Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Recommended serious use AR mags?

  1. #71
    King of Craft Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Redneck wonderland
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    I have heard of more issues with the Surefire than the Magpul though.
    The Surefire 60 round mag is the worst AR product I have ever used. I have experience with 4, and none of them worked.
    "BJJ is sort of like nonconsensual yoga"
    "You donít really graduate from certain problems or certain thingsÖ like you always have to work on trigger control and pulling the trigger straight. " --Ben Stoeger 1/24/2018

  2. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    The Surefire 60 round mag is the worst AR product I have ever used. I have experience with 4, and none of them worked.
    Itís definitely one of those purchases that could be filed under not knowing what I didnít know. If I knew then that those things werenít reliable at all, I wouldíve just spent the money on a whole bunch of normal magazines.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  3. #73
    King of Craft Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Redneck wonderland
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    Itís definitely one of those purchases that could be filed under not knowing what I didnít know. If I knew then that those things werenít reliable at all, I wouldíve just spent the money on a whole bunch of normal magazines.
    I bought one to try, and immediately sold it... But two other guys were convinced that they could be made to work. After a lot of fiddling, polishing, dry lube, and lost matches, they finally admitted defeat. I actually won a match because one of these guys' SF60 shit the bed on the last stage. This dude was a high profile sponsored shooter at the time. Did I rub it in? Of course I did.
    "BJJ is sort of like nonconsensual yoga"
    "You donít really graduate from certain problems or certain thingsÖ like you always have to work on trigger control and pulling the trigger straight. " --Ben Stoeger 1/24/2018

  4. #74
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by TWR View Post
    I remember reading about Pmags not dropping free and it was blamed on the mags and out of spec lowers or overloaded or counterfeit mags. If Magpul designed them to seal out dust, they sure were quiet about it.
    Can't speak to the dust thing but back in the Gen1/Gen 2 days, word was the Black Pmags were the strongest and the other colors went away because the chemicals for the other colors weakened the material.

    Gen 1 Pmags were thicker. The issue was less dropping free and more that in some lowers and non AR platforms they would either not insert/ lock-in at all or insert/lock-in when empty but not when loaded as the mags would swell slightly. That was initially resolved with the E-mag. I still have a bunch of black and Foliage green Gen 1 Pmags which are still going strong. I've never seen a Colt or FN lower they would not work in ranging from M16A1's, and M16A3's to Colt Commandos and M4A1's.

    We're at the point where the gen3s fit everything except non standard lowers that have issues with the over insertion tab.

  5. #75
    ď He probably had Gen 1 or Gen 2 PMAGs. They have a thicker body that is purposely intended to fit tighter than USGI or Gen 3 PMAGs. Magpul designed the mags this way to reduce the ingress of dust during field operations....at least, this is how a Magpul rep explained it to me at an expo in 2008 when he was handing out free mags.Ē

    This quote was what I was referring to.

    I never had a Colt not work with a Pmag and that included Gen 1ís and 2ís both tan and black. Iím all Gen 3 now but my go to mags are NHTMG.

  6. #76
    S.L.O.W. ASH556's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Braselton, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by TWR View Post
    ď He probably had Gen 1 or Gen 2 PMAGs. They have a thicker body that is purposely intended to fit tighter than USGI or Gen 3 PMAGs. Magpul designed the mags this way to reduce the ingress of dust during field operations....at least, this is how a Magpul rep explained it to me at an expo in 2008 when he was handing out free mags.Ē

    This quote was what I was referring to.

    I never had a Colt not work with a Pmag and that included Gen 1ís and 2ís both tan and black. Iím all Gen 3 now but my go to mags are NHTMG.
    I have some Gen 1 and Gen 2 PMAGS that wouldnít drop free from a couple different Colt lowers I had that drop just fine from my Daniel Defense SBR lower. It can be a real thing.
    Food Court Apprentice
    Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer

  7. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    One of my many gripes toward the HK416 was its peculiarities toward magazines. Im sure that reasoning makes sense to the no compromise engineers. But when you get boxes of mags, and have to go through them to see what ones fit.

    HK mags also always fit fine in 416s, so do they not do the dust thing with their own stuff?
    Not really on topic with the thread, but a random bit of tidbit about the old HK416 magwell (the new A5 and corresponding MR223A3 have more conventional magwells) from the "U.S. PM and developer at HK for the HKM4 (the early HK416 project name) and HK416 development from Day 1 thru May 2006":

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Schatz
    HK made a mistake using the proprietary HKM4/HK416 mag well (longer) versus the AR-15/M16/M4 industry standard (shorter). They did it for two reasons, one valid one not. For better magazine rigidity and top round alignment for better feeding - valid. The other so the HK SA80 magazine would be used with it to improve/insure the superior function the gun is known for. While correct for functional reasons they did not properly consider the fact that all users would not want to buy and use the more expensive, heavier HK magazine and that downstream it would cause trouble with after market mags. Just the fact that it cannot use standard PMags is enough for some customers to pass on it. This has and is also causing issues in the USMC where they have to make sure the right mag is used in the right rifle (the M27 IAR will not accept their PMags so troops cannot share ammo already loaded). We told the Germans but..... G3Kurz
    Source: https://www.hkpro.com/threads/why-ha...2#post-1075879

    In regards to the more common claim about it really being about being able to use the SA80 blank firing magazine with the round inhibitor:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Schatz
    This is TOTAL FANTASY! Who wrote this? The HK Safety Blank Firing Magazine made for the UK SA80A2 has ZERO/NOTHING to do with the mag well on the HK416. I have already explained this, many times, and again in this threaad. I was the US PM at HK for the concept, development and fielding of the HKM4/HK416. It had nothing to do with the blank magazine. Reread my posts if you want the real story on the mag well. And yes HK's choice of this longer mag well has been and continues to be a mistake.
    Source: https://www.hkpro.com/threads/new-hk...4#post-1100658

  8. #78
    So is STANAG a thing? Or just Unicorn dust?

    I have too many USGI mags to even think about changing over - easily enough to last my lifetime.

  9. #79
    Wannabe Privateer RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Baddest Part of Town...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    So is STANAG a thing? Or just Unicorn dust?

    I have too many USGI mags to even think about changing over - easily enough to last my lifetime.
    Technically, there is no STANAG for rifle magazines.

    Draft STANAG 4179 has been proposed to allow the interchange of 5.56mm magazines between NATO countries. But it has never been ratified. There are, however, a number of magazines that meet that specifications laid out in Draft STANAG 4179, because the draft actually lays out the location and dimensions for the mag latch, and bolt stop, etc. So any magazine that fits into a Draft STANAG 4179 dimensions and functions correctly would technically be STANAG 4179 compliant (if such a thing actually existed).

    So PMags, USGI, etc. can all be "STANAG" mags.
    Seriously guys, are we not doing 'phrasing' anymore?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •