Lancer mags not as robust as I was led to believe - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tristar T-100 and CZ75B (full sized) mags Nomad, 2nd Pistol and Revolver Forum 1 10-23-2016 12:00 AM
Where is the cheapest place for AR mags? northslope Firearms General Discussion 20 10-22-2016 03:11 PM
New Production Croatian AK-47 30 Rnd. Mags Batko10 Military Weapons Forum 5 10-16-2016 10:21 PM
WTB: Yugo BHO mags Batko10 Looking for - want to buy 0 10-15-2016 05:59 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-2016, 03:49 PM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 34
Posts: 9,978
Thanks: 4,283
Thanked 9,094 Times in 4,496 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
I have never even seen Lancers, so my opinion is based on this thread entirely. Please explain to me what would happen to this thin walled unreinforced sides if it hits the rock sideways? This is engineering and material science, no miracles.
How big and how fast and how sharp is this rock, lol
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 03:54 PM
Grevlin's Avatar
Grevlin Grevlin is offline
Gone Galt
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Off the grid
Posts: 22,534
Thanks: 38,624
Thanked 66,595 Times in 17,049 Posts
Default

I don't know about all this theoretical "feels funny" stuff.

I will continue to use mine as hard as possible and report back IF there are any malfunctions. (Since I have not had one to date.)


Otherwise...cheers!
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Grevlin For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 04:06 PM
SeekingTruth SeekingTruth is offline
Living Simple
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 929
Thanks: 1,392
Thanked 911 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grevlin View Post
I don't know about all this theoretical "feels funny" stuff.

I will continue to use mine as hard as possible and report back IF there are any malfunctions. (Since I have not had one to date.)


Otherwise...cheers!
If we consider the fact that this whole thread came from 1 person squeezing the sides of a magazine and coming to the conclusion that they suck from that, without even using it, I'd say you have the right idea. Coincidentally, I'm going to continue to do the same thing.

It's amazing sometimes how hard people "try" to find a problem with stuff. I guess maybe I'm a more positive and optimistic person than I thought.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SeekingTruth For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 04:11 PM
Dusty Bones Dusty Bones is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,100
Thanks: 952
Thanked 1,651 Times in 904 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
I have never even seen Lancers, so my opinion is based on this thread entirely. Please explain to me what would happen to this thin walled unreinforced sides if it hits the rock sideways? This is engineering and material science, no miracles.
The real question is how do you know they are thin walled if you've never even seen one?
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 04:28 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,168
Thanks: 1,054
Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,934 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Bones View Post
The real question is how do you know they are thin walled if you've never even seen one?
1. The OP have said he could squeeze the sides easily
2. I have seen (good) photos right here.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 04:46 PM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 34
Posts: 9,978
Thanks: 4,283
Thanked 9,094 Times in 4,496 Posts
Default

I've added "magazine squeezing" to my personal dictionary as one of many synonyms to "navel gazing".
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 05:36 PM
rc508abn's Avatar
rc508abn rc508abn is online now
Paratrooper X
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 52
Posts: 3,506
Thanks: 1,231
Thanked 3,004 Times in 1,654 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
I've added "magazine squeezing" to my personal dictionary as one of many synonyms to "navel gazing".
Mr Whiple says, "Don't Squeeze the Lancers"
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rc508abn For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 06:18 PM
Dusty Bones Dusty Bones is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,100
Thanks: 952
Thanked 1,651 Times in 904 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
1. The OP have said he could squeeze the sides easily
2. I have seen (good) photos right here.
1. Squeezable doesn't mean thin. I found that they would be more snug in mag pouches than the Pmags. I'd take it that the more flexible polymer is tougher and resists damage better (watch the video I linked). But what would I know? If the Pmags fit easier and break more frequently. Tells me the plastic is thinner and more brittle.

2. I wish the internet had pics to show you that. Seeing as my observations and experience are wrong
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 06:57 PM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 34
Posts: 9,978
Thanks: 4,283
Thanked 9,094 Times in 4,496 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Bones View Post
1. Squeezable doesn't mean thin. I found that they would be more snug in mag pouches than the Pmags. I'd take it that the more flexible polymer is tougher and resists damage better (watch the video I linked). But what would I know? If the Pmags fit easier and break more frequently. Tells me the plastic is thinner and more brittle.

2. I wish the internet had pics to show you that. Seeing as my observations and experience are wrong
Well, I have both mags and a set of calipers, and you're wrong. The current PMAG REV M3 Sand is 20 thousandths thicker where it inserts into the mag-well, and 4 thousandths "longer" from front to back, where it inserts into the mag-well. The only place one can measure a magazine without damaging it is the front, where the loaded ammunition tips are, and on the PMAG it is significantly, visibly thicker. However, this has no bearing on side-wall thickness, but weighing the PMAG results in a weight of 5.1oz (no dust cover) vs. 4.4oz for the Lancer L5 AWM, even though it has stainless steel feedlips.

So yes, I can empirically say: You're wrong. This is not based on pictures or opinion, but measurements from a calibrated scale and my calipers.

Now please...let's stop all of this. Use the darn things and let us know if they work, or not, lol!

Regarding polymer, it is a slide-scale of several dimensions.

You need a polymer flexible enough to take an impact...but rigid enough to maintain proper feed-lip geometry, and HARD enough to prevent grit from embedding into the surfaces internally of the feed-lips and follower pathway. Any time you make a polymer harder, it becomes less flexible/more brittle. Any time you make a polymer more flexible, it becomes softer, and more prone to deformation or contaminant embedding. Lancer chose to solve the issue by using a flexible/tough polymer, and SS feed-lips. My gripe with lancer is their feed angle is not as optimal as the current PMAG's (updated in 2009, I believe), and the SS feed-lips incur more friction during use.

There is a whole bunch of chemistry and science that goes into this, and by "it fits in my mag pouch different / I can squeeze it more easy-like" you are completely skirting real issues to focus on minutia that is not pertinent unless it is causing you issue removing mags from your pouches easily, in which case you have gear interface issues and you need to evaluate whether or not you should change your mags to better suit the pouches, or the pouches to better suit the mags.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 07:05 PM
SeekingTruth SeekingTruth is offline
Living Simple
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 929
Thanks: 1,392
Thanked 911 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
1. The OP have said he could squeeze the sides easily
2. I have seen (good) photos right here.
The L5AWM's don't compress any more than PMags. The older L5's compress a little more than the L5AWM's and it seems that the OP has the L5AWM's. So the OP is either gorilla strong or making a big deal out of nothing, because I'm definitely not a wuss.

Another point to make is that there is literally .070" between the side of the magazine and the spring. That's barely over a 1/16". So it's not like it's compressing a great deal like the OP is making it seem.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 07:07 PM
Rollis's Avatar
Rollis Rollis is offline
Feeling extra snarky
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: JAX
Age: 52
Posts: 718
Thanks: 2,439
Thanked 846 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Sounds to me if you boys are squeezing magazines to failure, maybe it is time to lay off the roids.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rollis For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 10:04 PM
Dusty Bones Dusty Bones is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,100
Thanks: 952
Thanked 1,651 Times in 904 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
Well, I have both mags and a set of calipers, and you're wrong. The current PMAG REV M3 Sand is 20 thousandths thicker where it inserts into the mag-well, and 4 thousandths "longer" from front to back, where it inserts into the mag-well. The only place one can measure a magazine without damaging it is the front, where the loaded ammunition tips are, and on the PMAG it is significantly, visibly thicker. However, this has no bearing on side-wall thickness, but weighing the PMAG results in a weight of 5.1oz (no dust cover) vs. 4.4oz for the Lancer L5 AWM, even though it has stainless steel feedlips.

So yes, I can empirically say: You're wrong. This is not based on pictures or opinion, but measurements from a calibrated scale and my calipers.

Now please...let's stop all of this. Use the darn things and let us know if they work, or not, lol!

Regarding polymer, it is a slide-scale of several dimensions.

You need a polymer flexible enough to take an impact...but rigid enough to maintain proper feed-lip geometry, and HARD enough to prevent grit from embedding into the surfaces internally of the feed-lips and follower pathway. Any time you make a polymer harder, it becomes less flexible/more brittle. Any time you make a polymer more flexible, it becomes softer, and more prone to deformation or contaminant embedding. Lancer chose to solve the issue by using a flexible/tough polymer, and SS feed-lips. My gripe with lancer is their feed angle is not as optimal as the current PMAG's (updated in 2009, I believe), and the SS feed-lips incur more friction during use.

There is a whole bunch of chemistry and science that goes into this, and by "it fits in my mag pouch different / I can squeeze it more easy-like" you are completely skirting real issues to focus on minutia that is not pertinent unless it is causing you issue removing mags from your pouches easily, in which case you have gear interface issues and you need to evaluate whether or not you should change your mags to better suit the pouches, or the pouches to better suit the mags.
So what's the density of the different polymers? Weight alone would only be a good measure if the same volume of material was used of the same density.

As it stands none of what you or I say matters. Not one single word. Everything we typed is inane when this is common.








If you can find similar pics with a Lancer then knock us all out. When I say I've seen several Pmags fail mid firefight I'm not embellishing or exaggerating. Wether or not such experience is heeded is not on me. Y'all can use what you want and follow what you want. I refuse to use junk. That's me, I refuse. Has nothing to do with anyone else. I just happen to have experience to back up what I'm saying and the evidence is out there on the subject. Pmags are fragile compared to better options out there. Too easy to understand.

I'm going to a gunshow tomorrow. I'll be sure to squeeze magazines before I buy any. I'll let y'all know how it goes.

I squeezed all my tapco gen 2 30 round mini 14 mags tonight, wasn't much give to them as they are all loaded. Next time I empty them I'll give them the are they any good squeeze test, I promise.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 10:17 PM
Stophel's Avatar
Stophel Stophel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 170
Thanks: 313
Thanked 240 Times in 107 Posts
Default

See, now, you all made me have to go and buy some Lancer magazines!!! :D
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stophel For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 10:20 PM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 34
Posts: 9,978
Thanks: 4,283
Thanked 9,094 Times in 4,496 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Bones View Post
So what's the density of the different polymers? Weight alone would only be a good measure if the same volume of material was used of the same density.

As it stands none of what you or I say matters. Not one single word. Everything we typed is inane when this is common.








If you can find similar pics with a Lancer then knock us all out. When I say I've seen several Pmags fail mid firefight I'm not embellishing or exaggerating. Wether or not such experience is heeded is not on me. Y'all can use what you want and follow what you want. I refuse to use junk. That's me, I refuse. Has nothing to do with anyone else. I just happen to have experience to back up what I'm saying and the evidence is out there on the subject. Pmags are fragile compared to better options out there. Too easy to understand.

I'm going to a gunshow tomorrow. I'll be sure to squeeze magazines before I buy any. I'll let y'all know how it goes.

I squeezed all my tapco gen 2 30 round mini 14 mags tonight, wasn't much give to them as they are all loaded. Next time I empty them I'll give them the are they any good squeeze test, I promise.


Those are some old PMAG's ya got there. This is the current design. Also, MP has improved both their processing and their polymer formulation process significantly since the magazines you showed pictures of were made. It would be like me showing pictures of the old Lancer L5 and discussing the issues those had, in relation to the L5 AWM available, today.



Further, we don't know anything about those broken PMAG's other than that they are broken. We don't know how, what, etc.

I prefer current production PMAG M3's because...

They feed better. They control the round stack under rough handling better. They are plenty durable enough.

*Issue that this problem is referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ble-for-LE-use


My point is, the new PMAGs control the round stack far better than Lancer L5 AWM's, and previous PMAG's, and to me, that matters a lot more than how it feels if I squeeze it.

Here is Magpul's take on magazines:

Quote:
Magazine Design Philosophy, Testing, and Performance of Magpul Industries PMAG Magazines for the AR/M4/M16/HK416/M249


Building feeding devices for firearms is not a new endeavor, and many materials and methods of construction have been employed for this task. For many years, conventional wisdom regarding magazine construction was that metal was the material most suited to the task. Although other polymer magazines were attempted previously (Orlite, et. al.), the Magpul PMAG became the first generally accepted all-polymer magazine for AR-pattern rifles after its release in 2007. Early military testing drew some criticisms with performance at sub-arctic temperatures and with window material chemical resistance (In the MagLevel window variant). Rumors, assumptions, and outright incorrect information from this early testing and initial evaluations still persist, despite 7 years of materials, manufacturing, and design improvements to the PMAG product line, and millions of fielded magazines in continuous combat use in the GWOT. Current and ongoing testing, both internal and through third parties can easily and thoroughly dispel these rumors and assumptions from any early data. What follows is an explanation of what the PMAG “is”, why it is made the way it is, and why these characteristics provide significant, concrete advantages for professional use of the PMAG over other feeding devices.

The “Job” of a Magazine

In essence, the purpose of a firearm magazine is to present a cartridge at an ideal, or at least acceptable, orientation with respect to the chamber, at a defined range of acceptable amounts of resistance to being pushed forward by the bolt, and must be fed upward at a defined range of speeds depending on cyclic rate, within a tolerance range. That range of acceptable geometries and pressures can vary somewhat among rifles.

The biggest challenge is maintaining consistency in those variables. If the cartridge is presented the same way, under the same forces, within those windows that are acceptable to the host weapon, every time...you'll have zero magazine related failures. Various geometries and design features aid that end. Specifics regarding our designs and geometry that may not be immediately apparent are part of our body of trade secrets, although many features can be seen in our patents and applications. Other things, like constant curve geometry, lacking in the USGI solution, are visibly obvious. Constant curve geometry allows maximum round stack stability and consistent follower contact until the magazine enters the magazine well, where some straightening of the stack must occur due to limitations of the AR-pattern magazine well, which was originally designed for straight magazines. The 30-round USGI “dogleg” geometry creates round stack instability/lack of support and attendant issues “around the bend” of follower travel. Not all “constant curve” geometries are the same—how the round stack is supported as it makes the transition to the mag well up to the feed lips, and how the follower supports that transition varies across magazines claiming constant curve geometry. This, and other small nuances in many other details of magazine construction all affect reliability.

Through internal testing and the body of external testing that we are aware of, the PMAG GEN M3 has been reliable to an extent that far exceeds any other product or solution. Verification of this claim through additional independent testing is encouraged and welcome. The number one concern in magazine selection has to be reliable function of the weapon system across likely environments and situations. We’ve expended hundreds of thousands of rounds in internal testing, unilaterally as well as side by side with current service tan follower USGI magazines and products from other manufacturers. In both sterile, laboratory environments and under adverse environmental conditions of cold, heat, water, mil-spec dust, etc., we greatly exceed the performance of other options with all ammunition types tested. Almost without exception, interruptions of the firing cycle from firearms in our testing using the GEN M3 PMAG, over the entire body of testing in AR pattern platforms, have been directly attributable to component failure of the firearm (sheared bolt lugs, etc.) or primers which failed to ignite after a positive firing pin impact. Total stoppages for all reasons, including the bad primers and weapons component failure, are in or near single digits per 50k rounds in our testing and the external testing that we are aware of. This kind of absolute reliability, under all conditions, with both AR-based and non AR, but AR magazine compatible platforms (FN SCAR, etc.) has been the goal of the PMAG product since day one, and the GEN M3 product line comes as close to this goal as we are currently capable of measuring.

It’s easy to build a brick of plastic, metal, or any combination thereof that fits into a magazine well and will withstand great abuse. Building an extremely durable magazine with the best feeding reliability possible is another achievement entirely, and one we take great pride in.

Materials
Different materials have different properties, obviously, and they are variably suited to these tasks. We’ve spent a great deal of time testing and examining vast numbers of material, manufacturing, and processing options, both pure and hybrid, and this is the understanding that we have arrived at, which drives our direction.

If a material is too soft, it embeds grit too easily, which affects the upward feeding of the follower and round stack and friction for stripping the round. It will also most likely be malleable, and change feeding geometry through deformation in a drop on the lips...or the side wall. Not a crack...but a bend, and possibly an insidious one that will affect feeding, but not be immediately visible. Soft materials also tend to have problems maintaining shape under stress, (such as the pressure of a magazine spring). Polymers that are quite malleable at room temperature and resist cracking, however, tend to fail horribly at temperature extremes, whether hot or cold. Softer, more flexible polymers also usually exhibit creep, especially in feed lips and potentially in the body itself. This allows feeding geometry to change over time, especially at high temperatures.

Metals resist embedded material, but overall friction with common materials and finishes is generally higher than the RIGHT polymer. (Cyclic rates on the same firearm can be measurably higher with a PMAG than a metal magazine, although PMAGs keep up with bolt speeds associated with cyclic rates over 1100 rounds per minute.) Reduced friction allows the cartridge to feed with less required energy in the bolt carrier, which aids function in adverse conditions.

If a material is too hard, it will shatter. Polymers and even hardened metals, when completely rigid enough to resist any and all deformation, will become fragile. You'll have 100% consistency in geometry, a resistance to embedded grit, and a resistance to deformation, but this material will fail under rough handling.

So, we need a balance of properties within acceptable parameters in all measures, coupled with correct geometry and design features.

The last factor we look at, that is the core of our design philosophy, is "resiliency". This is a "spring" effect, or a desire to return to a rested state/form. Same concept in polymer as in metals, except it’s controlled through composition, reinforcement, and processing rather than hardening/heat treating. Resilient materials tend to perform well across temperature spectrums.

After all our testing, a PMAG is what it is as a very specific balance of these properties. A magazine must be rigid/hard enough to maintain feed geometry without deformation and resist problems from embedded grit. It must be ductile or tough enough to prevent shattering under impacts, yet it must be resilient enough to return to the exact same feed geometry without deformation if an impact is hard enough to deflect the material.

A choice has to be made, in all cases, over whether it is better to deform or yield at various temperatures and forces, based on limitations of the material. Metal bends, or it breaks, and either option likely changes your feed geometry, at least with all currently used materials, whether the metal in question is the entire magazine or a component part of hybrid construction. The PMAG is designed to have the necessary rigidity while maintaining resiliency and durability across temperature spectrums. This gives us great grit performance, consistent feed geometry, and an impressive resistance to any deformation that would cause a magazine to cause or allow a stoppage. There are many other factors in the design, but we are talking purely material properties here.

So...can a PMAG crack? Absolutely, if you try hard enough, with enough force, a crack may appear. Through internal and external testing of the GEN M3 PMAG, this requires impacts or repeated impacts beyond current TOP 03-02-045 testing for firearms systems that we are aware of. It may indeed crack in some extreme cases--however, the forces and impacts required to crack a GEN M3 PMAG meet or exceed those that will deform aluminum/steel feed lips or body material, generally to an extent that will cause enough deformation of the metal to change feed geometry/performance and increase stoppages significantly, if not render the magazine non-functional. The PMAG however is RESILIENT. If it absorbs an impact that will deform other magazines, or even if it does crack, it returns to its exact same orientation and geometry it started with, and certain GEN M3 design features make any damage to or breakage of the feed lips themselves extremely unlikely. We deliberate destroy PMAGS and then test their ability to maintain reliable feeding when cracked or split. A more ductile magazine feed lip material that deforms or bends rather than maintaining resilient form may not crack...but it will likely introduce both simple and complex stoppages into the firing sequence of any firearm into which it is used. Softer, more impact “forgiving” polymer body and feed lip materials have trouble maintaining geometry of feed lips as well as bulging from round stack pressure, creating additional variables.

The PMAG is resilient and returns to a set geometry when deflected. Rather than allow deformation that can result in a magazine that may not feed, we would rather accept a crack and a magazine that runs than a softer or more ductile magazine that allows deformation and stoppages.


So...material selection is always a trade off of sorts, although different materials perform better over wider spectrums of environmental conditions. A PMAG does what it does based on the full spectrum of performance parameters, and our efforts to optimize across that spectrum.

The material we use also achieves those parameters with additional goals of chemical resistance and long term stability, including DEET and all other military standard chemical tests. PMAG body, follower, and floorplate materials are completely DEET impervious. Early transparent window material, used in our MagLevel window, showed some susceptibility to DEET, however current window material easily exceeds 24 hour immersion standards in both 40% and 100% DEET concentrations. Humidity, or lack thereof, at both saturated and dessicated moisture levels, are also tested.

Construction

After testing hundreds upon hundreds of material combinations in numerous colors, hybrid construction options, and various reinforcement methods, the PMAG GEN M3 is an all polymer, monolithic body of very specific composition, reinforcement, manufacturing techniques, and design, because that is what has worked best out of all the other combinations tried. We continually test new materials, colors, and construction methods, however, in an ongoing attempt to improve in any way we can.

An all polymer design gives us the resiliency desired in feeding geometry as well as in side walls and general durability. Going prone or falling on a metal magazine body or feed lips can dent the sidewall in a manner that restricts round stack or follower travel, essentially destroying that magazine’s ability to function. Changes in feed lip geometry, as mentioned above, can also occur. Spot welds can also yield, destroying the body integrity of metal magazines or reinforcements. The GEN M3 PMAG is designed and tested to withstand much greater impacts of this nature than competing designs without allowing damage to the internal round stack or follower which would impede function.

All-polymer, monolithic construction also prevents any possibility of separation of components required in hybrid construction methods or failure of welds in stamped metal products, and provides significant cost and complexity savings over hybrid construction methods as an additional benefit.

Feed Lip Stability Over Time

There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues.

As implied by the name, the dust and impact cover is indeed designed to keep debris out of magazines during storage, and to provide an extra measure of feed lip protection for magazines in storage, such as stuffed in an ammo can in a tactical vehicle used in off road operations, or for aerial delivery, kicking containers of loaded mags off of moving vehicles, and the like. This ensures that magazines that may normally be out of sight, not maintained, or subjected to delivery handling that is many, many times the normal testing and usage criteria will perform flawlessly after a quick flick to remove the cover.

Testing These Criteria

Absolute reliability can be tested according to relatively established protocols and fixture firing. Testing rough handling, drop, and impact characteristics from full weapon or magazine drops or abuse, when considering the true purpose of such testing, has to include firing and not merely visual inspection. Although incredibly resistant to damage, due to the aforementioned resilience quality, the PMAG GEN M3 is designed and manufactured to function correctly even if damage occurs. Part of our internal testing protocol is to damage magazines through extreme rough handling and fixtures designed for the purpose, and then evaluate function. If a PMAG retains rounds, and even if it is deliberately split enough to not retain rounds, but is forcibly held together long enough to be loaded and inserted into the mag well, it will feed.

We routinely endurance test individual PMAGs to 200 times loaded capacity. So, an individual 30 round 5.56 magazine must survive 6,000 rounds in a single rifle with no cleaning but routine lubrication. Magazines are completely serviceable after this testing. Additional testing protocols test two magazines to 3600 rounds each with numerous magazine swaps and field firing orientations for usability, catch durability, and “magazine monopod” performance evaluations.

We have Thermotrons for cold-soaking to -60F and heating to +180F for drop and function testing. We fixture and trigger release our drops onto polished concrete for repeatable impacts to evaluate all axes of drop testing, dropping the same magazine up to 16 times to test durability at room temperature and at extremes. We do multi-axis full weapon drops at room temperature, -60F, and +180F. We do function testing on these magazines after the drops.

Field testing evaluations with internal and external assets are used to evaluate the human interface and product usability in actual usage conditions in real and simulated scenarios. We have large bodies of user feedback from real and simulated combat environments.

All magazine products are 100% guaged for dimensional accuracy. Although the processed and manufacturing techniques we use provide for extremely small tolerances, we still hand inspect each and every magazine multiple times before shipping.

All this is mentioned not for self-congratulations, but merely to emphasize that we take the quality of our products very seriously, as we know that a military member, law enforcement officer, or private Citizen may rely on the performance of our products in life-threatening situations. Full test protocols for non-proprietary internal testing are available.

Service Life and Deadline Criteria

As mentioned previously under endurance testing, PMAG service life is extensive, providing performance over high round counts and significant abuse. Numerous first-hand accounts of the same complement of PMAGs being used on 3, 4, or more combat tours and workups in-between have come in from end users. Although service life is long, all magazines are consumables at some point. With a PMAG, if it is not cracked, or broken, it is serviceable. If there is a visible crack, even if the magazine functions, it is time to replace it. Even with significant cracking, however, the PMAG will continue to function as designed until it is split far enough that it cannot retain rounds, as the feeding geometry does not, and cannot change without destroying the magazine. Unlike with USGI or other metal or metal-lipped magazines, it is impossible to have a magazine with damaged feed lips that does not function properly, but appears to be serviceable. PMAGs eliminate the large box of magazines in every armory that appear OK, but create stoppages and have been marked by users and turned in, only to be re-issued in hopes the next user won’t notice. Having a positive deadline criteria saves time, resources, and frustration on the range, and is safer for combat troops.

Cost

This increased performance, features, and all the benefits come at a price that can be entirely competitive with existing USGI aluminum magazines.

Manufacturing Capacity

Magpul fulfilled its contract with the British MOD, delivering over 1.1 Million magazines, in just a few months—ahead of schedule and with the capability to have delivered even faster. Since that time, manufacturing capacity has increased several fold. Magpul Industries is entirely capable of meeting peacetime sustainment needs, higher demand cycles during periods of global activity, and can surge operations to provide massive quantities of all products, with the same QC and production standards, with very short lead times.

Features and Improvements

The GEN M3 PMAG is fully compatible and tested with all currently fielded AR-Pattern rifles including the M16, M4, Mk18, SPR/Mk12 variants, and other rifles of this lower receiver geometry, as well as weapons featuring the SA-80/HK416/IAR magazine well, and the M249 SAW. All platforms are tested unsuppressed and suppressed.

The GEN M3 PMAG features a slimmer profile and floor plate design than previous generations of PMAG, with improved texture for a positive grip under wet, muddy, cold, or other adverse conditions, and a paint pen dot matrix for easy marking and tracking. This slimmer profile fits better in magazine pouches for greater usability.

The GEN M3 PMAG Features an over-travel insertion stop, which prevents over-insertion of the magazine under stress or vigorous open-bolt reloads, as well as providing an extra measure of durability for weapon functionality after loaded weapon drops or when using the magazine as a monopod.

The GEN M3 PMAG features a four-way anti tilt follower with generous dust and grit clearances for performance in adverse conditions, and water drain features for over-the-beach performance.

The new material, manufacturing, and design create a reinforced mag catch area, tested to thousands of removal and insertion cycles for positive magazine retention. It is quite literally possible to hang from a PMAG inserted into a magazine well with no negative effects or failure.

The MagLevel Window System provides visual indication of remaining rounds in the magazine, and is visible under NVD aid in darkness. Unlike translucent or transparent magazine designs which cease giving useful information after the follower enters the magazine well, the MagLevel system provides round count at a glance down to the last remaining round.

The GEN M3 PMAG is currently shipped in Black and Sand for better IR significance performance without paint, or dye process color matching.

The GEN M3 PMAG is easily disassembled for end user cleaning and maintenance, and is specifically designed to be impossible to reassemble incorrectly.

The GEN M3 PMAG is currently available in standard, 30 round capacity with and without MagLevel Windows, as well as 10, 20, and 40 round capacities. All stated capacities are true capacities…there is no need to download magazines for reliability concerns or ease of closed-bolt insertion.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 10:33 PM
Dusty Bones Dusty Bones is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,100
Thanks: 952
Thanked 1,651 Times in 904 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
Those are some old PMAG's ya got there. This is the current design. Also, MP has improved both their processing and their polymer formulation process significantly since the magazines you showed pictures of were made. It would be like me showing pictures of the old Lancer L5 and discussing the issues those had, in relation to the L5 AWM available, today.



Further, we don't know anything about those broken PMAG's other than that they are broken. We don't know how, what, etc.

I prefer current production PMAG M3's because...

They feed better. They control the round stack under rough handling better. They are plenty durable enough.

"Sand" PMAG vs. Older Gen 3 PMAG vs. Lancer L5 AWM - YouTube
*Issue that this problem is referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ble-for-LE-use


My point is, the new PMAGs control the round stack far better than Lancer L5 AWM's, and previous PMAG's, and to me, that matters a lot more than how it feels if I squeeze it.
The thing with the Pmags is every previous generation was said to also fix the splitting problem, and they didn't. So only time and combat zone use will tell.

My experience was with the AWM and the then most current generation of the Pmags. So at that time, it is as I said.

After seeing every previous generations supposed fix of the breaking/failing problem, I won't hold my breath with the new generations, they don't tend to hold up to the claims when time comes to put up. They aren't cats, they don't get nine lives to get it right. I honestly do not trust their claim like previous ones that the splitting problem was fixed.

Like I said before, I don't even like the Lancer mags, or any M4 mags. I made my choice of what to use based on what will get me through a deployment without causing weapon stoppages. Pmags weren't it. Get even a little rough on them and their service life is greatly shortened and they are so fragile there is a greater chance of complete failure. No thank you, not for me.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 10:56 PM
ksmedman's Avatar
ksmedman ksmedman is offline
Dunning-Kruger Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7,244
Thanks: 11,752
Thanked 20,881 Times in 5,370 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh Shoot View Post
Not too many steel AR mag choices out there, and I don't know of any stainless ones?

Aluminum and polymer have proven to be equally or even more durable, especially in case of impact on feed lips, besides the weight savings.

- OS
I have SS 20 rounders. Personally I don't like them, too stiff, if that makes sense? No give when inserting I guess. I have one that hangs up, can't use it for anything but a range mag.

I have a Lancer, had no issues with it. Have Troy mags too, again, haven't failed. Many PMAG's of different gens. No issues, and I do like them best in the poly mags. Couldn't tell you why though, maybe just confidence in them?

Most of my mags are new or used USGI aluminum. I have a couple that probably need new springs, or a new follower, and are used for range only, buy that's no big deal.
I have a group of well used green follower OK's that are kind of my 'go to's.' Look beat, dirty, but seem slickest and fastest and utterly reliable for some reason. Again, can't articulate data,

Run what you have, the defects will show up if there are any.
__________________
“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally, and attempting to make them equal.” – Frederich Hayek
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ksmedman For This Useful Post:
Old 11-18-2016, 11:07 PM
XJCountry XJCountry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Central Oklahoma
Posts: 86
Thanks: 101
Thanked 91 Times in 48 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
I have never even seen Lancers, so my opinion is based on this thread entirely. Please explain to me what would happen to this thin walled unreinforced sides if it hits the rock sideways? This is engineering and material science, no miracles.
Think new Kia body panel vs. 70s ford body panel. You can tell a big difference, especially after a hail storm.

If 2 mags are made of the same polymer compound it stands to reason that the one with the thicker body would stand up to more abuse. The steel feed lips are novel and an improvement over plastic. This is why I bought the Lancer, but was surprised (and disappointed) at the thin sidewall.

I feel like they cut the weight to make it seem like it beats the pmag in every category on paper so that Internet shoppers (and govt purchasers) are more likely to buy them.

Bottom line: The best mag is the one you have. Without one you only ever have a single shot.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-18-2016, 11:35 PM
XJCountry XJCountry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Central Oklahoma
Posts: 86
Thanks: 101
Thanked 91 Times in 48 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekingTruth View Post
If we consider the fact that this whole thread came from 1 person squeezing the sides of a magazine and coming to the conclusion that they suck from that, without even using it, I'd say you have the right idea. Coincidentally, I'm going to continue to do the same thing.

It's amazing sometimes how hard people "try" to find a problem with stuff. I guess maybe I'm a more positive and optimistic person than I thought.
Having a hard time finding where the OP, uh me... said that the lancers sucked.

References?

This seems to have touched a nerve with some people. I would think with Trump getting elected the endorphin flow would be a little better around here.

I may keep the Lancers after all. I would hate for someone to go home and kick their dog because I didn't agree with their viewpoint.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to XJCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 11-19-2016, 12:04 AM
SeekingTruth SeekingTruth is offline
Living Simple
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 929
Thanks: 1,392
Thanked 911 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XJCountry View Post
Having a hard time finding where the OP, uh me... said that the lancers sucked.

References?

This seems to have touched a nerve with some people. I would think with Trump getting elected the endorphin flow would be a little better around here.

I may keep the Lancers after all. I would hate for someone to go home and kick their dog because I didn't agree with their viewpoint.
You are right you didn't say they sucked exactly, but grabbing one and squeezing it then trying to say the PMags don't, when I confirmed with mine the PMags are the same as the L5AWM's, so you were going to return them without even trying them is basically saying they suck, or "are not as robust as I was led to believe" is how you put it. If you are going to send them back you are obviously not happy with them, so that's basically the same thing as sucks.

Since you used a car example in your last post I'll do the same so you understand how your OP came off, at least to me, and it sure didn't touch my nerve. It's like going to a car dealer and asking the salesman if you can test drive the showroom car. He says "Sure! I'll get the keys." He hands you the keys and you sit in the seat and say "Yup, she drives like ****! I wish it cornered better". He says "Sir you haven't even started it." So then you say "Well, the brochure says it corners like it's on rails, and I don't think it does, so I'll pass. Thanks for letting me sit in it!" :D

Just to be clear, I'm not partial to any one kind of magazine. I have several different brands I use, so I'm certainly not questioning your logic because you don't agree with me. I'm merely testing your claims with my own magazines and don't find the same results as you. That's all.

Also, I would never kick my dogs, not ever, not even over an internet post!
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SeekingTruth For This Useful Post:
Old 11-19-2016, 10:12 AM
Dusty Bones Dusty Bones is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,100
Thanks: 952
Thanked 1,651 Times in 904 Posts
Default

I squeezed a bunch of mags today. Some dude had a pile of the gen 1 tapco mini 14 mags that lack the steel reinforced locking area of the gen 2 for $8.00 more than the newer gen 2 ones. Same dude had some non factory 30 round steel mini 14 mags listed as factory. They had Ruger stamped on the side (hafta be real!, says so on the sign and on the side). I wonder how many people shelled out $45.00 for the fake factory mags. He also had some MFT? Mission first tactical poly mags for M4 too. Gotta admit, I pulled an OP on them. They felt so flimsy. Were marked the same price he had the old gen Pmags at.

All I picked up was a bunch of Russian 7.62x38R 108 grain for my 1895 Nagant and another guy had NORINCO 9mm Makarov cheaper than all the new production that's nowhere near as warm or accurate as the NORINCO from my CZ82. Turned out to be a good day for my odd ball caliber pistols.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
223, 556, ar15, lancer, m16, mag, magazine, pmag



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net