lower receiver for each rifle company. Rob's chart doesn't show magwell demensions, but it does show Bushmaster is not "milspec" for reasons beyond having a 1:9" twist barrel as you stated. Also, a Colt 6920 does not have a sear block and has the other features you say Colt omits to satisfy the liberals. I'm not trying to bash Bushmaster, they make a decent rifle, it's just not as good as a Colt 6920, LMT, or Noveske. I know this not from the chart, but because I own all three. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 4:09:33 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
out of spec Bushmaster??? Bushmaster is a U.S. defense contractor.and mil spec in every way execpt for the 1/9 twist in the barrel for civilian rifels wich would not effect the mag well. 1. Who in the DOD does Bushmaster sell rifles to? 2. "Mil spec in every way except for 1/9 twist" is untrue. There are LOTS of differences. 3. I hear a lot about PMAG drop free issues, but I have yet to see one in the wild, FWIW. PMAGs work great in all my guns, Colt, Bushmaster, Stag, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 5:21:42 AM EDT
[#46]
you got me there......I guess that an mpi barrel and bolt carrier would definately effect wether or not a p-mag would fit into a bushy magwell. The context used stating that a p-mag usually won't fit into a bushmaster lower was that it was out of spec. Suggesting that the dimentions of the Bushmaster lower reciever are out of spec. I don't think the previous poster meant that a p-mag wouldn't fit because of the parts used to build the rifle. AR 15 parts aren't mil spec anyway, it's illegal to have m16 parts in an unregisterd gun. All this B.S. aside.......p-mags themselves are not milspec anyway, they are better than milspec. My spikes st-2t buffer is better than a milspec buffer. My Geissele speed trigger is better than milspec trigger, and on and on, all fitting into a Bushmaster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 7:57:02 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
you got me there......I guess that an mpi barrel and bolt carrier would definately effect wether or not a p-mag would fit into a bushy magwell. If he had limited the comments to the mag-well that would be one thing...but bringing barrel twist and "every way" into the conversation isn't limiting the discussion to just the magwell. I have yet to encounter a Bushmaster that has any issues with PMAGs. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it's hardly a common affliction. Bushmasters, in my experience, work pretty well with a variety of magazines. The Bushmasters I've owned would even run with the old polymer magazines like the orlite and thermolds. AR 15 parts aren't mil spec anyway, it's illegal to have m16 parts in an unregisterd gun. It is illegal to have SOME M16 parts in an AR-15...but not all. It's perfectly legal to have, say, an M16 bolt carrier in an AR-15. Colt sells non NFA models that have just such a feature. Barrels, upper receivers, FSBs, flash hiders, receiver extensions, etc can all be had in true milspec form by ordinary civilians. That is, in fact, the raison d'etre for BCM's upper receiver builds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 12:44:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
you got me there......I guess that an mpi barrel and bolt carrier would definately effect wether or not a p-mag would fit into a bushy magwell. If he had limited the comments to the mag-well that would be one thing...but bringing barrel twist and "every way" into the conversation isn't limiting the discussion to just the magwell. I have yet to encounter a Bushmaster that has any issues with PMAGs. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it's hardly a common affliction. Bushmasters, in my experience, work pretty well with a variety of magazines. The Bushmasters I've owned would even run with the old polymer magazines like the orlite and thermolds. AR 15 parts aren't mil spec anyway, it's illegal to have m16 parts in an unregisterd gun. It is illegal to have SOME M16 parts in an AR-15...but not all. It's perfectly legal to have, say, an M16 bolt carrier in an AR-15. Colt sells non NFA models that have just such a feature. Barrels, upper receivers, FSBs, flash hiders, receiver extensions, etc can all be had in true milspec form by ordinary civilians. That is, in fact, the raison d'etre for BCM's upper receiver builds. Keysshooter, I'm sure you're trying to add facts to this discussion, but you're also posting a lot of nonsense. I run a Colt M16 bolt carrier group in my 6920. My real email address is in my public profile, yet I fear no action from the ATF because there is nothing illegal about me using an M16 carrier in my AR15. Some of us here try to correct you not to be rude, but to stop the continuation of half-truths and misstatements that are rampant amongst gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Instead of just dismissing your earlier errors, please try to retain the correct information that has been handed to you and incorporate it into your knowledge base. As always, you’re welcome. To the OP- sorry to get off course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2009 4:20:35 AM EDT
[#49]
Can someone tell me the difference (visually) between the older and newer ones. Does anyone have a picture comparison?
I have a newer Bushy and just bought two "M" version Pmags with the window. I'm going to try them out Saturday and I'll report if I have any problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2009 5:37:27 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Can someone tell me the difference (visually) between the older and newer ones. Does anyone have a picture comparison? I have a newer Bushy and just bought two "M" version Pmags with the window. I'm going to try them out Saturday and I'll report if I have any problems. If they have a Window, then they aren't the M version - those are windowless only (at this point). Check out this thread |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
