Probably true...how many companies is that? One?
The Big M4 Myth
- Thread starter blackout
- Start date
Probably true...how many companies is that? One?
I'm pretty sure CanAm carries three different kinds of aftermarket, and then there's the OEM SAN mags.
Very true, however, the QM and Wpns techs do not like seeing mags turned in that were "accidentally crushed. To be fair, the majority of Wpns Techs would take action when it was brought up that a mag was done. A lot of QM's it seemed only cared about maintaining their numbers and not having to bring in new stuff. Mind you, I was Armour not infantry. I would hope it was/is different in the Bn's.
Interesting...I just see the one, unless each colour is designed and built by a different manufacturer.
That's all fine and dandy but I'm going to take my leave of this thread, I did not come here to start a pissing match. All I tried to do was explain that the relation between a rifle design and the magazine design is more important than the manufacture quality of the magazines.
While that may be true, I haven't seen any evidence that there is a problematic relationship between the AR and its magazines, design-wise.
I have only seen issues from extremely poorly built mags, and from totally worn-out mags. I use standard GI mags with no issues; I know several high-speed people who have gone back to GI mags from PMags. They work very reliably.
The problem is that people in Canada are often using LAR mags, which are pretty lousy, or have hung on to mags way past their due date because they're expensive up here, or traditionally have been. Or they are using garbage mags from 10 years ago because 10 years ago hardly anybody knew what a good mag was and what a bad mag was.
As Misanthropist posted, its not the design of the magazine, its the poor quality construction and worn mags being used when they shouldn't be. That's not a design issue.
TDC
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
How did this thread turn into a San Vs AR thread? Oh, right.... 
I guess Panonne's article proves the point that certain parts enhance reliability in extremely dirty rifles, but 2000 rounds through an AR without cleaning it doesn't really mean much to 99% of shooters.
I would hazard a guess that the shooters on this board who run more than 500 rounds a session through their rifles is actually quite low. So for the majority of users, if they keep their well built AR reasonably clean and run it wet they shouldn't have a problem. If I had a lot of cash to blow, sure I'd get all the go fast parts, but for what reason? The most rounds I've ever put through my rifle in one session is probably just over 400. At around that time I find I'm usually just having fun wasting ammo. My rifle runs just fine. In fact, it's the most reliable rifle I've ever owned. Period. It doesn't have a FA bolt, or an H buffer, or an extractor doughnut. But it's built right (which I learned the hard way), I run it WET and I clean it after I shoot it.
I guess Panonne's article proves the point that certain parts enhance reliability in extremely dirty rifles, but 2000 rounds through an AR without cleaning it doesn't really mean much to 99% of shooters.
I would hazard a guess that the shooters on this board who run more than 500 rounds a session through their rifles is actually quite low. So for the majority of users, if they keep their well built AR reasonably clean and run it wet they shouldn't have a problem. If I had a lot of cash to blow, sure I'd get all the go fast parts, but for what reason? The most rounds I've ever put through my rifle in one session is probably just over 400. At around that time I find I'm usually just having fun wasting ammo. My rifle runs just fine. In fact, it's the most reliable rifle I've ever owned. Period. It doesn't have a FA bolt, or an H buffer, or an extractor doughnut. But it's built right (which I learned the hard way), I run it WET and I clean it after I shoot it.
Last edited:
ADCOR tested two uppers with HP white laboratory Inc testing. 6000 rounds on both uppers. No stoppages or malfunctions. They did add oil every 600 and let it cool down. DI/Piston hybrid. Seems to work. Three round .88 moa group at 100 yards after the testing using 69smk.
Everything breaks with time and use, metal deforms over certain thermal and physical stress cycles, hence why the pmags are so popular.
I believe the term for that is updating & refinement, sometimes things arent perfect off the start, so you revise and update till you are as close to the ideal design, how many times have you seen a functional pmag induce failure on a quality ar15?
You're missing my point, I never said pmags didn't work. I merely mean that the design with the original magazine is the weak link in the AR platform.
Ztunelover answered your question. Improvements are and should be constant. GI mags work, but Pmags are an improvement on materials and design that last longer with more consistent dimensions due to manufacture process. They are still consumable/disposable.
Not a design issue, that is a training issue. All parts wear and will eventually fail. If the user chooses to ignore known replacement intervals then that is not on the design.
TDC
- Location
- Canada, west
The quality mags I've seen fail where training mags used for years. Imagine falling prone on your mags 100 times a day for a month straight...of course some of your mags are gonna wear out, bend feed lips, I'm sure even SAN mags would fail, maybe sooner than a quality USGI mag who knows? The average shooter will never subject their mags to that abuse and will never find out.
What if that's not the end user's decision to make?
I don't care how well trained you are, if replacements aren't available then its going to be tough to keep the gun running.
And it is a design flaw when relatively expensive components like magazines, and even bolt carriers, have to be replaced more often than other systems under hard use.
That might not matter to a civilian or a smaller organization, but for the U.S. military its an ongoing concern.
