PDA

View Full Version : Army bans pmags?


souljahboi
05-25-2012, 5:49 PM
Anybody have the scoop on this?

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2012/05/25/in-reversal-army-bans-high-performance-rifle-mags.html

problemchild
05-25-2012, 5:55 PM
Looks like someone didnt get their season box seats bribe.

Ubermcoupe
05-25-2012, 5:58 PM
First I have heard about the ban on them.

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 6:04 PM
They threw those at us my last deployment (Jan11-Dec11). I must've collected close to 30 of em over the course of the deployment. I'm not the least bit surprised as the Army is really stupid, that is not the worst nor will it be the last stupid thing they do. The standard issue magazine we got were mostly garbage, they'd been in service for who knows how long, some had dents and made them unserviceable but since we didn't have very many of em we had to use those until they started giving us pmags. This is one of the MANY reasons I finished my contract and walked away from them.

NoHeavyHitter
05-25-2012, 6:06 PM
Proof-positive that politics and improving survivability odds for our soldiers are issues decided by personnel whose lives don't depend on having the best equipment for a job..

twitchy
05-25-2012, 6:10 PM
Once the Army General negotiates his commission from Magpul, the Army will use Pmags again.

Richard Erichsen
05-25-2012, 7:37 PM
Once the Army General negotiates his commission from Magpul, the Army will use Pmags again.

No, you have it all wrong. "Once the Army General negotiates a cushy VP position within Magpul after he resigns his commission, then the Army will start using Pmags again." ;)

Aren't we all cynical types.

Richard Erichsen
05-25-2012, 7:40 PM
Proof-positive that politics and improving survivability odds for our soldiers are issues decided by personnel whose lives don't depend on having the best equipment for a job..

Magazines don't cost nearly enough to be a good target for bribery of the procurements office. You would think BECAUSE they don't cost much it would be a very cheap upgrade, but that's not how a well developed bureaucracy seems to work. Your tax dollars in action. ;)

R

MrPlink
05-25-2012, 7:46 PM
its not p-mags specifically that were given the no-no, but polymer mags in general.

As I have been told, too many uninformed soldiers have equated hearing good things about pmags to "all poly mags are great!" which has resulted in some real crap quality plastic mags being taken on deployments.

I dont think big army has the time to say "p-mags are ok, but the following are not"

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 9:24 PM
I dont think big army has the time to say "p-mags are ok, but the following are not"

I disagree, they do it with boots, for one example. You can have these brands of boots but not these brands. The Army loves making rules and making those rules complicated and backwards as hell.

TreeHugger
05-25-2012, 9:33 PM
Military intelligence hard at work as usual

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 9:41 PM
Military intelligence hard at work as usual

Military Intelligence was actually pretty damn good as far as cache locations, attack times/#s, BOLOs and various other things during my deployments. I'm just here to destroy or confirm common misconceptions!

laabstract
05-25-2012, 10:23 PM
I agree that some General probably didn't get his child's education paid for at Harvard my Magpul.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 10:44 PM
I agree that some General probably didn't get his child's education paid for at Harvard my Magpul.

The GI Bill is transferrable to dependents.

laabstract
05-25-2012, 10:49 PM
but it would get drained in 1 semester at Harvard :)

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 11:04 PM
but it would get drained in 1 semester at Harvard :)

Harvard isn't THAT expensive anymore. It's actually more expensive for non-residents to attend a UC than it is to attend Harvard. True story.

Quiet
05-25-2012, 11:06 PM
Maybe the Army is following the USMC's lead, since they banned PMAGs a couple of years ago.
Magpul PMAGs won't work in the USMC's M-27 IAR.

Magpul PMAGs are not made to STANAG specifications and will not work, without modifications, in small arms made for STANAG magazines. It's why Magpul made the EMAG, which is made to STANAG specifications.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 11:27 PM
As I have heard, the real reason for the ban is the use of cheap plastic magazines based on the PMAG but without the quality or proven track record thus causing malfunctions during firefights. I believe someone else here said that same thing but after research I have to +1 that comment. I used PMAGs through 2 deployments and countless firefights without issue. They have served me well and I will continue to vouch for them and use them in my civilian rifles.

MrPlink
05-25-2012, 11:27 PM
I disagree, they do it with boots, for one example. You can have these brands of boots but not these brands. The Army loves making rules and making those rules complicated and backwards as hell.

Cant recall many stories of somebody loosing their life because their boots jammed their gun.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 11:30 PM
Cant recall many stories of somebody loosing their life because their boots jammed their gun.

Agreed, but they still regulate what type of boots soldiers can wear. It was just an example of the stupid **** they do based on first person experience.

LooseCannon
05-25-2012, 11:41 PM
Maybe the Army is following the USMC's lead, since they banned PMAGs a couple of years ago.

Good to know, I'm in theater and surprise-surprise, I see them on the AAFES shelves even today. They sell the heck out of P-Mags at every base I've been to.

(Now I'm thinking about buying a personal stash of them before they are taken away)

LC

mdib870
05-25-2012, 11:44 PM
they banned them because they don't fit in the m27 I've also heard they don't fit too well in the m249 correct me if I'm wrong....the military always wants to have a single standard for everything it makes logistics more simple

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 11:44 PM
Buy as many of them as you can get your hands on!!! When you get home you can disassemble them and keep them for personal use or sell them (disassembled) to people like me or others online. You can make a pretty penny by doing this.

LooseCannon
05-25-2012, 11:48 PM
they banned them because they don't fit in the m27 I've also heard they don't fit too well in the m249 correct me if I'm wrong....the military always wants to have a single standard for everything it makes logistics more simple

I bet the P-Mags don’t fit the M249 very well... (Those are belt fed).



Buy as many of them as you can get your hands on!!! When you get home you can disassemble them and keep them for personal use or sell them (disassembled) to people like me or others online. You can make a pretty penny by doing this.

That’s a top quality capitalist idea; I may need to do that.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-25-2012, 11:55 PM
#1: They work in a SAW just as well as a normal metal box magazine will.
#2: Do it. Message me when you return with your surplus of magazines.

LooseCannon
05-26-2012, 12:07 AM
No kidding, my bad. I've never seen that done.

I will bring back a stack for sure, but they only have tan. I've been waiting months for black then I will clear off the shelves, but no luck let.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-26-2012, 12:15 AM
Regardless of color I will buy some, grab at least 10 and I will buy them from you, at a reasonable price. Where you at? My first deployment was Jalalabad, my second was a small COP in Bak district, Khwost province.

Dhena81
05-26-2012, 12:22 AM
its not p-mags specifically that were given the no-no, but polymer mags in general.

As I have been told, too many uninformed soldiers have equated hearing good things about pmags to "all poly mags are great!" which has resulted in some real crap quality plastic mags being taken on deployments.

I dont think big army has the time to say "p-mags are ok, but the following are not"

Winner winner chicken dinner

None of the issues Pmags have had with FN HK ect are going to be issues after they release their revised Pmags.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-26-2012, 12:32 AM
Their issues with the HK are pointless as the Army will not be switching.

kurac
05-26-2012, 5:24 AM
this is not a surprise, if they wanted to win the war or any war they wouldn't have stupid rules of engagment and now lame bans on effective equipment. What are they going to ban next, eotechs and aimpoints because they don't use the same batteries.

Quiet
05-26-2012, 6:20 AM
its not p-mags specifically that were given the no-no, but polymer mags in general.

As I have been told, too many uninformed soldiers have equated hearing good things about pmags to "all poly mags are great!" which has resulted in some real crap quality plastic mags being taken on deployments.
+1
This is what seems to be the case.

laabstract
05-26-2012, 8:51 AM
I think colt and other GI manufactures put the pressure on the Army who probably isnt ordering as much as they used to with all the Pmag's out there.

Also if you are using Magazines in the M249 then you are going to have your pick of magazines since most likely all your friends are dead. The magaine is a feature to be used as a last source of feeding the M249 and not a primary.

bearstatearmory.com
05-26-2012, 9:16 AM
It will be interesting to see what happens to the price of them over the next couple months.

Inquirer
05-26-2012, 9:33 AM
How about this - every infantryman smashes one aluminum magazine right through the middle and mails it to the GA. 150,000 busted aluminum mags at his doorstep would prove a hell of a point.

--Inq

4NDone0331
05-26-2012, 10:21 AM
I bet the P-Mags donít fit the M249 very well... (Those are belt fed).

seriously dude you must be a super POG. SAWs have a magazine weld just for this purpose...:facepalm: Albeit they are not very reliable with mags, actually come to think of it they arent very reliable at all IMO.

as for the ban, im sure that its a combination of knock-off pmags, uniformity and possibly due to contractual agreements for the aluminum mags. I remember I tried getting dragon skin (body armor) and right after I got it the USMC banned it, even though the higher ups were still rocking it. Lucky for me I hadnt worn it yet and my family was able to get a refund. Now I kinda wish that they hadnt, it would have been great incase SHTF.
Proof-positive that politics and improving survivability odds for our soldiers are issues decided by personnel whose lives don't depend on having the best equipment for a job..
^totally agree with you.

jsragman
05-26-2012, 10:50 AM
This is nothing new. Check out Cresson Kearny's "Jungle Snafus....and Remedies". It's dated but still an excellent read.

negolien
05-26-2012, 10:56 AM
A dems in charge you're surprised? 1st thing they did was change the ROE.... 2nd thing was jack up the supply chain.. Bean counters at their best..

Press Check
05-26-2012, 10:59 AM
According to another source:

The Army didn’t want to adopt the PMAG because acquisition officials wanted to own the technical data rights, a condition Magpul wasn’t likely to agree to, sources say.

http://kitup.military.com/2012/05/army-stands-ban-unathorized-pmags.html

Eirerogue
05-26-2012, 11:11 AM
Just need a couple of retired Generals on their Board of Directors.

Solidux
05-26-2012, 11:34 AM
I second the whole dragonskin fiasco. Even though they banned it and didnt allow us to wear it on convoys, all the O-5s and above had them on and were probably given a medal/award/dinner for it.

AfghanVetOrcutt
05-26-2012, 12:43 PM
How about this - every infantryman smashes one aluminum magazine right through the middle and mails it to the GA. 150,000 busted aluminum mags at his doorstep would prove a hell of a point.

--Inq

Why just Infantry? I was an MP and I did just as many dismounted patrols as the infantry guys on the COP.

Anyways, I +1 this except for the limitation to Infantry.

Intimid8tor
05-27-2012, 2:06 PM
Was watching the Coke 600 prerace and the M4's in the 21 gun salute had pmags in them. Guess they didn't get the memo yet.

Dreaded Claymore
05-27-2012, 3:00 PM
Maybe the Army is following the USMC's lead, since they banned PMAGs a couple of years ago.
Magpul PMAGs won't work in the USMC's M-27 IAR.

That's HK's fault, not Magpul's. Why did they cock up the magazine well?

Peter.Steele
05-27-2012, 3:55 PM
That's HK's fault, not Magpul's. Why did they cock up the magazine well?


HK didn't, Magpul did.

Pmags aren't STANAG compliant. Emags are.

Huge Grant
05-27-2012, 6:32 PM
Just feeding more discontent into our guys out there. Standard. They don't want 'em happy on the front line, they want 'em bent.

Droppin Deuces
05-27-2012, 6:50 PM
The Honor Guard at the Coca-Cola 600 had PMAGs in their M4s today.

Knife Edge
05-27-2012, 7:10 PM
Danica didn't do so well... ;)


HK didn't, Magpul did.

Pmags aren't STANAG compliant. Emags are.

A black shoe can occasionally be correct, here is such case.

MikeWilliamson
06-05-2012, 4:10 PM
seriously dude you must be a super POG. SAWs have a magazine weld just for this purpose...:facepalm: Albeit they are not very reliable with mags, actually come to think of it they arent very reliable at all IMO.

as for the ban, im sure that its a combination of knock-off pmags, uniformity and possibly due to contractual agreements for the aluminum mags. I remember I tried getting dragon skin (body armor) and right after I got it the USMC banned it, even though the higher ups were still rocking it. Lucky for me I hadnt worn it yet and my family was able to get a refund. Now I kinda wish that they hadnt, it would have been great incase SHTF.

^totally agree with you.

That's because Dragonskin is crap that failed every test, was fraudulently reported to hold an NIJ rating it didn't hold, and their presentation in Congress involved Wikipedia and Youtube as "sources." So it's hyped for suckers who believe, "The Army will ban anything good!" because they can't get a real contract (And last I heard, were being sued by USAF for making claims that were not supportable with actual tests.)

I'm a vet, my wife's still in, I'm no fan of the Army, but there's always a reason somewhere.

For the mags, combine stuff that failed totally (Cmags, cheap Korean knockoff plastic mags, etc), specification issues (Pmags DO NOT meet STANAG), licensing (military standardization requires furnishing a spec so other contractors can fill in the shortfalls), all as people have commented upstream, and you have issues.

And I guess I'm the odd man out, because the 6 PeeMags I've tried were utter jamomatic crap. I tossed them downrange for target practice. Though to be fair, they were not as bad as Orlite or Thermold.

I simply don't use plastic mags in my weapons. Could be Natick found similar results. This probably has to do with the fact that current plastics have to be thicker than sheet metal, so either they're overly tight in the magwell, or they reduce internal cross-sectional area, neither of which is conducive to good function.

But I don't see why anyone would care, since according to the "experts" online, a full magazine from an M16 fired center of mass will fail to penetrate a bad guy's T-shirt and allow him to charge and club you to death with a bayonet, assuming it doesn't jam every other round from gas residue. I thought all the real operators were sneaking in personal M1As, HundKs and SCARs.;)

Maddog5150
06-05-2012, 4:29 PM
That's because Dragonskin is crap that failed every test, was fraudulently reported to hold an NIJ rating it didn't hold, and their presentation in Congress involved Wikipedia and Youtube as "sources." So it's hyped for suckers who believe, "The Army will ban anything good!" because they can't get a real contract (And last I heard, were being sued by USAF for making claims that were not supportable with actual tests.)

I'm a vet, my wife's still in, I'm no fan of the Army, but there's always a reason somewhere.

For the mags, combine stuff that failed totally (Cmags, cheap Korean knockoff plastic mags, etc), specification issues (Pmags DO NOT meet STANAG), licensing (military standardization requires furnishing a spec so other contractors can fill in the shortfalls), all as people have commented upstream, and you have issues.

And I guess I'm the odd man out, because the 6 PeeMags I've tried were utter jamomatic crap. I tossed them downrange for target practice. Though to be fair, they were not as bad as Orlite or Thermold.

I simply don't use plastic mags in my weapons. Could be Natick found similar results. This probably has to do with the fact that current plastics have to be thicker than sheet metal, so either they're overly tight in the magwell, or they reduce internal cross-sectional area, neither of which is conducive to good function.

But I don't see why anyone would care, since according to the "experts" online, a full magazine from an M16 fired center of mass will fail to penetrate a bad guy's T-shirt and allow him to charge and club you to death with a bayonet, assuming it doesn't jam every other round from gas residue. I thought all the real operators were sneaking in personal M1As, HundKs and SCARs.;)

I've been spouting those facts about dragon here for years but people refuse to believe it. You are also correct about knock offs, I've found magpul stuff for dirt cheap in film city in the balkins. I bought a bunch of stuff like ms slings and mags and researched and they were all very good knock offs down to the stitching and packaging. ms sling for 3 euros, yeah, thats legit like my armani wallet that lasted four days :D
The problem is that with the invention of the interwebz, all these knock ff companies are offering great deals for tacticool stuff and are sending knock off crap. if someone is using them at the range, so what right? What about joes getting them sent straight to their APO in deployment and dont know they have crap?
This isnt an army bash on magpul, just use what you're issued, uniformity and all that jazz.
I personally love magpul mags but I've never used them in a real world application :D

tacticalcity
06-05-2012, 4:41 PM
According to another source:



http://kitup.military.com/2012/05/army-stands-ban-unathorized-pmags.html

Pretty common issue with military procurement. US Government wants you to give up your patents in exchange for a contract that only lasts for a few years. If there were no civilian market, then it would make sense. But with a huge demand in the civilian market, it makes more financial sense not to pursue military contracts that require you to sacrifice the rights to your own designs.

Banning the use of self-owned magazines and insisting on the Government procured magazines is an attempt to get manufacturers to play by their rules and reward those that do so. It is a shame, because it is going to cost lives.

GI mags work great when new and used as designed. We haven't done that for years. They were never meant to be reused. They were supposed to be disposable. You open up your ammo cans, find fully loaded magazines, use and toss them, and everything works swimmingly. When the penny pincher's ignored this, and started reusing them the problems began to occur. The seam down the back is spot welded. Made as cheaply as possible since it was disposable by design. With use and abuse that weld starts to separate, and results in feeding failures and malfunctions. These mags were like the switch between glass milk bottles and paper milk cartons. Save money on the cost to produce them, by making them a totally disposable product. That way it doesn't matter if you litter the jungle or desert with them. That was factored into their design and cost to begin with.

Magpul went in the other direction. They designed their magazines, though made from plastic, to last forever and be pretty much industructable. They also did so affordably thanks to improvements in modern manufacturing. But they also operate under a modern business model, that says sacraficing the rights to your designs for short term gain is foolish.

Glock has the same attitude and expressed it publicly. As far as I know so does Sig but I could be wrong. So you'll only see their guns used by troops in special circumstances. Individual units found ways to procure them with the manufacturers having to give up the rights to their designs. This is something Beretta objects to very loudly by the way. They had to give up their rights the M9 design to get the contract with the US Military and feel betrayed that the government did not require their competition to do the same, regardless of the size of the purchase. Beretta was also livid when the US Government purchased Glocks for the Iraqi's instead of Berettas without giving Beretta the first crack at the contract.

Of course Beretta has a legitmate beef, as does whomever makes the GI mags for the government. They played by the government procurement rules, which stack everything in the governments favor and has really low profit margins. They spent massive sums of money upfront to meet the requirements of that contract on the basis that the contract would be honored as written. They go under if the government screws them. Mean while they did exactly what was asked of them.

I personally would prefer the government went for the very best products, and didn't require the manufacturers to sacrafice the rights to their products just to do business with them. It would result in much better tools in the hands of our troops. That requirement has always seemed un-American to me. Patrisim is one thing. Stupidity is another.

Quiet
06-05-2012, 11:05 PM
That's HK's fault, not Magpul's. Why did they cock up the magazine well?

HK didn't, Magpul did.

Pmags aren't STANAG compliant. Emags are.

:oji:

Specifications for STANAG magazines was established in 1980.

H&K started development the HK-416 in 2003 and full production began in 2005.
The HK-416 was designed for the use of STANAG magazines.
The M-27 IAR is a variant of the HK-416.

Magpul began production of the PMAG in 2007.
The PMAG is not compliant with the STANAG magazine specifications.

Magpul began production of the EMAG in 2010.
The EMAG is compliant with the STANAG magazine specifications.


Magpul chose to ignore the adopted specifications that were set 25+ years ago, when they designed the PMAG.

So...

It's not H&K (G-41, HK-416/M27 IAR) or FNH (FNC, F2000, SCAR-L) or Nexter (FAMAS-G2) or IWI (Tavor) or BAE (SA-80A2) or Beretta (70/90, ARX-160) fault that the Magpul PMAG does not work in firearms made to be STANAG compliant.

starsnuffer
06-06-2012, 11:05 AM
You wouldn't think that possibly, you know, it's because of the new M855A1 cartridge spec that is slightly longer the M855, and with the thick plastic walls, it could cause issues in plastic mags that aren't present in sheet metal mags?

Nah, it's gotta be a conspiracy right? Blame the Germans and their damn reliable weapons instead.

-W

phamkl
06-06-2012, 2:45 PM
The pmag was designed to be optimal for the M16 mag well. They went with a design that had a constant curve coming right out of the mag well where the HK magwell extends further down so the pmag is pushed right against the well and can only fit if forced. Nobody's fault - just different design decisions. there's no reason to be bitter about a company that dOesn't even know who you are but the results are clearly not in favor of pmags. At least with the usmc and the M27.

Darklyte27
06-06-2012, 3:26 PM
I wonder what magpul's response is this has been out for a whe now. The pmag even has a nsn so military can order it

Saber2Golf
06-06-2012, 8:12 PM
Anyone who thinks Pmags sucking is the reason they're no longer authorized must not be comparing them to the GI aluminum mags. GI mags are absolute crap (easily dented, feed lips get pushed out) and are not magically better because they're made of metal.

arsilva32
06-06-2012, 10:20 PM
what ever happened to steel mags? thats all i ever use, never have any problems.

Quiet
06-07-2012, 4:25 PM
Magpul PMAGs are not banned. (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html?ESRC=eb.nl)

The Pentagon clarified TACOM's ban.

It only effects non-metal magazines without a NSN.

Magpul PMAGs have a NSN, therefore they are not banned.

captbilly
06-07-2012, 10:36 PM
Harvard isn't THAT expensive anymore. It's actually more expensive for non-residents to attend a UC than it is to attend Harvard. True story.

If you include required student fees at Harvard and UCLA, Harvard is about $3000 more than the UC. Tuition alone is $500 more than UCLA including fees.

captbilly
06-07-2012, 10:48 PM
I use Pmags, almost exclusively, and they are completely reliable as long as you use the covers that come with them. If you don't use the cover, and you leave the mags loaded, the feed lips will slowly spread out and the magazine will fail to feed properly. As an ex USAF pilot I know how the militarily looks at long term storage and the ability to function in all climates. I would imagine that if you stored loaded Pmags inside of a very hot vehicle or storage unit, without the cover, the polymer would expand and you would get failures. It is also possible that extremely cold conditions could cause issues (brittle or shrinkage), and large variations in humidity could also be a problem for some plastics (plastics tend to absorb very large quantities of water). Maybe they actually had problems in use or maybe some extreme environment testing showed some potential long term issues, but either way I wouldn't simply assume that this was simply stupid.

nelly.hartley
06-07-2012, 11:43 PM
I use Pmags, almost exclusively, and they are completely reliable as long as you use the covers that come with them. If you don't use the cover, and you leave the mags loaded, the feed lips will slowly spread out and the magazine will fail to feed properly. As an ex USAF pilot I know how the militarily looks at long term storage and the ability to function in all climates. I would imagine that if you stored loaded Pmags inside of a very hot vehicle or storage unit, without the cover, the polymer would expand and you would get failures. It is also possible that extremely cold conditions could cause issues (brittle or shrinkage), and large variations in humidity could also be a problem for some plastics (plastics tend to absorb very large quantities of water). Maybe they actually had problems in use or maybe some extreme environment testing showed some potential long term issues, but either way I wouldn't simply assume that this was simply stupid.

+1

Army has to think in a very broad manner. Before approving anything that plays crucial role in combat, they will have to assure it will function properly. As they operate in extreme weather conditions all such things have to be taken care of.

gun toting monkeyboy
06-08-2012, 10:45 AM
Well, it looks like the Army has backed off on banning them. As for the Dragonskin, as the others have noted, it was over-hyped crap. When the plates are held in place with glue, and the glue melts at temperature that you are likely to run into if you are fighting someplace like, oh, I don't know, a desert, it might be a bad thing...

-Mb

raceraxe
06-08-2012, 10:59 AM
More pmags for us then,

laabstract
06-08-2012, 11:23 AM
Even if the army bans Pmags soldiers are still just going to use them and hide them from the CO or General when they vist the FOB or COB.

Hunter47
06-18-2012, 7:24 PM
Here's the latest scoop on the PMAG Issue. Looks like they "Clarified" their position. Interesting that it based on the M4 coming in third in reliability trials that pointed to the magazine follower and dirt.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html?ESRC=reservists.nl