Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calgunners in Service (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=154)
-   -   Army to Ban PMags - High Performance Magazines WTF! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=576403)

troysland 05-25-2012 12:14 PM

Army to Ban PMags - High Performance Magazines WTF!
 
Our service members Lives have just been made less safe!
http://m.military.com/daily-news/201...ifle-mags.html

Tacit Blue 05-25-2012 12:40 PM

G.I mags suck. The P mag thickness is 0.871 (unloaded) 0.878 (loaded) and the C products mag with rounds inside measures at 0.890. GI mags are too thick, and lead to lock up issues or from getting the lips bent.

Snoopy47 05-25-2012 12:44 PM

Iím skeptical of the article.

From the article itself:
ďThe decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.Ē

I donít think we are getting the whole story of what is and isnít allowed, or who can use what.

Tacit Blue 05-25-2012 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snoopy47 (Post 8643312)
I’m skeptical of the article.

From the article itself:
“The decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.”

I don’t think we are getting the whole story of what is and isn’t allowed, or who can use what.

Seems kinda politically motivated. Maybe some general was paid off to restrict Magpul, to allow this other contract to fill the need.

Uriah02 05-25-2012 4:54 PM

Let's see how long this takes to be noticed by a Congressman/Senator especially in light of this weekend!

Mr.Caketown 05-25-2012 7:10 PM

Its not actually banning PMAGS themselves its actually banning all polymer mags

Quote:

Despite the success of the PMAG, Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a “safety of use message” in April that placed it, and all other polymer magazines, on an unauthorized list
that would suck if this actually goes through , a lot of people have PMAGs here in the sandbox .

chris 05-25-2012 7:46 PM

yeah this would suck i have some disassemled for when i deploy to take with me. i bet someone is getting paid off somewhere. anyone have the SOUM to post on this.

TAK 05-25-2012 10:24 PM

PMAGs are a looks thing.

Unless you are using 10+ year old usgi mags replacing the stock followers with the magpul ones serves the same purpose.

Personally I like and on occasion use my pmags for military purposes but have never had a single misfeed or problem with magpul followers on usgi mags and have easily fired 9K rounds through them.

laabstract 05-25-2012 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAK (Post 8646366)
PMAGs are a looks thing.

Unless you are using 10+ year old usgi mags replacing the stock followers with the magpul ones serves the same purpose.

Personally I like and on occasion use my pmags for military purposes but have never had a single misfeed or problem with magpul followers on usgi mags and have easily fired 9K rounds through them.

Its a Weight thing, when I deployed we got H&K mags which were much more heavy than GI Mags yet never really gave us any magazine related malfunctions. Since being a civilian I have switched over to Pmags and they have the same reliability but at half the weight. The truth of the matter is a well groomed unit will go thru GI mags and find out which ones are serviceable and which are not before issuing. But truth of the matter is its a crap shoot with GI mags some are 10+ years old with probably thousands of rounds thru them. I have actually seen USGI 20 round magazines from the Vietnam conflict circulating Iraq.

Quiet 05-25-2012 10:37 PM

Maybe the Army is following the USMC's lead, since they banned PMAGs a couple of years ago.
The Magpul PMAG is not made to STANAG specifications and can not work, without modifications, in small arms built to use STANAG spec magazines.

Tacit Blue 05-25-2012 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAK (Post 8646366)
PMAGs are a looks thing.

Unless you are using 10+ year old usgi mags replacing the stock followers with the magpul ones serves the same purpose.

Personally I like and on occasion use my pmags for military purposes but have never had a single misfeed or problem with magpul followers on usgi mags and have easily fired 9K rounds through them.

There not really a looks thing. There's so many different contractors for G.I mags and slight differences in thickness. Magpul P mags are very consistent and functional, they can't be bent nor broken. For instance a Colt G.I mag has a thickness of 0.890 and a center industries is 0.879 Thats + or -0.011 thousands of a inch of a difference. Any of these can change or dented or damaged.

laabstract 05-26-2012 8:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacit Blue (Post 8646492)
There not really a looks thing. There's so many different contractors for G.I mags and slight differences in thickness. Magpul P mags are very consistent and functional, they can't be bent nor broken. For instance a Colt G.I mag has a thickness of 0.890 and a center industries is 0.879 Thats + or -0.011 thousands of a inch of a difference. Any of these can change or dented or damaged.

^^^^^^^^^^I agree X100000 :yes:

Lost 05-26-2012 8:58 AM

In case you are interested, here is an e-mail address you can send a love note to, and a change.org petition on the subject.

usarmy.detroit.tacom.mail.lcmc-pao@mail.mil

Petition to the Senate

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-...hat-save-lives

A Fatal Err 11-27-2012 1:41 PM

The Marines have never banned PMAGS as we use them in our unit all the time. Although if you take care of your issued metal mags you should never have a problem, I've never had a single stoppage so far in my 5 years.

turbomkt 11-27-2012 9:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Fatal Err (Post 9801376)
The Marines have never banned PMAGS as we use them in our unit all the time. Although if you take care of your issued metal mags you should never have a problem, I've never had a single stoppage so far in my 5 years.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...azines-112612/

vintagearms 11-27-2012 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacit Blue (Post 8646492)
Magpul P mags are very consistent and functional, they can't be bent nor broken.

This is not true. There have been upgrades on them due to cracking.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ot-holding-up/

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61784

KAVEMAN762 11-27-2012 11:05 PM

I bring my H&K and SCAR mags everywhere I go (disassembled at home).

I cant stand the ****ty GI mags they give us. Even with the anti tilt followers, or the magpul followers the whole thing is just ****.

The H&K mags in my opinion are the BEST magazines made for the M4 platform. The SCAR mag is almost the same, just different floor plate, both super g damn smooth.

Ive had PMAGS that split at the feed lips. I think maybe because they are fully loaded, minus 1 or 2 rnds, most of the time and causes excessive pressure? I dont know, I dont care I only use them in my civilian weapons now.

KAVEMAN762 11-27-2012 11:06 PM

I would like a pmag mad like the glock magazines though, with a steel insert, especially by the feed lips. IMHO

Rockit 11-27-2012 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAVEMAN762 (Post 9805286)
I would like a pmag mad like the glock magazines though, with a steel insert, especially by the feed lips. IMHO

Lancer.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/370...-polymer-smoke

They work great.

Clee 11-28-2012 10:57 AM

Ban Pmags.

Keep SERPAs.

Makes sense.

Brilliant.

A Fatal Err 11-28-2012 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbomkt (Post 9804618)

^ Interesting. You would have thought that maybe they would mention this to the rest of the Marine Corps? Have I ever heard of this before? No. The only place you can/can't use Pmags are on the rifle qual range; you can still use them but you won't rate an alibi if you get a stoppage. Other then that there has never been any official word passed around.

KAVEMAN762 11-28-2012 6:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockit (Post 9805372)

Awesome thanks, might look into those.

The Soup Nazi 11-28-2012 6:44 PM

I would venture to say this may be motivated by a kickback being thrown to someone at a much higher level...

uxo2 11-28-2012 6:54 PM

typical...It works so ban it

chris 11-28-2012 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi (Post 9810388)
I would venture to say this may be motivated by a kickback being thrown to someone at a much higher level...

sounds about right.

FMJ545 12-29-2012 3:39 PM

They are banned because they don't fit in the m27

rero360 12-29-2012 4:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMJ545 (Post 10050600)
They are banned because they don't fit in the m27

Well considering the Army doesn't have the M27 I highly doubt that being the reason.

Also, the Army isn't banning PMAGs, we're still actively ordering them to date.

Davidncf 12-30-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMJ545 (Post 10050600)
They are banned because they don't fit in the m27

The Marine Corps just put it in the Marine Corps times that all Polymer Magazines have been banned. Part of this is due to the M27 IAR. The PMAGS will not fit in the M27 where as the new GI issue ones will. Also, will the PMAGS work in a M-249?
I love the PMAGS as I use them as well, and I use them in my AR, but recently we started to get new Mil issue mags that actually have anti-tilt followers and such. The followers are tan instead of green or black. I took them to NTC and I fired hundreds of rounds of live ammo and a thousnads of blank rounds. The only issue I had was one magazine that I had damaged the body on. Otherwise, all other 6 magazines worked without ever having to clean them the whole rotation.

thehummerguy 12-30-2012 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAK (Post 8646366)
PMAGs are a looks thing.

Unless you are using 10+ year old usgi mags replacing the stock followers with the magpul ones serves the same purpose.

Personally I like and on occasion use my pmags for military purposes but have never had a single misfeed or problem with magpul followers on usgi mags and have easily fired 9K rounds through them.



Have you ever been in combat? We aren't talkin about a day on the range...I too have little if any issues with GI mags...stateside, in the sandbox and the Stan is a whole different story. GI mags are and have always been flimsy crap...that's just coming from a guy who has used them for 20 plus years

coryhenry 12-31-2012 5:21 AM

Army TACON put out a clarifying message around August that said they were not banning PMAGS just putting out a warning about possibly cheaper magazines. They are still being ordered and used actively.

Long5937 01-02-2013 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehummerguy (Post 10063550)
Have you ever been in combat? We aren't talkin about a day on the range...I too have little if any issues with GI mags...stateside, in the sandbox and the Stan is a whole different story. GI mags are and have always been flimsy crap...that's just coming from a guy who has used them for 20 plus years

I just returned from my 6th deployment and use a mix of HK and GI mags. The HK are the best I've ever used. I've found that when I unload my GI mags every 2 weeks or so and let the spring return they work much better. The extra weight with the HK is almost a nonfactor given the performance they offer. If you can't handle an extra couple of pounds, go find a desk job.

I've actually seen pmags break and cause stoppages. I'm not sure what the reason was, it was in the middle of a fire fight so it ended up on the deck, but I've also seen them break on the good ole rifle range as well. For the price and performance benefits, I won't buy the pmags.

Massan 01-03-2013 7:49 PM

My limited(non combat zone exp) GIs are a grab bag. HK mags start out great but once they start getting dropped on rocks/concrete/etc or pass the 1k round limit the feed lips start getting bent and have feeding issues. Their weight is a big contributing factor to fall damage also. Pmags work, until their spines crack then its 50/50 on it going on. Lancers, havent seen/heard of their spines cracking yet but again with the metal feed lips that can get bent if dropped on hard ground.

Havent tested my new M3s much yet(AWB scare, lack of ammo, etc) but I prefer them to my LAWMs, mostly cause the Lancer's polymer body is softer(ie I can squeeze them) than Pmags.

As for the Corps banning/restricting Pmags due to incompatiability with the M27, a little birdie told me that theres a revised version with a modified magwell(closer to AR spec) that will fit MOE Pmags(and obviously M3s).

Davidncf 01-09-2013 5:47 PM

MagPul did state that they are making a new magazine that will work with the M-4/16 and the M27.

Tracer666 01-20-2013 8:27 AM

WOW that was an old article from military.com... NO the army will not ban PMAGS as they do have a GSA contract with magpul for so many mags. I do not remember the amount but Unit supply is authorized to order, also I think if you have maintenance assigned to ur unit they can order them under class 9...i think...

hnoppenberger 01-20-2013 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAK (Post 8646366)
PMAGs are a looks thing.

Unless you are using 10+ year old usgi mags replacing the stock followers with the magpul ones serves the same purpose.

Personally I like and on occasion use my pmags for military purposes but have never had a single misfeed or problem with magpul followers on usgi mags and have easily fired 9K rounds through them.

thats all fine, but if a GI mag gets banged up, or the feed lips get messed with, they are done. Ive had to throw away a handful of gi mags for double feeds, etc, all because they just started getting slightly deformed.

They were originally thought up to be a 100% disposable magazine. Pmags are not a looks thing, they suffer zero of the same problems.

Stormfeather 01-20-2013 7:28 PM

OLD NEWS. . . .totally false. They didnt ban them, and you can still get them in the military supply system.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.