320 and extended magazines

[GJM]

At a match today, my wife went to slide lock with her 320 Legion. She reloaded to a MecGar 21 round magazine with a Taran +2 extension. This caused a serious malfunction, that ultimately made the pistol into a single shot, with her having to force the slide back into battery after every successive shot. At the safe table, after finishing the stage, it was clear the ejector was bent up by inserting the full magazine, and that was preventing the slide from moving back into battery without assistance. This is what it looks like.

65949

140mm magazines are necessary for USPSA CO competition, but I would not want to use an extended magazine for carry that allows vigorous contact with the ejector.

[JonInWA]

I thought we'd pretty much concluded some time ago that extended magazines with the P320 was a major Not A Good Thing, precisely because of the susceptibility to ejector/FCU damage... Best, Jon

[JSGlock34]

I'll be curious to see if this becomes an issue with the M17/M18, considering the provision of the 21 round extended magazines. I think the OEM 21 round basepad is designed to prevent over-insertion with the standard frame, but not sure how this works with X-Carry/Legion frames.

[GJM]

I thought we'd pretty much concluded some time ago that extended magazines with the P320 was a major Not A Good Thing, precisely because of the susceptibility to ejector/FCU damage... Best, Jon

To my knowledge, virtually every single USPSA Carry Optics competitor is using 140mm extensions.

[GJM]

I'll be curious to see if this becomes an issue with the M17/M18, considering the provision of the 21 round extended magazines. I think the OEM 21 round basepad is designed to prevent over-insertion with the standard frame, but not sure how this works with X-Carry/Legion frames.

Probably an issue with the X Compact as well.

Refresh me, what pistol designs are and which are not susceptible to damage from over insertion.

[JSGlock34]

Probably an issue with the X Compact as well.

Refresh me, what pistol designs are and which are not susceptible to damage from over insertion.

I seem to recall the Glock solution to this problem is in the taper of the magazine as opposed to the basepad, and is more effective.

TFB: No, You Cannot Over-insert a Glock Magazine
(https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/20/no-you-cannot-over-insert-a-glock-magazine/)
That said, I think the issue with the SIG is not so much that over insertion can be a problem but that the design does not allow for the ejector to be replaced without replacing the entire FCU.

[HCM]

I thought we'd pretty much concluded some time ago that extended magazines with the P320 was a major Not A Good Thing, precisely because of the susceptibility to ejector/FCU damage... Best, Jon

Specifically @Gadberry and three our our co-workers.

[John Hearne]

Does anyone remember the original 20 round magazines for the P226? They had a tab welded to the magazine body to prevent over-insertion. Almost like there was a reason for it.

[HCM]

I seem to recall the Glock solution to this problem is in the taper of the magazine as opposed to the basepad, and is more effective.

TFB: No, You Cannot Over-insert a Glock Magazine
(https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/20/no-you-cannot-over-insert-a-glock-magazine/)
That said, I think the issue with the SIG is not so much that over insertion can be a problem but that the design does not allow for the ejector to be replaced without replacing the entire FCU.

It's not the taper of the Glock mag, rather, there is a small square shelf on Glock mags where it transitions from straight to taper which acts as an over-insertion stop. I think it would be tough to replicate in a metal mag.

The integral ejector of the 320 is definitely the bigger issue vs the basepad stop design.

[HCM]

Does anyone remember the original 20 round magazines for the P226? They had a tab welded to the magazine body to prevent over-insertion. Almost like there was a reason for it.

The factory 21 round P320 mags and the various extended P365/365XL mags have the same thing except its part of the polymer baseplate.

[HCM]

I'll be curious to see if this becomes an issue with the M17/M18, considering the provision of the 21 round extended magazines. I think the OEM 21 round basepad is designed to prevent over-insertion with the standard frame, but not sure how this works with X-Carry/Legion frames.

Apparently it is an issue. All three of the other ICE duty guns dead-lined with bent ejectors by over-inserting factory 21 round mags into X full size frames.

I have similar concerns about the mags with the OEM legion base plate.

[JonInWA]

I'm specifically just using the appropriate magazines with the appropriate frame-e.g., my Compact frame just gets used with Compact 15 round magazines, not the 17 round (or larger) Full-Size magazines. Problem averted.

If I situationally need more rounds, I'll perform a reload with a fresh magazine, as opposed to trying to shoehorn a larger magazine into the gun.

Best, Jon

[98z28]

The Wilson Combat carry-size frame (compact dust cover and 17-round sized grip) is good to go with factory 21-round magazines. The plastic in the grip and magazine baseplate prevent the magazine from contacting the ejector in a way that would cause damage.

It sounds like there is a market opportunity for 140mm extended baseplates that prevent over insertion on X/Legion and Wilson 320 grip modules.