StealthyBlagga Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Hey blagga, not sure where you got your info about problems in cold weather test bro. Pmags worked just fine for me at -51 degrees F. I know, I was testing them. No issues with bug dope either. Dissolves? Really...... I am not .mil, but was relayed the following info from a .mil report published late 2011: ...Background. Two documents on limited tests conducted by the US Army and one Magazine Comparison Test conducted by Program Manager (PM) Infantry Weapons (IW), MARCORSYSCOM provides information on commercial magazines. a. The first document is a Memorandum dated 9 October 2008 prepared by the US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (ARDEC) in response to an Unsolicited Proposal (UP) 20080-13 submitted by Magpul Industries Corporation for the Magpul PMAG 30 Round 5.56mm Composite Magazine. b. The second document is a report for an M4 Long Life Barrel Test conducted by the US Army Developmental Test Command (ADTC) dated July of 2009. ... 3. Discussion a. ARDEC Test Findings Rough Handling Test. Four fully loaded PMAGs were dropped from five feet after conditioning at -60�F. All magazines had damaged/cracked feed lips with one to three rounds ejected after the first drop. Chemical Compatibility Test. PMAGs were immersed in MIL-L-46000B (Lubricant, Semi-Fluid Automatic Weapons [LSA]) and DEET Insect Repellent. All magazines showed stress crazing/cracking following immersion. ... b. The ADTC M4 Long Life Barrel Test included a Magazine Subtest. The following table provides stoppage percentages after firing of 3,000 rounds per magazine. Magazine Stoppages H&K SA80 2.13% Magpul PMAG 1.75% Standard GI Magazine (Green Follower) 1.88% Improved GI Magazine (Tan Follower) 1.25% ... Reading other discussion on this subject, I see MagPul countering that these magazines may have been older revisions etc. etc. Perhaps, and we could quibble all day about this test or that test - MagPul excels at producing impressive YouTube videos - but I can quite understand why the .mil doesn't feel inclined to keep retesting every new iteration of PMAG just to see if it can pass their requirements when the data in their hands indicate they do not represent a quantum leap over existing magazines. I am sure that under many circumstances the PMAG can perform better than aluminum GI mags (notably in warmer climates like the ME), but I can also understand why Big Army is reluctance to complicate their supply chain with a product that apparently has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction to fully meet all current operational requirements. IMHO the decision is far from "stupid" or "corrupt" as some imply. On a personal level, as an RO I have seen plenty of PMAGs malfunction at major matches, so I know they are not perfect. I still love my PMAGs; I live in AZ, not AK, and my application are far less demanding than those of the .mil. PMAGs will continue to feature in my 3-gun kit, especially if huge number are sold off cheap as unwanted milsurp. Edited May 28, 2012 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langenator Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Politics and money. If the DoD doesn't come around, operators will continue to use P-Mags anyway... Well, SOCOM is it's own little world. They've even got all the FN mags that came with the Mk. 16s (SCAR-L), which aren't the standard issue, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepswithdogs Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Reading other discussion on this subject, I see MagPul countering that these magazines may have been older revisions etc. etc. Perhaps, and we could quibble all day about this test or that test - MagPul excels at producing impressive YouTube videos - but I can quite understand why the .mil doesn't feel inclined to keep retesting every new iteration of PMAG just to see if it can pass their requirements when the data in their hands indicate they do not represent a quantum leap over existing magazines. I am sure that under many circumstances the PMAG can perform better than aluminum GI mags (notably in warmer climates like the ME), but I can also understand why Big Army is reluctance to complicate their supply chain with a product that apparently has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction to fully meet all current operational requirements. IMHO the decision is far from "stupid" or "corrupt" as some imply. On a personal level, as an RO I have seen plenty of PMAGs malfunction at major matches, so I know they are not perfect. I still love my PMAGs; I live in AZ, not AK, and my application are far less demanding than those of the .mil. PMAGs will continue to feature in my 3-gun kit, especially if huge number are sold off cheap as unwanted milsurp. And that's what I like about you, your ability to see the best in this situation, unlike people like me who having heard so many military procurement follies, and having lived in S. Florida, home of modern pessimism, I tend to be a bit jaded, and view much with a caution, and a bit of a cynical eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JQ- Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 THe bug juice that I use..bought at Wally-bass-box store is 99% DEET...deep woods off is ~30 maybe (not looking at cans right now)...that stuff will eat plastics with single exposures eg cheap watches will be toast. I never apply it near anything downwind...tent, car etc. I hate bugs more than I love my liver I would not get it on MY Pmags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diablodawg Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 And Army TACOM has no jurisdiction over the Marines, so the SOUM doesn't effect them. The Marines can still use PMAGs, HKs, Lancers, whatever. Just like the Marines can wear Vibram 5-Fingers for PT, and the Army can't. Not true. PMAGs are banned for Marines as well, due to incompatibility with IARs. And the 5 fingers thing is hilarious... why the lack of concentration on fat soldiers vice footwear is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskapopo Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 This decision ranks right up there with the military not wanting to use repeating rifles because they feared the soldiers would waste ammunition. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon9 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Maybe it will motivate Magpul to release something different to draw in more of the civilian population.......like the 40rd mag we've all been hearing about for a couple of years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUBL Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Probably a Military mess up (SNAFU)....the PMAG was (key word here...."was") authorized, but all the others that sorta kinda looked like the PMAG were not. It's easy to just say "all polymer" or "only metallic authorized".....makes it cut and dry to all our boys. Bet we see that reversed within 6 months, when they figure out just how many PMAG's they have and have order's for. That is....unless it's part of the EPA's evil plan to ban all plastics made from crude. Go Figure. Guess I called this one right Army Now Says No Ban on Rifle Magazines 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. Edited June 7, 2012 by TRUBL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrUnderwood08 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Down range now... have not heard anything about this ban yet but its bound to hit us sooner or later. There are a lot of soldiers walking around with nothing but PMAGs here. Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrUnderwood08 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) REMOVED DUPLICATE POST Edited June 10, 2012 by MrUnderwood08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1chota Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Apparently there was a backlash, so this is dated June 7, 2012. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html?ESRC=eb.nl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DyNo! Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 It wasn't like anyone was going to listen to them anyways. Guess they're going to have to figure out what to do with all of those magazines they bought that no one wants to use... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocMedic Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Guess they're going to have to figure out what to do with all of those __Insert army equipment here__ they bought that no one wants to use... Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinsonbeach Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I don't like P-mags either, but leave it to the Gov/Mil to just come off the wall w/o justification...especially considering those deployed have to bring lots of their own "stuff" because the Mil won't/can't supply them. How do we get one of those fat-assed, pencil-pushing, bean-counters out into the field & chat them up in, oh, say about 3 weeks? -jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now