Army bans the PMAG. good job, Army

[fuse]

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

[EMC]

I'll attempt to summarize the speculation about the reasons for this that are on TOS:

Speculative reasons:

1. Prevent Private Joe Snuffy from buying the cheapest most horrible polymer mag substitute because he heard that polymer mags are the best.

2. PMAGs crack at temperatures that will never be reached except when we decide to fight the future soviet union over some space colonies.

3. They just don't fit the pouches man!

4. Can't have any competition against the new brown follower enhanced aluminum mags.

5. Polymer mags don't sound like broken dancing robots when empty, and that's just no fun.

Did I catch everything? Feel free to add to the list.

[Corlissimo]

Hmmm... I wonder if any of the TACOM staff are descendants of the same folks who said the original M16 didn't need a chromed chamber, or who decided that the ammunition should use ball powder instead of stick powder, and then decided that issuing cleaning kits and instruction were also unnecessary. :rolleyes:

Really liked this part:

“The magazines still get bent at the opening and are still prone to getting crushed in the middle. I haven’t seen any issues like this with the PMAG due to the polymer casing. I have seen an empty PMAG get run over by a MaxPro [vehicle] and operated flawlessly later that week when we tested it at the range. Last time I saw this happen to a standard issue magazine, it was scrap metal after that.”

Kinda says it all.

[jstyer]

Come on guys... EVERYBODY knows that plastic is weaker than metal. I mean if it was that good, why wouldn't they use it in modern firearms?

[JHC]

Some folks with more experience than my light duty PMAG exposure weigh in here. Not all of them think this is a bad idea.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=104826

[fuse]

I would say the makers of government contract aluminum mags have figured out who to bribe. Time to catch up and pay up, lancer and magpul.

[jstyer]

Jack had probably the best post of everyone in that thread. If Jack says Pmags are GTG, that's honestly all I need to hear.

That being said, I have a little over 7000 rounds strictly through Pmags, and I've yet to experience a mag induced failure, or get a dud mag. I usually run them for a couple months and then chuck them. If you like to run your magazines up front and you hit the dirt decently hard, I'd go for Pmags as they're impervious to denting.

If your stuff doesn't get crunched too often and you're good about throwing out worn out magazines, I don't see how you'd really notice much difference one way or the other.

[JSGlock34]

Meh. I have USGI (Okay) magazines and I have PMAGs. I've run PMAGs in carbine courses and have never had a magazine related problem. I've yet to see reports of PMAGs performing poorly in the field (at least the black ones). Most of the discussion elsewhere is that the updated aluminum USGI mags are perfectly serviceable and available at a lower cost to the unit, not that PMAGs spontaneously explode in the midst of firefights.

Unfortunately, I think in some circles all polymer magazines (regardless of manufacturer) are being referred to as 'PMAGs' and Magpul's product is being unfairly maligned. Still, the PMAG isn't the answer to everything. With the introduction of the M27 IAR, I can also see the USMC not wanting to have a variety of magazines at the unit level.

[Suvorov]

I smell a big old rat. :(

[TCinVA]

I've heard rumors about durability issues with pmags but I've never seen them or solid evidence of such personally.

[orionz06]

Is this really that big of a deal?

[Odin Bravo One]

Concur.

What is the big deal? Other than someone wanting to sell stories and create drama.

It's just a magazine. And while it probably doesn't help MagPul's bottom line and profit margin, there are alternatives.

[Tamara]

Concur.

What is the big deal?

This.

People get their egos way too wrapped up in their gear.

I'm cool with my pmags because I don't take then to the North Pole or dunk them in solvent tanks. Coincidentally, I don't do that with my GI mags, either. Somehow my identity as a human is not threatened by this news. :rolleyes:

[ToddG]

Plenty of people have invested a lot of money in their PMAGs. To find out that the .mil has "banned" them suggests that there is some kind of problem with them, so it's completely understandable that legions of satisfied customers -- many of whom have used them extensively and successfully in war zones -- are dismayed or even angered over the decision.

Personally, I couldn't care less what mags the US Military buys as long as they work. Nor will its decision to stop using PMAGs shake my faith in the dozen or so I own.

[Odin Bravo One]

Plenty of people have invested a lot of money in their PMAGs. To find out that the .mil has "banned" them suggests that there is some kind of problem with them, so it's completely understandable that legions of satisfied customers -- many of whom have used them extensively and successfully in war zones -- are dismayed or even angered over the decision.



Perhaps. But as an extensive user of PMag's, I am not dismayed, angered, surprised, or even care what the Army chooses to allow, or not allow.

If someone interprets this decision as a slam against Pmags, and therefore a slam against their chosen equipment, therefore a slam against them personally.....coming from the US Army, I would consider that a compliment.

[orionz06]

Does the army supply GI mags or are soldiers obligated to buy their own?

[Odin Bravo One]

They are supplied.

But the cultural aspect is that they encourage the purchase of non-issued equipment by packing every PX with non-issued equipment. At the PX complexes, there are entire gear stores that rival any internet wholesaler with the latest and greatest gadgets, gizmos, pouches, packs, and weapon accessories.

Then the Army writes volumes of regulations that allow one item, then prohibit an identical item made with more attention to detail, and better quality components, and construction because it is not "Issued".

The sheer level of retardation exhibited by the Army when it comes to equipment selection should be enough to make just about anyone roll their eyes and mutter "Whatever" when they hear the Army has banned yet another piece of equipment, regardless of how good it has proven to be.

[orionz06]

They are supplied.

That is what I thought. Not really seeing issues here then. GI mags are just fine. I understand there to be struggles with getting enough mags and that is why soldiers I personally know were buying their own but I am not sure I see problems beyond that. Maybe this goes to show how well Magpul has marketed the mags.


But the cultural aspect is that they encourage the purchase of non-issued equipment by packing every PX with non-issued equipment. At the PX complexes, there are entire gear stores that rival any internet wholesaler with the latest and greatest gadgets, gizmos, pouches, packs, and weapon accessories.

Then the Army writes volumes of regulations that allow one item, then prohibit an identical item made with more attention to detail, and better quality components, and construction because it is not "Issued".

The sheer level of retardation exhibited by the Army when it comes to equipment selection should be enough to make just about anyone roll their eyes and mutter "Whatever" when they hear the Army has banned yet another piece of equipment, regardless of how good it has proven to be.
I understand this and I do disagree in large with banning the Pmag but I see no reason to be upset. The FBI doesn't issue my current carry gun and no one cool is using the sights either. Oh well, life goes on.

[jmjames]

The sheer level of retardation exhibited by the Army when it comes to equipment selection should be enough to make just about anyone roll their eyes and mutter "Whatever" when they hear the Army has banned yet another piece of equipment, regardless of how good it has proven to be.

I agree... yet, whether or not something is "mil spec" or "current issue" (et al etc. etc. etc.) is so often used as "proof" of something in Internet gear debates. :D

J.Ja

[David Armstrong]

They are supplied.

But the cultural aspect is that they encourage the purchase of non-issued equipment by packing every PX with non-issued equipment. At the PX complexes, there are entire gear stores that rival any internet wholesaler with the latest and greatest gadgets, gizmos, pouches, packs, and weapon accessories.

Then the Army writes volumes of regulations that allow one item, then prohibit an identical item made with more attention to detail, and better quality components, and construction because it is not "Issued".

The sheer level of retardation exhibited by the Army when it comes to equipment selection should be enough to make just about anyone roll their eyes and mutter "Whatever" when they hear the Army has banned yet another piece of equipment, regardless of how good it has proven to be.
I remember being told that I was not allowed to put my own personal purchase A2 (round) handguards on my issue M16 because it was an A1 version and could only be carried with the A1 (triangular) handguards.:rolleyes:

[fuse]

I've heard rumors about durability issues with pmags but I've never seen them or solid evidence of such personally.

the rumors are true. PMAGs are magazines.

[Johnny Thujone]

My last trip in uniform overseas i used a mix-match of USGI, Lancer, and pmags.

If pmags were left in my gear for more than a couple days, the top couple rounds wound NEVER feed properly. On any of them. (This was due to HEAVY loads of dirt and debris.) USGI and Lancer mags had zero malfunctions. (At least, none that stand out in my memory, i didn't exactly keep a data book and ask the indians to stop hucking their arrows and spears whenever i needed to jot something down.) Since, i've phased out pmags in favor of USGI.

I don't see the issue with this. Pmags don't solve any problems that arise when using quality USGI mags that are within their service life. If some joe (Or boot, for my side of the house.) wants to run out and spend a quarter of their paycheck on unneeded magazines, they're dumb. There's plenty of strip clubs and tattoo shops surrounding their duty station where the money would be better spent.

[SGT_Calle]

There's plenty of strip clubs and tattoo shops surrounding their duty station where the money would be better spent.

http://img.tapatalk.com/18605e15-cd77-e060.jpg

[Al T.]

One thing overlooked is that junk magazines are also not authorized - think Orlites and Tapco.

[Chuck Haggard]

This is only an issue for the guys who have bought P-Mags to carry because their issued mags suck. The issued mags suck normally because either they are worn out and thier supply chain refuses to DX a magazine, or the mags have been abused by retards, or both.

On top of dropping gear so that the mags take the impact, or dropping other gear on the mags, one of the worst things Joe does to mags is when they have to download them. Most guys haven't a freaking clue on how to unload a mag. I have commonly seen guys flipping the bullet end of the round upwards with their thumb, rocking the round out of the mags in an upward arc. This is far easier to do than pushing them out with your thumb as they are designed to feed so that what a lot of guys do. Everybody I have shown how to properly download a mag using a tool to depress the second round in the stack, such as a ball round or a Glock tool, thinks I am a magician.

Back in the day before there was anything but GI mags we stretched the springs to get more life out of them for that day (when you are the guy that has to run the range for the entire battalion and you have to deal with what guys are carrying when they show up you do what you have to do to get by).

When green followers came along I used those and Ken Elmore's super springs to upgrade all of my mags. Those mags still work just fine.

I'm not an M4carbine forum SME and never will make that grade, but I have used the M16/AR15 system for better than 30 years now, some of it in rather hard use. I personally prefer the P-Mags to GI mags, but I have bet my life on GI mags before and have no issues with doing so again.

[Odin Bravo One]

This is only an issue for the guys who have bought P-Mags to carry because their issued mags suck. The issued mags suck normally because either they are worn out and thier supply chain refuses to DX a magazine, or the mags have been abused by retards, or both.


This is a VERY REAL problem and concern. And I can understand not wanting to blindly use what was handed to you, especially if what is handed to you sucks. But Joe can still go out and buy GI mags, which are authorized, and work just fine. And hopefully still have enough money left over for some tattoos. Which I am also a huge fan of.

[fuse]

Isn't it tough to find 'true' government contact mags? And aren't there alot of shitty aluminum mags that look just like those that are desirable and marketed as USGI?

Seems like very few grunts are going to make a thread on m4carbine trying to figure out what aluminum mags are gtg and currently available.

With pmags, if a soldier was relatively switched on, he at least had a relatively safe bet, and one that was always available.

And LOL at "I don't need lube, I have pmags." no words.

[jlw]

The Army is banning the PMAG and the Marines are issuing Serpas. My head shakes in disbelief, and my heart is filled with sadness.

[JMS]

Is this really that big of a deal?

The big deal lies primarily in the flaws in the information upon which the policy is based.

The test is years old, and was kind of like getting a medical diagnosis, in that, if one dislikes the diagnosis one gets.....keep picking different specialists until you get diagnosed with the disease you WANT to have.

[Tamara]

the rumors are true. PMAGs are magazines.

I LOL'ed. :D

[Odin Bravo One]

The big deal lies primarily in the flaws in the information upon which the policy is based.


If it were truly that big of a deal, then it would be changed.

Simple fact is that the military makes these types of decisions 100 times per day, regarding all manner of equipment. Reality is that they don't care.

In addition to using flawed tests, outdated data, test results that are skewed in order to favor the outcome they desire, they typically appoint "Combat experienced senior officers" to positions of influence. These men are generally recognized for their multiple tours of duty in "combat", (these days in Iraq and Afghanistan), where they served as Operations Officers, Executive Officers, Chief's of Staff, Commanding Officer's, etc. All positions that are rewarded and recognized by awarding numerous Bronze Stars, Combat Infantryman's Badge/Combat Action Badge, and are well inside layers upon layers of defensive perimeters, where the biggest danger they were exposed to was a burnt steak during "Surf and Turf" night at the local DFAC.

Staff officers involved in policy creation/decisions with actual combat experience (meaning active participant in gun battles), and/or vast other experience relating to the topic of policy (in this case small arms accessories) are a rare exception. They are out there, and get to do the job long enough to make one or two major policy decisions, then they move to their next assignment.

On occasion, these men making the decisions are hampered by their own ineptness, and encouraged by an institution that promotes their incompetence. More often though, is that these men and women are hampered by ignorance. Not as a character flaw, but as the nature of the beast in the professional development of a staff officer. These problems are an institutional failure, but until the institution recognizes the process that leads to failure, the failures will continue. In an institution that is over 200 years old, radical change is unlikely.

The less than 10% who do the actual fighting within small arms range will find a way to get past the silly policies and bans. They always have, and always will.

The loudest complaints will continue to come from the other 90% who splatter their Facebook pages with their war faces, are the first to crawl into the bunkers when they hear a door slam, and the closest they will ever come to actual combat comes from the TNT Memorial Day war movie marathon.

[jstyer]

In an institution that is over 200 years old, radical change is unlikely.

The less than 10% who do the actual fighting within small arms range will find a way to get past the silly policies and bans. They always have, and always will.

The loudest complaints will continue to come from the other 90% who splatter their Facebook pages with their war faces, are the first to crawl into the bunkers when they hear a door slam, and the closest they will ever come to actual combat comes from the TNT Memorial Day war movie marathon.

Boom.

[Kyle Reese]

I still see plenty of soldiers using PMAGs as of an hour ago. Guess the memo didn't get passed down.

[Shokr21]

I had an issue with the gi mags I was issued before my deployment in 2010. They sucked would not feed reliably and would not reliably fall from the mag well.

I took matters into my own hands when I was refused a request for new magazines...I destroyed the crappy mags. It's pretty simple really, a good boot stomp renders a gi mag quite obviously ruined. If a boot stomp didn't work, an 1114 rolling over them sure did.

My squad ldr was impressed with my ingenuity so much that he followed suit with his crappy mags. Our plt sgt and supply sgt were not so happy, as they had to actually open the box of hundreds of new in wrap gi mags. They had new mags, but were just unwilling to hand them out!

Pmags are nice, I have about a dozen or so of my own, bought 'em overseas for $10.50 a piece, wish I would have bought 3-4 dozen. But I came home with 2 dozen or so brand new gi mags too. However, pmags are not the end all be all. GI mags work just fine with proper rotation and use of a garbage can on occassion. Mags are just as exhaustible as gloves and often times cheaper than gloves, why people grow an insane love affair with mags is beyond me. They stop working you throw the in the trash can or mark them appropriately as range mags only for a little malfunction drilling.

The butt-hurtness over this memo is beyond me, to say the least.

[DocGKR]

SeanM, best post I've seen on this subject in a while...BZ!

[JMS]

If it were truly that big of a deal, then it would be changed.

Yeah, more or less what I was going for, though I didn't take the time to articulate it. You did way better, particularly with the "will find a way" aspect.

[TGS]

Guess the memo didn't get passed down.

Did you see the memo? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flsg4GMQxQ)

809

[Chemsoldier]

There is a legitimate issue when many units use unit funds to buy the magazines. Supply system magazines are cheaper and come out of a different pot of money than outside purchases. The purchase of Off The Shelf equipment is costing a lot of money. I dont just mean a lot I mean A LOT. Sorry, we cant all be SOF and buy whatever the unit wants, the force would be too expensive. I know, I know, nothing is too expensive for our boys...then cough up more taxes or give us less missions so we can reduce the size of the force and spend more per soldier.

As to not allowing soldiers to use their own magazines. I think it is a BS move, but there is a work around. The CoC can simply fail to enforce the message and allow privately purchased magazines to be used. If called out they can play dumb and say "It has a national stock number." That is what I would do. There is ample precedent to buy after market gear on your own dime for everything that goes on your rack, the magazines are perceived as part of that by most people.

The military is an entity of millions of people, you cannot have a regimented system of millions of people without non-sense entering into the equation. It is amazing considering the number of people and its diverse missions and structures that it can even function, let alone that it regularly kicks ass.

Additional: While I think that having combat experienced people involved in policy and procurement is absolutely vital, I would remind people that it is not the only criteria for making decisions about these matters. How many of you know someone who has seen the elephant, perhaps is even a genuine BAMF, who had one issue one time with a particular firearm or firearm accessory and is convinced to the core of their being from then until eternity that anything remotely to do with that item is utter crap? You know the guy, he is military and LE vet who has killed more people than polio but once had a range malfunction with a blahblah pistol that was 15 years old when the company had a bad run and the gun had been run over by a duece and a half and it malfunctioned once....and he concludes that any gun from even the same manufacturer is junk. Vastly experienced people, even ones that are not knee jerk like described above are still capable of making bad decisions.

[Suvorov]

The moment I watched my battalion commander thumb cock his M9 and then put a round into the dirt 3 feet in front of the 7 yard pop up target during pre-deployment weapons qualification AFTER he chewed me out for wasting his and our soldiers time on a well prepared combat handgun course of instruction (they had EEO and retention meetings to attend after all), is the moment I realized that most of the officers and NCOs who are calling the shots in the Army:
1) have ZERO personal weapons skills and have no desire to change this.
2) care nothing about their soldiers' individual weapons skills as long as the "qualified" box gets checked at the end of the day.
3) would rather waste 100 times the amount of ammo in combat than it would take to properly train their troops in peace time.
So when I hear that the PMAG has been banned, the only thing that surprises me is that people high enough to make such decisions are even aware of its existence - which is why I tend to smell a rat.

[DocGKR]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

Army Now Says No Ban on Rifle Magazines

Jun 07, 2012

Military.com| by Matthew Cox

The Pentagon has clarified the Army’s stance on a recent safety message that effectively banned a certain high-performance, commercial M4 magazine, which means soldiers can keep using their PMAGs.

The confusion began when Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a message in April, declaring that the only government-issued aluminum magazines were authorized for use in the M4 and M16 rifles.

TACOM officials released the message to address reports of Army units using “unauthorized” commercial, polymer magazines such as the popular PMAG, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp., in 2007. The decision left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has demonstrated its extreme reliability in combat and has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

Army officials acknowledged June 6 that TACOM’s message was poorly written and not intended as a directive on the use of PMAGs. Matthew Bourke, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon responding to questions from Mililtary.com, said the message should have included guidance that the final decision rests with commanders in the field.

“At best, the message is incomplete; at worst the message allows soldiers to jump to the wrong conclusions,” Bourke said. “Maintenance Information Messages [from TACOM] are permissive. They are not an order. They are not a directive. All content and direction in those messages are optional for the recipient.”

Army officials maintain that TACOM’s message was intended to make soldiers aware that not all commercial magazines have gone through the same testing as the improved magazine, but concede that there are exceptions.

“The main message we want to get out is – although the Army does support and is confident in the improved, tan-follower magazine – we don’t want soldiers to fear punishment for using PMAGs,” Bourke said.

[orionz06]

Wait, so P-mags are high performance? Really? WTF?

[WDW]

All I run is P mags. Actually, the last time I was in Iraq or Co. Gunny issued us all a Pmag. Really surprised the Army banned them outright.