Army Stands By Ban on ‘Unauthorized’ PMAGs

Ok so I have spent the last week trying to find out why Army officials at TACOM would ban soldiers from using PMAGs in the warzone. I posted a story that explores the issue this morning on Military.com, but I don’t think this issue is over yet.

I’m not surprised that the Army wants everyone to use its Improved Magazine with the tan follower that’s supposed to cut down on stoppages in the M4. You have to give Army weapons officials credit for finally recognizing in late 2007 that the magazines with the green follower were poorly designed.

It was the way the Army went about improving the magazine that seemed a little questionable. Weapons officials quickly recognized that Magpul Industries Corp. was onto something with its new PMAG. But instead of testing Magpul’s polymer design, the Army tried unsuccessfully to develop its own polymer magazine, my sources tell me.

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.

So the Army settled on improving the follower — which has a strong resemblance to Magpul’s original design. When fielding began in 2009, Army weapons officials maintained that the new design would decrease stoppages by 50 percent, but they would never really discuss the testing process. It’s also unclear how the new mags compared to the PMAG’s performance. That didn’t really matter, because units were free to continue using PMAGs which had an Army-approved national stock number.

That all changed, however, in April when TACOM released its Safety of Use message that authorized only two NSNs for use with the M4 — the improved magazine with the tan follower and the older magazine with the green follower.

Apparently, the NSN issued for the PMAG was never really authorized, TACOM spokesman Eric Emerton said in a written response to questions from Military.com.

“Units are only authorized to use the Army-authorized magazines listed in the technical manuals,” he said. Emerton added that only “authorized NSNs have ever been included in the technical manuals.  Just because an item has an NSN, does not mean the Army is an authorized user.”

Huh???? That must be why PMAGs are standard issue to special operations units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment — those boys are clearly confused.

I have asked the Army if it has any proof that the service’s new magazine can outperform or even equal the PMAG’s performance, but I am still waiting for an answer.

What is really strange about this is that Magpul officials said they don’t want to talk about the issue. It could be that the company is hoping the Army will reverse its decision. Or maybe there’s something behind the Army’s abrupt decision to ban all polymer magazines that hasn’t yet surfaced.

About the Author

Matthew Cox
Matthew Cox has been a defense reporter since 1998 and is an associate editor for Military.com. He traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times from 2002 to 2008, covering infantry units in combat. Matthew was an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division.

93 Comments on "Army Stands By Ban on ‘Unauthorized’ PMAGs"

  1. Since I switched to the PMag I have had zero problems. I'll take a PMag any day over just about any magazine with a possible exception of the H&K magazine. I'm sure the cost of the PMag would be much less than the H&K version.
    At the very least the PMag should be allowed even if the Army doesn't want to pay for them.

  2. Hmmm, smells or rather stinks; just thinking out loud, maybe somebody back engineer the
    MAGP and kind of copied, just thinking of possibilities, not accusing, legal mess

  3. Chris from the COP | May 25, 2012 at 10:48 am |

    I guess if one of these useless wastes of an 0-4 salary from TACOM wants to come to my outpost in Afghanistan and take my PMAGs out of my mag pouches, they can have them. Otherwise shut the **** up and let me use the OBVIOUSLY superior piece of equipment. This is the same "UCP-is-the-supperior-camo-pattern" retardedness all over again.

  4. KnowALittleBit | May 25, 2012 at 10:49 am |

    Matthew,

    Not sure who you're "sources" were: "But instead of testing Magpul’s polymer design, the Army tried unsuccessfully to develop its own polymer magazine, my sources tell me." I'd say you might need to get new sources who actually know what they're talking about. Just a suggestion. The effort you are referring to was actually an engineering study, and it's purpose was simply to see if, all other things being equal, there could be a quantum leap in magazine design. Yes, polymer designs were looked at, as well as polycarbonate, and the engineers actually came up with a prototype magazine that was pretty much indestructable. They actually drove their POVs over the thing and it wouldn't break. As with all things that involve logistics, cost is a huge factor, and I can tell you from personal experience that anything that is molded is inherently more expensive than something stamped from metal. What good is an eternal magazine if the cost prevents you from buying the weapon to use it in? Feel free to do your own research, and don't forget to check your sources. Although I can't reveal any names here, I personally know the engineer involved in the study.

    I was involved personally in the Safety of Use message you mentioned, and it was issued at the direction of PM Soldier Weapons (PEO Soldier). You might want to do some research on the PEO. TACOM executes directives from PEO Soldier, as well as many other PEOs.

    You're reference to PMAGS being standard issue to the Rangers and other SpecOp troops is disingenuous at best. Units operating under the command of USSOCOM get lots of stuff that is not "standard issue" by virtue of the fact they have a "black budget". USSOCOM DOES use lots of "standard issue" equipment (as in Type Classifed Standard, if you know what that means), but they also use a whole lot of stuff that is not standard and is unique to USSOCOM. Please take the effort to understand the difference.

    I need to take you to task for this statement: "So the Army settled on improving the follower — which has a strong resemblance to Magpul’s original design." Again, not sure who your source(s) are, but the tan follower was reverse-engineered from H&K's steel magazine follower. And that happened even before the AWG (see below) started pushing the PMAG. Frankly, it was the only part of the H&K steel magazine that had any value since the steel magazine failed every salt fog test (even in it's maritime protected mode) and weighs quite a bit more than the standard magazine, and is sigificantly more expensive than the standard magazine.

    Regarding the PMAG, the only reason it ever appeared in the field was the work of the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) working under the Rapid Equipping Force (REF). The REF has a long history of fielding unsupported items in relatively small quantites based on information garnered by the AWG. REF is focused on jump starting things, but more often than not, they confused the issue rather than actually making "improvements". Just wanted to clarify that for you. The REF is also the organization that fielded the 10 1/4" barrel for the M4/M4A1, even though there is not one bit of support in the supply system for it.

    Okay, now that you have some pretty accurate information to work with, let the discussion REALLY begin.

  5. I never had a bit of trouble out of the standard steel magazines. What's the beef? Not enough toys?

  6. There are a hundred reasons this might be. The two most probable are money an pride. They spent millions to come up with the improved mag and they probably cost less then a PMAG and so they will never admit that someone else could have come up with something better. Then money is even further into the problem, what company helped develope the improvement and what does the contract look like that is for buying the new mags. It's not the first time reasons other then our soldiers best interest has gotten gear into the system. I can think of dozens of things I was issued as a Marine that were complete junk.

  7. Stupid ******* army. Im so glad im not in anymore.

    I jumped on the PMAG bandwagon in 2007, and havent regretted it since then.

    I also shoot a variety of other magazines. Lancer, Troy (which are priced awesome right now), and even aluminum GI mags.

  8. Those new improved followers blow. I use pmags… all my joes use pmags… I have nothing but issues with the army mags. Ive put close to 5,000 rounds through the m4 witout a single failure. Thats with only snaking the barrel and a very basic cleaning. Ive had pmags run over, blown up, kicked and dropped and still function flawlessly. Its too bad the Army wont give up its need to own the rights to everything, they had the same fallout with Crye over their multicams.

  9. This doesn't surprise me — and is probably more related to trying to protect the soldier from purchasing needed gear. If it's issued at the company level and approved by Command then it is a non issue.

  10. I used Green follower mags in my A2 rifle for years and no problems at all. I dont know the complaints about regular Green follower mags. I understand I dont use a M-4 Carbine and use longer A2 rifle. Overall this isn't the worse news PMAGs are good mags but they aren't the be all or end all in AR based mags. I only looked at new tan mags and played with them by hand they look just fine the only down side is there bronze like color which may look in the shadows of a chamber like brass which may confuse a solder in the heat of the moment. But other than that I dont see how bad and or evil GI mags are. They always worked when I shot them even OLD black mags. Overall there has to be some Army regs on M-16 and M-4 accessories men can put on there weapons or we be finding men with crappy NC Star scopes and Israeli Orlite mags that are 20 years old or men using discount mags which are worn out. I know its a bummer not using your prefer AR mag, Pmags are good. But I see no horrer of using standard Green and new tan mags either.

  11. I used PMAGs exclusively in 2010 in Afghanistan with the Marine Corps. All the infantry battalions out there issued PMAGS to their grunts for use. Never had a single problem with them and their long term storage clip was awesome for keeping out the moondust and mud. I don't think magazines in general are that big a cause of complaint – even the older green follower mags. However, having a magazine I knew I could always trust to do its job was definitely nice and one less worry in the back of my mind. Let's not kid ourselves either, PMAGS are the golden standard and are a much better piece of gear than the regular mags.

    I think a lot of what this is really about are POG officers with nothing better to do than micromanage from on high and push a product of their own design or backing to success by outlawing the superior competitor.

  12. The photo here is fantastic. The MAGPUL accesories would be enough, but the aftermarket civilian boots are priceless. Having outfitted myself following a stint private after Mil/govt service, I can personally attest to the superiority of PMAGs and other after-market kit. All of this, unfortunately, is going to to go away with the coming days of garrison soldiering. Uniformity in times of peace is fine, but war must constantly reteach Americans that standardization…compatability…and just plain "hey, it *** works" are more important when the mission and lives are on the line. Just my two cents.

  13. The original message is below: http://soldiersystems.net/2012/05/11/army-comes-o…. You know what really sucks? ALL magazines in our size. Personally, we think this is just a return to garrison mentality, but what the **** do we know. We're just action figures.

    TACOM LCMC MI 12-021 M4-M16 Improved Magazine and the Use of Commercial Magazines
    TACOM SAFETYOFUSE(UC)
    DTG: 301307Z Apr 12
    Precedence: PRIORITY
    DAC: General

    //UNCLASSIFIED//
    Subject: Maintenance Information (MI) Message, TACOM Life Cycle Management Command, (TACOM LCMC) Control No. MI: 12-039, M4/M16 Improved Magazine NSN 1005-01-561-7200, Part Number: 13021312, Cage Code: 19200, Old Magazine NSN
    1005-00-921-5004, Part Number: **********382, Cage Code: 13629, and the use of commercial magazines. End Items: M16A2 NSN 1005-01-128-9936, M16A3 NSN 1005-01-357-5112, M16A4 NSN 1005-01-383-2872, M4 NSN 1005-01-231-0973, and M4A1 NSN 1005-01-382-0953.

    1. Distribution:
    a. This is a Maintenance Information (MI) Message. Commanders/Directors of Army Commands (ACOM)/Army Service Component Commands (ASCC)/Direct Reporting Units (DRU), Army National Guard (ARNG), US Army Reserve (USAR)
    Command, US Navy (USN), US Air Force (USAF), US Marine Corps (USMC) and other Service Commanders and Responsible Offices will retransmit this message to all subordinate Commanders/Activities.
    b. This message will be available on the Safety First Web Site located on the TACOM Unique Logistics Support Applications (TULSA) portal within twenty-four hours of transmission. Access to the Safety First Web Site requires CAC Card authentication. You must first request access to the Safety First Web Site. To request access click here https://tulsa.tacom.army.mil. For assistance, email the TULSA Helpdesk at XXX. The Safety First Web Site also has the
    capability to email Safety and Maintenance messages directly to your inbox. To subscribe to the mailing list, click on, E-Mail Subscriptions, on the Navigation bar.

    2. Issue: TACOM has become aware of units ordering 30 rd. commercial (i.e. polymer, etc.) magazines for their M4/M16 family of weapons. The M4/M16 Army authorized magazines are the following: NSN 1005-00-561-7200 (improved magazine) and NSN 1005-00-921-5004 (older magazine; use until exhaustion).

    3. User Actions: TM 9-1005-319-10, the Additional Authorized List (AAL), states that NSN 1005-00-921-5004 is authorized, as well as NSN 1005-00-561-7200. Units may use the older magazine NSN 1005-00-921-5004 with the green follower until exhausted. The improved magazine is available in stock, NSN 1005-00-561-7200, and has a tan follower. The improved magazine features an improved follower and follower spring. These new features help to reduce the risk of magazine-related stoppages. Units are only authorized to use the Army authorized magazines listed in the technical manuals. Remember; “tan-is the plan, green-start to lean, black-take it back.” Magazines with the black follower are the oldest and should be turned in to your unit supply sergeant or local supply point.

    4. Unit Commanders, contact your local TACOM LCMC Logistics Assistance Representative (LAR) or your State Surface Maintenance Manager upon receipt of this message for assistance. For assistance in locating your TACOM LCMC LAR, see below.

  14. The Brits are using the Emags, the export version of the PMags. The USMC is using PMags. Obviously, these guys are on to something here.
    PMags vs Improved GI Mags. Hmmmmmm, suspiciously smells like Multi-cam vs. UCP to me.
    How about the US Army banning commercial gear as well, like boots, packs, holsters, etc. etc….
    The idiocy goes on and on…

  15. Don_5th Marines (USA | May 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm |

    You can bet your **** that those responsible for this decision ain't grunts, but REMFs behind a desk. Jeez, what morons.

  16. Well I find this really interesting because Big Army issued these to me and everyone else in our battalion and another battalion in our brigade. So how come they were good enough for us then but not good enough for us now.

  17. Oh and one other thing I work in an IRT company training replacements before they go down range. We have thrown out hundreds of these new improved tan follower magazines only after being used a few times. So I'm gonna keep using my Pmags

  18. Futuresoldier11x | May 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm |

    I don't give a **** what anyone says about what's "authorized", when they give me a rifle, it's going to be 80% magpul before i head to a-stan

  19. Unit Armorer | May 25, 2012 at 11:24 pm |

    As a unit armorer I see a lot of these types of messages and some are good and some are bad. The worst part is that they are now unauthorized as I have used these since 07. Another bad thing is the army is very specific in no changes to weapon systems w/o a MWO or a commander can be held responsible. Now as we all know these rules don't always apply especially in the SOCOM community. I guess what I'm trying to say is unauthorized mags that "maybe" could possibly create a stoppage and result in death would be horrible because our life insurance policy might not be paid. This is worst case scenario but when they do investigations they look for reasons not to have to pay. If a soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice there should be no reason not to pay just because a magazine does something that any other one could have done. My suggestion is to keep them clean, do regular maitenance and try to keep pressure off of the feed lips no matter which one you decide to use.

  20. The Army is going back to the mentality of the decades before the WOT. Lowest bidder crap that is worse then commercial and privately bought equipment.

    We should all write or email to our congressman and TACOM or just ignore their ruling. Think the Army is going to hand out hundreds of thousands of article 15s at one time for non-issue gear? If they did that there'd be an uproar.

    And why is it that special operations forces get to use practically anything they dang well please but not the average joe? My reasoning is that if it has an NSN or has been in use before hand with few complaints, it's good to go.

    If soldiers are heading to Afghanistan(or any conflict)they should have the best there is. A soldier on duty in Korea or the woodlands they should be able to privately purchase camouflage that suits the environment they will be in. No dang ACU sofaflauge.

  21. Last I heard the contracts for USGI magazines were awarded solely to small/ minority owned businesses. Perhaps the purchase of PMAGs was cutting into the sales projected for the contract and some greedy punk whined.

  22. 13 mag combat load now needs to be switched from PMAGs to the junk steel items (which hopefully don't get bent up and not feed again). So happy the desk jockey's decided to say what's best for the fighters actually trusting their lives to these mags.

  23. Red Empire Diver | May 26, 2012 at 1:46 am |

    Ok ill switch, just as soon as you come out to my firebase and outfit all my boys with those crappy mags….in the mean time ill keep using the ones i like….cheers!

  24. They went full retard….. you never go full retard. I'm still using my personally bought PMAGs…. along with half the other gear I've bought since the Army uses the lowest bidder.

  25. Lets flush the really crappy black/green mags out with the only crappy tan ones. The miss was in not "approving" the Pmag before we made all these new pieces of junk. Now the poor Army looks like a smuck for having purchased all these tan magazines no one wants. Would not of wanted to be in charge of that project. So how do they try to correct this? They send a little note saying that Pmags aren't really on our list so come and get the ones we made you. Not that this doesn't make them look dumber after they already were giving units Pmags, which all now know are superior. I would say try to "exhaust" them all, but until Pmags are authorized the will just make more of the tan ones.
    I guess the best place to put pressure would be getting a senator or representative to hold a hearing. I would recommend not using any from Colorado as you would look like your favoring Magpul. Personally I think my senator Scott Brown might be a good choice as Massachusetts Army National Guard light colonel. Though in the Judge Advocate General Corps now he has done stints in infantry, quartermaster and airborne. His position would be great along with say Jim Webb of Virginia a former marine officer and democrat making this a bipartisan thing.
    Last there is always the big stupid, drop 60 Minutes a line. Would love to see them talking out there back side explaining this.

  26. HoneyBear | May 26, 2012 at 8:48 am |

    Im going to stamp resillence and on ACU colored Magazine and i bet i can sell a million to the army

  27. Lets not forget the follower was only part of the problem. The feed lips on aluminum magazine tend to get bent or warped over time from being dropped and general usage. Once this happens its pretty much done, PMAGS don' have this issue and hence their popularity. It's all ive ever carried since their introduction and haven't had a magazine induced failure since. Still using original PMAGS for several years now with thousands of rounds through them.

  28. How those F-22 doing?
    In May 2012 it was announced that two pilots, Major Jeremy Gordon and Captain Josh Wilson, who had appeared on the CBS news program 60 Minutes, saying they didn’t feel safe in the jet, were considered whistleblowers protected by the federal whistleblower legislation.
    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta subsequently ordered that all F-22 flights stay "within the proximity of potential landing locations" as more pilots came forward to report hypoxia-like symptoms.

  29. So what happens when everyone in my unit got issued PMAGs when we got downrange and the only available USG issued aluminum mags on the entire VSP are the ones that have been buried in the ammo bunkers for a few years (and were 10 year old POS's before they ever even made the plane ride into central Asia to begin with)? Some of those VSP's can go weeks without ever seeing helicopters, so are we supposed to stop all operations until we can get new USGI mags? Something tells me that unless a CSM stops by to personally inspect and confiscate the PMAGs, they'll still be used as the primary magazine for quite a while

  30. DUMB RULE THAT COULD MEAN LIVING or DYING FOR OUR TROOPS >WHO MAKES ALL THESE IDIOT RULES ANY WAY >just because they want to DEAL WITH SPICIFIC CONTRACTOR ON GEAR >>TO SACRIFICE THE NEEDS OOF OUT TROOPS FOR THIER PROFITS

  31. RugerNiner | May 26, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

    Sounds like somebody somewhere is getting a kick-back.

  32. What you said: "it's not banned, it's just not authorized". What I'm perfectly willing to bet most of us heard: "I'm part of a bureaucratic system that can't see past our own desks". My god, what doublespeak. George Orwell couldn't have done better.

  33. ANTHONY SANTAMAURO | May 27, 2012 at 2:32 am |

    Follow the money……………there is your answer!

  34. "What good is an eternal magazine if the cost prevents you from buying the weapon to use it in?"

    So the Navy can afford new supercarriers, the Air Force can afford new stealth fighters, but the Army can't afford equipping its soldiers with good magazines? ********!

  35. PMAG's are problematic in cold weather; many SOCOM units have voluntarily gone back to aluminum mags.

  36. I can understand that! I never used a plastic mag just dont like the idea of plastic even if there great I know plastic degrades in light and heat and deforms eventually And various
    solvents and ultra violet light effects them. Which can make them change
    May get hard brittle or expand who knows plastic in the cold ? my preferance in metal
    pmags are good but there is better stuff around maybe kevlar?

  37. Guys,
    I work in procurment and I can tell you that I have seen a ton of equipment that has somehow gotten NSNs that should not have had them. Isnt hard to do if yo have friends in the right office.

  38. Total agreement there! I can't believe some of the stuff that have nsn numbers and the gs approved!I have to laugh! And yet the army does have some great stuff it makes you wonder if there bi polar I do know money is flying around thicker then air
    there is one company that makes cleaning supplys I will leave there name out of this I have no doubt they will be on tv one day soon! If you buy from there site you realize that the law enforcement and civilian products in most cases are identical but when listed as military there 3 times the price! and 650 bucks for a cleaning kit? loli buy them all the time
    at my local gun store for hundred bucks finally they removed there prices from the site! now you have call for a price [how much is a 308 mil cleaning brush? what a joke i bye like 16 differant things id be on the phone all day its because some has got wind of there prices!!!

  39. 2KfromPAK | May 27, 2012 at 11:26 am |

    Never really had a problem with issued mags, except the infrequent dent or bent lip. The new tan follower hasn't blown my skirt up but who cares. Real Leaders will turn a blind eye to a pmag or two if it makes Joe feel like "Special Ranger Patrol". You just gotta wonder what kinda airsofter or part time paintball ****** wants to drop almost a hundred bucks on mags. I just check my equipment after mission like a real GD Infantryman and replace any mags that are dicked up. PCC'sand PCI's, PMCS, Priorities of work, remember those cool things. Hard to be a ******* hero when your more worried about the material your magazine is composed of than being able to preform SPORTAS or hit what your aiming at. Although, I'm sure polymer mags are conveinient for preventing dents and such due to frequent dropping from the mag well while standing in line at Green Bean.

  40. 2KfromPAK | May 27, 2012 at 11:43 am |

    You carry 13 mag's? Where are you, Detroit? Holy **** man, obviously not climbing mountains in Khost. And our mag's, they be AL-LOO-MAINE-EE-UM.

  41. 2KfromPAK | May 27, 2012 at 11:54 am |

    Wow……just, wow. 11X contracts, getting retards to enlist since 2002. Let me guess, intent for "Special Forces". Do yourself a favor and when they give you that rifle, put it in your mouth and suck start it. Because if by some cosmic chance you come to my platoon, I dont have to smoke your bags till you die.

  42. 2KfromPAK | May 27, 2012 at 11:57 am |

    The Brownell's are pretty reliable, even with the now infamous "tan follower", dun,dun,dun!

  43. "it bought some time to get production of the new style magazine up to speed to meet down stream demands."

    So who was actually clamoring for these improved follower magazines? No one I saw. By the time the Army had even admitted an issue with the old green followers, most guys I knew already had their own commercial magazines. The idea that the Army had recognized an issue with the follower and sought to provide better equipment to the troops is laughable. The old mags were always ***, everyone knew they were *** and the Army never did anything about it. It was only after other options became available and soldiers ditched their issued magazines that the Army 'improved' on their old design.

    Your posts shed light on the broken bureaucratic mess that is the Army. You would rather defend the process behind the implementation of the edict than realize that the Army is making a fundamental mistake in limiting the effectiveness of a soldier's equipment.

  44. I'm still waiting for you to explain the virtues of the metal magazine. You have thus far done a great job explaining the bureaucratic mess, but continue to defend the process, rather than the product.

    I don't do much horse-riding these days. Maybe if you spent less time leveling metaphoric insults and more time explaining your position, the rest of us lowly plebes could share in your vast knowledge regarding the Army's latest decision.

    Or you could just continue to act like a pompous fool.

  45. I wouldn't mind trying the Brownells tan ones, they just don't sell them anywhere. Sounds like the basically took the Pmag follower and did a little hocus pocus moving the outline of the round to the other side and keeping its basic anti-tilt function. They also changed the spring and where it meets the follower. So it probably at least equal to my reworked old mags with the new Magpul followers and Wolff springs. I'd give them a try.

  46. the HK mags are ok at first, but once you hit about 4,000 rounds through them they turn to utter ****.

    also this is just a restatement of a rule that has been around a while. nothing will change and people will still use pmags and lancers

  47. ProtectAndServe | May 28, 2012 at 7:13 am |

    I appreciate the great knowledge and wisdom shared here. I'm not sure why some posters are engaging in an 'I'm smarter than you are' contest here, especially with the author of the post. That's not helpful. This is clearly a complicated issue, but my major concern is that it seems, once again, that the Army is insisting its people go into combat with less-than-superior equipment. Why is this? It's not the cost…with all due respect to the experience represented in the comments above, can the rest of the readership get a clear answer as to why the Army is rejecting superior equipment for its soldiers? Does it think that its end-users are only worth 'good enough' and not the best? Doesn't bode well for the next generation of soldiers who are considering which branch of the military to enlist with. All we want is a clear explanation of why- and it's not listed here yet.

  48. YE I know 60. bucks brownells is pricely I dont buy from them im sure there out there alot cheaper on the net.

  49. ProtectAndServe | May 28, 2012 at 8:59 am |

    KnowALittleBit, before you develop that book I'd respectfully recommend you invest in a good editor so you use 'writing' rather than 'righting' to indicate the creation of literature.

    Again, I'm looking for simple answers to two simple questions:
    1) Is PMAG the best of its kind? If not, what is?
    2) Are our soldiers able to use the best equipment? If not, why not?

    We don't need lengthy descriptions of processes-if anyone out there knows, just answer the questions asked. The red herrings thrown up by discussions of other nominally-related topics only serve to disctract from the central argument, which has yet to get a clear answer. That implies either those who are speaking for the Army don't have an answer or that if they do know they are hiding something, neither of which are acceptable situations given that lives are at stake with this choice.

  50. yeah because apparently UCP "beat" crye's scoprion pattern during testing (now multicam). I about laughed my *** off the seat when i was told that.

    "I have asked the Army if it has any proof that the service’s new magazine can outperform or even equal the PMAG’s performance, but I am still waiting for an answer."

    yeah good luck with that. asking the army to put up or shut up is talking to a wall.

  51. hamchuck, ******, you beat me to it with the doublespeak.

    “it’s not banned, it’s just not authorized”.

    bureaucratic doublespeak example. classic.

  52. I carried twelve in afghanistan and i missed my load of 20 that i had in iraq. "Rifleman's load" in afghanistan? thats what i call wishful thinking.

  53. KnowALittleBit | May 28, 2012 at 10:15 am |

    It's similar to the design the Army adopted. Actually looks like one of the prototypes the Army looked at. Might work just as well. Brownells does have some good stuff. In fact, the combination wrench that's been in the M4/M16 maintenance manual since 2008 was adopted from the Brownells combination wrench for doing barrel and compensator replacements.

  54. yeah because god forbid the army actually trains how it fights and prioritizes mission effectiveness and national security rather than just looking pretty.

    This same group of **** tards are the ones that ***** about the hiking boots, boonie hats, and PMAGs. They like pretty uniforms, spit shined boots, and white glove clean weapons, though pretty much have nothing valuable to contribute when it comes to winning a war.

    "Joe is a ******* idiot"

    hmmm, thank you for proving my point. anybody who says this comment goes against the very principles the army should abide by. Of course, unsurprisingly, a lot of excellent soldiers leave the army because of this. How about actually leading your soldiers?

  55. Where is Lincoln when you need him.
    Lincoln witnessed for himself the superiority of the Sharps rifle in the hands of a marksman. Guess what, he order them bought.
    Since before the times of the Romans, soldiers went to war with a kit that include "off the shelf items". More recently professional officers were expected to procure their own sidearm. Wasn't much thought about commonality of parts then, let alone caliber. Today while I believe outer appearance in say a uniform makes sense. If a man buys a superior sock do I think he should be rung up? Of course not. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure it out which is superior? Of course not. The Army picked its sock on what it decided its basic need, and what it was willing to pay. Our soldiers picked theirs the same way. One may be prone to blister, the issued sock does nothing to alleviate this. So he picks up ones that do. Another picked his because he sweats a lot and needs a cooling style.
    Now how far to take this is the $64,ooo question. Should he be allowed to purchase a SIG 556 and use it? He believes it uses a superior operating system and it uses the same mags the M4 will. I think I wouldn't want to because(for arguments sake) even if a better weapon, I would stand out from the other rifleman.
    The basic analogy here is the Army bought and gave these guys Sig 556 and now want them to return them for the M4. For the most part they used and liked the Sig rifle but now have to turn it in. All they have heard is bad things about the previous version of the M4. The newer version maybe even better but there is no anecdotal evidence. So they want to stay with what is tried and true.
    Some needs to ensure a face off. so that there is data to back up ones claim.

  56. But isn't that just the piont? These sops are telling you yes there battle proven yes we like them yes we prefer them! yes we want them! so there why a 360 on there input?

  57. This is just re-affirms why I have no faith in the conventional army leadership, I will continue to use my PMags and god help them if they try to tell SOCOM to make everyone use the *** issue mags.

  58. This exchange reminds me of Atlas Shrugged, when Hank Rearden keeps asking the bureaucrat "Is Rearden metal good?" Of course the bureaucrat won't give a straight answer, because that isn't his concern.

    I imagine that PMAGS will stay in use, because they work. This will happen whether the government pays for them or not. I had my own headphones for use in the sonar shack on my boat because the issued Dave Clark headphones were junk. It's a shame that we can't count on the military to provide the best equipment available.

  59. Mike12061981 | May 29, 2012 at 4:54 am |

    Cool down dude. There isnt much he can change in a stock m4. What he will add? A stock rear sight and grip and that all. Thats NOT 80% of the rifle…

  60. Mike12061981 | May 29, 2012 at 5:06 am |

    OK but that ban goes also to the army SOCOM operators also? They also have to use G.I. mags? If not that is ******** and has to stop.
    That is a clear signal that there are better in the army (SpecOps guys) and the cannon fodder (regular Joe).
    I gues that soldier lives are more worthy when the soldier wears a "special forces tab" for the generals…

  61. Exactly what I was thinking when reading all these "I'm using them anyway" posts. Guys this is really something to think about. Might need to either regularly swap out the new mags or work out a deal with your buddies to swap out your gear with standard issue **** before turning it in if you were to get hit. The reason reason we do our jobs is for our families so we got to take care of them all the way through.

  62. Sorry, you were correct it was M4 data released. Give me a long night on that.

    "the M4 did not “lose” in that test, in fact it exceeded its design parameters by a wide margin. A lot of people think the test was a “competition” between Colt’s, FN, and H&K. Believe that if you want to."

    This is as if saying we took a 70's Mustang out with new Corvette, Ferrari, and Lamborghini. After track time saying Ford said its top speed was 140 and we got 150 so it "did not “lose” in that test, in fact it exceeded its design parameters by a wide margin." The Vette will do 205, the Ferrari got 210 and the Lambo 200 but hey this isn't a race.

    "After the battle of Qanat, Sen. Coburn raised the question of whether our troops had the best possible weapon."

    I've never seen anything on Qanat so I think it's a typo for Wanat. Which happened in 13 July 2008. The Senators office was on it long before that occurred. I believe the Senator had some decent intentions. Previous Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane had tried to update the USA's infantry rifle with the XM-8 project. So now the army comes a long looking to no-bid 500,000 thousand M4's. Well if I am going to buy all these rifles shouldn't they A) be updated, why am I buying 10 year old designs. B) Kind of continues this line with if I'm already spending all this cash maybe I ought a look at something new. C) Let's put it out to bid and get the best price.

  63. Still at it | May 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm |

    test post

  64. Hey yep same ole Army, why change when you're doing so well? Hey maybe go back to the LBE? Steel Pots were better than soft caps. I know go back to the old od green gas station uniform. Hey if it weren't for the TAXCOM guys, Memorial day would just be national BBQ day.

  65. I wonder if it had anything to do with Magpul turning them down for the SCAR 17 mags because they said the magazine could not be correctly manufactured using the Army specs.

  66. Very true, the spear point and shaft are symbiotic, the spear point can't exist without the shaft and the shaft would literally have no reason to exist without the spear point.

    The problem as it pertains to this specific case of the magazines as I see it is that those on the spear point see some of the commercial magazines like the Magpul PMAG and HK steel magazines as better equipment that makes our job (staying alive and killing the enemy). But now all of a sudden, out of the blue with no apparent reason and none given to us, from somewhere on the shaft is saying "No, we don't like those fancy mags, you have to use the ones we developed in house and if you don't like it and think that they're an inferior solution, too damn bad".

  67. If the specs were written properly and required quality, low bidder would not mean low quality.

  68. Going off topic here. If there's this so much R&D then testing in the field and battlelabs, how did the Army come up with the Universal Camouflage Pattern? It only works on gravel pits, flowered couches and probably on the lunar surface.

  69. And unless the Army bought technical rights to MAGPUL’s design, they’d be right back to a sole source procurement, with all the downsides that come with it.

    Sir: This is the most enlightening part of the whole subject. I see your point.

  70. Hey, this reminds me of the time when Bill Clinton re-defined the meaning of the word "is."
    Although the word "ban" wasn't specifically used, anyone who served knows that anyone caught using unauthorized gear will get struck down by a thunderbolt from Olympus and his ashes will get scattered to the four corners of the earth.

  71. Ronc, never, ever trust politicians. They may say that the best interest for the warfighter at heart, but in the end, it all boils down to the votes in the following elections.
    Remember McNamara? He was that dude that foisted the M-16 on the Armed Forces. Although it was the stupidity of the Army for changing propellants and not issuing cleaning kits that resulted in loss of lives, it was McNamara's decision to issue a new weapon while things started heating up in 'Nam that took the cake.
    Now is not really the time to be muddying the waters. To introduce an entirely different weapons system while a country is at war is suicidal.

  72. DDearborn | May 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

    Hmmm

    So the enless attempts at side tracking the discussion goes on. The question that remains to be definitively answered is: Is the PMAG "better" than the new issue MAG? The criteria being offered on the one hand is yes because it won the red tape race. On the other hand we have the soldier in the field saying look fella I have used both in combat and when my life is on the line I would rather buy PMAG with my own money. Know I don't know about the rest of you but as an old 11B myself I would rather put my life in the hands of years of combat experience over a precurment system that has been caught lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating and generally causing mayhem for the soldier in the field for decades. But then again that is just me.

    You seem to have forgotten that it is the common Infantry soldier that ultimately wins the war on the ground. And one more thing to all of you that have made derogatory remarks about "Joe". Read my middle finger . But then I always believed 1 honest to god 11B in the field was worth 10 REMF's.

  73. Just a little background on me before I answer this. I am Richard Fitzpatrick, former active duty, USMC Recon Marine (0321) and founder of Magpul Industries Corp.

    While we do not wish to comment on specifics regarding the TACOM memo (as we are not informed on any of their decisions and so feel unqualified to respond) I will be happy address most other aspects regarding the PMag that are posted.

    Here are some answers to questions/statements posted (in no particular order)…

    "They (Pmags) may be the best thing since sliced bread, but until the Infantry School House writes a requirement for a new magazine, and Congress funds a Program of Record that allows the PM to spend money to accept bid samples, commence testing, and find a better magazine, AND commence acquisition, PMAGS will not be authorized."

    – The biggest issue is defining what is important in the requirements. It is something that often gets lost when a large organization sets about designing something. One of the reasons that after 5 years of combat fielding the PMag outnumbers all other third party magazines, combined, is how we designed and manufacture the PMag to deal with a lot of conflicting "real world" requirements.

    The PMag is not perfect (even the soon to be released M3 PMag) but it does almost everything well and adds significant advantages over the USGI magazines on deployment some of which are…

    1. The PMag internal geometry uses an aggressive constant curve to improve reliability (the USGI has a curved then straight section to work with the M16 straight mag well). This allows the PMag round stack to more closely match the taper of the 5.56 round and provides uniform stack pressure.

    2. The PMag has a corrosive resistant stainless steel spring, USGI uses stock music wire allowing the PMag to pass a 500 hour simulated salt spray test where the USGI fails due to spring breakage.

    3. The PMag body has much better crush strength the PMag feedlips have better impact strength than a USGI. This allows the PMag to far out last a similarly used USGI. When the PMag is damaged the problem is viable and easily identifiable.

    4. The PMag has a far lower IR signature than a USGI and is easier to handle in both extreme hot and cold temperatures.

    5. Runs far better in the M249 SAW than stock USGI magazines.

    It is also worth noting that PMags are in a constant state of revision based upon feedback we receive and new production methods. While the PMag retains the same basic look it started with, it has been continually updated and it's performance far out shines the original from 5 years ago.

    The newest generation M3 PMag, which is in final testing is the strongest by far. It has the additional benefits of being fully compatible with the the HK 416, SA80A2 and the FN SCAR. It also has a slim line floorplate, beefed up mag catch area, additional gripping texture and a paint pen matrix for individual marking.

    "The trick would be buying enough PMAGs quickly enough to support the entire force. I don’t know MAGPUL’s production capacity, but I’m pretty sure it would fall far short of the combined capacity of the three companies turning out the aluminum magazine right now."

    – While I will not go into details of our production capacity we are already one of the largest manufactures of M16 magazines in the country.

    We also have shown the capability of expanding our capacity while maintaining quality controls. Last year we set up and ran one million "export" PMags (EMags) for all UK combat deployed troops, delivering the entire order early, with no QA rejections and without affecting our existing PMag production at all.

    "The overall factor for the Army is the price to outfit the force with the metal mag, roughly $2 a pop as apposed to nearly $9 dollars for a polymer competitor"

    Contract price for a USGI is more like $6 and at USGI quantities the PMag would be comparable in price to the USGI for the government to purchase. This does not take into account the fact that the PMag needs to be replaced less frequently in operational environments than USGI magazines so less need to be ordered.

    "PMAG’s are problematic in cold weather; many SOCOM units have voluntarily gone back to aluminum mags."

    We have PMags functioning in places like Alaska as well as Afghanistan for over five years now with great success. Early MRevs were tested for breakage down to -30 and have steadily improved in performance/strength to the point we now do our testing (for the new M3) at -60. Even without rough handling the PMags will function reliability in these extreme temperatures long after the USGI magazine will cease to operate.

    "I can understand that! I never used a plastic mag just dont like the idea of plastic even if there great I know plastic degrades in light and heat and deforms eventually And various
    solvents and ultra violet light effects them"

    -PMags have UV blocker built into the polymer. This has not been shown to be an issue for PMags combat deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have had magazines left out in the desert for a year and while they were a little bleached they still functioned without issues.

    As for solvents, current PMags pass every Federal standard published for chemical resistance that is applied to the M16/M4 weapon system. As part of our testing program PMags are subjected to long term direct contact with over 10 different types of chemicals required to pass these tests.

    "You open up a Sources Sought, would be issued based on a new requirement. (Q1)Now nothing says Magpul would have to enter?"

    -We would likely respond to a sources sought request providing we could meet the requirements published. We have done this before for other sources sought but as you can see our skills at navigating such a system is not the best. We are much better at building things.

    "And unless the Army bought technical rights to MAGPUL’s design, they’d be right back to a sole source procurement, with all the downsides that come with it."

    One of the key strengths of the PMag is consistency in manufacture. We have 5 years of research and development in not only the design of the PMag but also the propriety materials and processing used. It would be very difficult to subcontract this technology to a series of lower bidders and get the results that would be acceptable.

    "Regarding the PMAG, the only reason it ever appeared in the field was the work of the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) working under the Rapid Equipping Force (REF)"

    -While some of the fielding might have been through this program, the majority of PMags used in Iraq and Afghanistan were initially purchased by individual military members. Word of mouth on their reliability and durability prompted units to order them with discretionary funds and this started a purchasing cycle outside of the efforts of the AWG and REF.

    "The whole concept of a magazine that you can put 30 rounds into and still get it into the weapon in a bolt forward situation is pretty much a red herring"

    – To fully seat a fully loaded (30rds) USGI mag (regardless of follower) with the bolt forward, it is common to end up bending the feed lips and denting the lead cartridge possibly causing an overpressure situation in the chamber as well as permanently damaging the USGI magazine. The PMag is designed with a small amount of additional clearance to allow the magazine to seat with a full 30 rounds without this issue.

    "Personally, I’d be more concerned with the time it takes to grab a new mag out of the pouch or cargo pocket and slap it into the weapon as opposed to grabbing a new mag out of the pouch or cargo pocket, taking the time to remove the dust cap, and slap it into the weapon."

    The dust cover on the PMag is optional and not intended to be used for magazines stored on your Vest or LBE. They are protect the feed lips from impact damage and debris entering the magazine during transport or long term storage.

    "one of the selling points is that they have a window built in so you can see how many rounds are left in the mag. The window can only be viewed if you either have the mag in your hand, or if you turn the weapon sideways to look at the mag once it’s been inserted in the weapon."

    – PMags currently come in two versions a Maglevel (window) and non window (Plain). The window is not actually for counting individual rounds. It shows a marked coil on the spring that acts like a gas gauge on a car effectively showing rounds remaining even when the last 5 rounds are obscured by the mag well (something that a translucent magazine does not). That said we have worked on a translucent magazine for training (simulation/frangible/less lethal) rounds where identification of the round tip is important.

    The window adds no extra parts to the magazine and is often used by team leaders visually to confirm a full magazine load prior to leaving the wire. (rounds tend to get down loaded from magazines over time when the rifle is repeatably cleared upon re-entry)

    I hope this answers some of the questions. Click on the link to read the Magpul foundations (what makes us tick).

  74. Kevin O. Moore | June 1, 2012 at 3:56 am |

    E. Ronc,

    I did some checking on this. The solicitation you mentioned from 2007 is a bit dated. Special Force Groups did look at the HK416 a few years back, but I'm told they did not adopt it. The SCAR (H) 7.62MM was coming on line, and the M4A1s are still with them. The SCAR (L) 5.56MM fell by the wayside and was not adopted. So, the Groups have a mix of 5.56MM and 7.62MM, which is a pretty good mix.

  75. There was no issues regarding the SCAR17 magazine. Were were initially one of several companies that responded to a request for a possible polymer SCAR17 magazine.

    The FN SCAR17 was designed around a steel FAL magazine and magazine well. It was decided the available wall thickness was not enough for us to successfully build a reliable polymer magazine for the system.

    Instead we suggested the SCAR17 receiver mold should modified to accept standard military M110/SR25 magazines. Which would move the SCAR17 to proven magazine that was already in the ordering system.

  76. sadly Mathew you make some of the most asinine topics on this website.

    you always state you have "inside super secret ninja squirrel sqad sources" but alot of the stuff you say is just plain false.

    reminds me of when you said the M4 gets people killed because of Wanat and Keating(yet at Keating there was not one reported weapon failure other than a M2 that took an RPG and one documented soldier expending 40 magazines in his M4, not only that but Keating lasted much longer than Wanat)

    yet of course you never said that, you just said the M4 gets people killed at both Wanat and Keating.

    I'm sorry I have seen enough of your drivel to take it with a huge grain of salt

  77. PMAGs are superior to standard issue mags for the same reason that Multicam is superior to the UCP that you poor Army guys had to deal with; They work. The Army seems to get caught up in a lot of bureaucratic shenanigans, and it adversely affects the soldiers they are supposed to be taking care of.

  78. Matthew got into a tissy because you called him out.

    Sadly people like Matthew Cox seem to have alot of blind fanbois and uneducated masses who read his articles and fully believe them.

    Matthew Cox has made a number of articles like the Wanat and Keating one that have so much false and bad information it'll make your head explode if you know the truth. I remember when he posted the M4 gets soldiers killed article, i also remember SME's on certain websites(not ARFCOM) tearing his report to pieces.

    Fact is when Matthew Cox mentions his super secret inside sources you can bet it will be a false statement meant to degrade either the military or thw M4, just go look at his past posts, alot of them do just that using false information found on the internet that he then restates as his secret source.

  79. Lets not forget we are entering back into peace time, whenthat happens the "do what works even if its out of the box" tends to go away and its back to making sure your boots are polished and uniforms are starched.

  80. Richard,

    Thanks for straightening out those who have opinions based on speculation or third hand information.
    You answered any questions anyone should have concerning the PMag. I've been using them since they were released. The originals are still working fine as are the newer ones. It's my magazine of choice and will continue to be.

  81. You mean the test that this website used as gospil that the m4 needed replacing?

    Funny thing is while yall were praising that test the true facts were the HK416, SCAR-L, and XM8 were all specially made and hand picked for the test, the M4's were drawn off a weapons rack well used and well below the 700RPM minimum(6out of 10 M4's were around 600RPM, the avg for the M4 is 800RPM or so).

    Lets not forget the M4's used in this test were pre-2006 thus they were missing critical updated reliability components(namely the CRANE extractor upgrade).

    Fact is when Colt re did the test with new production M4's they had 111 stoppages, so you tell me?

    Now lets talk about Wanat, Wanat was a **** fest for sure. First off those guys did not take care of their rifles. The M4'a failed at Wanat because they were not taken care of and when the **** hit the fan they had filthy m4'a full of days worth of sand.

    Now lets look at keating, Keating lasted longer, expended more ammo and only had 1 weapon fail( an M2 that took an RPG) there were no weapon failures at Keating because they took care of their weapons there, one soldier expended 40 magazines alone, they also went black on multiple calibers during that fight.

    There is nothing wrong with the M4 other than worn out parts and rifles well beyond their service life.

    Lets also talk about how Sen Coburn has absolutely ZERO MILITARY EXPERIENCE. How would he know what our soldiers need? Coburn has no idea if the M4 is good or bad fact.

    You people at this website always bring up the dust test and Wanat, but you always conveniently leave out the important info like the 6 M4's that did not meet the RPM requirement, or that Wanat was a leadership failure and not an M4 failure, that Coburn has no military background, and the bet is you always aleays always leave out Keating, a battle identical to Wanat, the only diff is Keating lasted longer, expended more ammunition, and did not have one single small arms fail.

    Sorry but i get tired of hearing these mentioned here

  82. why wouldn't they use modified FAL mags? there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

  83. So the army issues a safety notice saying they can no longer use PMags, yet they still allow the older unsafe standard mags in addition to the new improved GI mags, yeah STUPID

  84. Kevin O. Moore | June 5, 2012 at 7:15 am |

    Pro,

    Which "unsafe" magazines were you referring to? The MIM that Matthew Cox started all this uproar with was incorrectly quoted to say that the Army banned PMAGS, which has already been addressed in this blog. That MIM was not a Safety of Use Message, which would have had an entirely different effect than a MIM. Are you stating that the standard magazine with the tan follower is unsafe? And if so, why don't you come out and tell us why it's unsafe? The Army is following this blog, and if you can contribute to an understanding of an unsafe condition, lots of GI's will be grateful.

    Now, if you're stating that the standard magazine is unsafe simply because that supports your belief that the Army should adopted the PMAG, that's a whole different discussion. Either way, state your case, and get into the dialogue. Tell all of us why the standard magazine is unsafe. I can guarantee you that the Army test community, as well as the Army folks that do safety certifications, will be listening closely to what you have to say. They might have missed something that you can help them understand.

  85. "The whole concept of a magazine that you can put 30 rounds into and still get it into the weapon in a bolt forward situation is pretty much a red herring, IMHO. It ain’t the mag guys, it crap and gunk built up in the magazine well that is the problem. Personally, I’d be more concerned with the time it takes to grab a new mag out of the pouch or cargo pocket and slap it into the weapon as opposed to grabbing a new mag out of the puch or cargo pocket, taking the time to remove the dust cap, and slap it into the weapon."

    Red herring????? This is in the operational lane not in the acquisition lane. Manipulation/tactical employment of the weapon system IS NOT, the lane of acquisition professionals – or non-operators – which is why Combat/Concept Developers exist in the first place (they are all suppose to be former operators who advise, recommend and counsel in the identification of gaps/shortcomings and development of capabilities. That comment is an example of someone NOT KNOWING, the operational/tactical strategic impacts of an acquisition professional with NO TACTICAL EXPERIENCE, making a decision with long lasting tactical implications.

    As to the dust cap comment…the dust cap is an optional use item which nobody – who knows anything about how to manipulate an M4 and conduct the proper manual of arms in a tactical situation – will EVER put on their magazine…so please don't use that as a measure of comparison with an actual manipulation step (i.e. tactical reload)

  86. “The whole concept of a magazine that you can put 30 rounds into and still get it into the weapon in a bolt forward situation is pretty much a red herring, IMHO. It ain’t the mag guys, it crap and gunk built up in the magazine well that is the problem. Personally, I’d be more concerned with the time it takes to grab a new mag out of the pouch or cargo pocket and slap it into the weapon as opposed to grabbing a new mag out of the puch or cargo pocket, taking the time to remove the dust cap, and slap it into the weapon.”

    Red herring????? This is in the operational lane not in the acquisition lane. Manipulation/tactical employment of the weapon system IS NOT, the lane of acquisition professionals – or non-operators – which is why Combat/Concept Developers exist in the first place (they are all suppose to be former operators who advise, recommend and counsel in the identification of gaps/shortcomings and development of capabilities. That comment is an example of someone NOT KNOWING, the operational/tactical strategic impacts of an acquisition professional with NO TACTICAL EXPERIENCE, making a decision with long lasting tactical implications.

    As to the dust cap comment…the dust cap is an optional use item which nobody – who knows anything about how to manipulate an M4 and conduct the proper manual of arms in a tactical situation – will EVER put on their magazine…so please don’t use that as a measure of comparison with an actual manipulation step (i.e. tactical reload)

  87. I can't believe after all this we simply mis understood the message WOW! I have to laugh
    so thats the answer to the mystery? I did learn alot lol
    I have to ask do you men who realy are in combat tactical load bolt forward? or is it a hype thype thing personaly I rather drop the clip **** the bolt and slap a new mag in?
    no?

  88. Kevin O. Moore | June 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

    E Ronc,

    Just wanted to let you know that the "dust cover" on the PMAG, or any commercially available magazine for that matter, is not really where I was heading with that. I've seen a few examples of snap on magazine well covers, as well. I think they are still out there commercially, but I don't think the Army has ever picked them up as an item. I remember folks in Gulf War I were stuffing socks into the magazine wells of unloaded weapons, or sometimes using snap on those magazine well dust covers, just to keep crap out of the receiver. In all cases, I agree common sense tells you to pull those off before going any place but the range. Not real sure about the value of a magazine dust cover for long term storage (whatever that is) of a loaded magazine. Actually not sure anybody (at least in the Army) does long term storage of loaded magazines. Really no reason it can't be done, depending on how long the storage period is, and given the right conditions. Interesting idea, though. Maybe an interesting thing to look at.

  89. Gi George | June 11, 2012 at 6:42 am |

    While we are on the subject of Weapon Magazines did you know that there is a tool out for the Unit Armorer to use to check the serviceability of your rifle magazines? Check it out at PS Magazine PS 700. You will need CAC access.
    You can read the full version at LIW, web page is https://liw.logsa.army.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=l… then click on PS Magazine center of screen, click on the “to scan our index of back issues, select 2011 and look for the March issue. Page 21 will get you there.
    Don’t have CAC, then read the cut and paste version below:

    “The last thing you need in the heat of battle is for a magazine in your M16 rifle or M4/M4A1 carbine to jam. That puts you in the worst possible jam. The Army is fielding a tool that will help identify magazines that need replacing. Order the new tool with NSN 5120-01-574-0036. The tool is not a gage, so you don’t need to worry about having it calibrated. But when the black oxide coating wears off the bearing surfaces of the tool, get it replaced.
    Here’s how to use the tool:
    • Depress the follower with your index finger.
    • Grip the base of the magazine tool with your other hand.
    • Slide the curved channel of the magazine tool along the bolt catch cutout area of the magazine housing.
    • Apply slight pressure to slide the tool through the feed lips. If the GO portion passes through the feed lips freely and the NO GO portion does not pass through the feed lips, the magazine is good to go.

    But if the GO portion won’t pass through because the feed lips are crushed or bent inward or the NO GO portion does pass through because the feed lips are separated, the magazine is a no-go. Don’t try to fix it by bending the feed lips. Get a new magazine, NSN 1005-01-561-7200, from your Armorer.”

    And now back to our next round of high level intellectual discussion and verbal sparring. Take it away soldiers……

  90. JohnnyWarbucks | August 26, 2012 at 6:55 am |

    Certainly wouldn't want our soldiers to have the best. Idiots walking into movie theaters to slaughter innocents have better body armor/ballistic protection than our soldiers. So don't think for one minute that they wouldn't hesitate to split hairs over reliable magazines. I could probably better than guarantee you that somebody's brother's uncle's cousin owns a magazine factory, and that's who they would go with over the more reliable PMAGs. There is always an ulterior motive, a kickback, my friends. Give our soldiers the best. They deserve it. Cut out some of this welfare, undeserved disability, and other crap that the government is the miserable author of and please send my tax dollars to better equip those standing in harms way to protect my freedom and way of life. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

  91. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I heard that the magpul PMAGS in question cannot work in the newer M27 rifles, and that is why those PMAGS were banned: to prevent interchangeability issues. I imagine asking for a magazine and having someone risk their life to give you one only to realize all their magazines are a brand that don't work with your rifle would be…disconcerting.

    Especially considering the way the M27 is going to be employed, where interchangeable magazines with others in the unit is a key part of the idea, it would make sense to ensure compatibility.

  92. You have offered no empirical evidence. Only words. Nothing we can actually reference to prove or disprove your story. Your testimony means nothing without proof. Science, ain't it grand?

Comments are closed.