Magpul PMAG

The history of the M16 magazine is almost as tortured as the history of the rifle itself. Originally issued with a straight magazine holding 20 rounds, the current magazine is a half straight, half curved magazine holding 30.

The follower was updated somewhere along the way to the current green version, which has a design that attempts to cure abnormal feeding on short barreled automatic rifles. As the last few rounds made their way to the top of the magazine they would begin to bounce, allowing the follower to tip and causing a malfunction. The newer green follower attempts to keep itself from tipping; it was a poor design, although an improvement upon a worse design.

USGI magazines are typically only loaded to 28 rounds because loading the full 30 makes it nearly impossible to insert the magazine into the rifle when the bolt carrier is forward.

The aluminum construction of the magazine means that it is easily bent. The tabs that hold the follower on can easily break, and often do so on new magazines, or when the floorplate is removed for cleaning.

These magazines are disposable. I've thrown away quite a few of them; it used to be quite painful when they were 30 dollars a piece, and is much easier now that I have easy access to to them at less than one third of that price.

This brings me to the Magpul PMAG. The magazine was developed by Magpul as a product improved M16 magazine, combining some of the best features of the follower that the company had already introduced some years earlier with a more robust material and a better floorplate. The anti-tilt follower brings the improvement of the green follower to its full conclusion. The follower literally cannot tilt.

The floorplate is designed to be easily removed for cleaning. The body is longer to hold 30 rounds without issue.

Another change is the constant curve that the rounds follow. This is possible because of the polymer construction. Previous polymer magazines were weak; some even melted under heavy use. I've been trying to break mine, but it is holding up well. I haven't shot it yet, but others have; some several hundred have already made their way to the Middle East for use by contractors.

Why am I posting this? I was reviewing the infamous dust test when I was reminded that around 30% of the malfunctions that the M4 experienced were magazine related. The SCAR, HK416 and XM8 all use improved magazines. The PMAG is superior in design, and in some cases construction, to all three, particularly the steel magazines.

The last SCAR-L I handled (SHOT Show 2008) used a Magpul follower, despite using the body of an FNC magazine. And the PRI 6.8 mag uses a Magpul follower as well. 6.8 SPC magazines cannot be made from polymer because they will bulge if not made from steel.

Military Feedback.

Contractor Feedback.

Picture:
http://www.magpul.com/catalog/images/pmag1_05.jpg

I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't think it would benefit the community. I'll be trying out the PMAG for my own use, although to say that I have less occasion to use it than others here would be a colossal understatement. Further, I don't have the resources to get a true test going, I'll put the 1500 rounds I have on hand through it and decide whether or not I like it. That said, I think this magazine is going to be a big improvement.

This forum has been used in the recent past to highlight ways to improve the reliability of soldiers weapons. I think that this magazine has the potential to eliminate many of the problems that are blamed on the M4. If nothing else, it is cheap to manufacture. Although I'm not privy to such details, I wouldn't be surprised if it is cheaper than a USGI magazine, and they are readily available for 12 dollars from Brownells, compared to 35 dollars for the HK magazine.

Magpul recently sold production rights to its Masada rifle to Bushmaster Inc. It will be interesting to see where that takes the two.

Members over at Lightfighter.net have conducted some interesting torture tests on this magazine (like driving a B6 Suburban over one) with good results. I haven't handled one yet, but I definitely like the idea of the sight window they've incorporated on the side to give the usr an idea of the remaining round count. I can guesstimate by feel alone, but knowing for sure is a real plus.

I'm wondering if there will be an eventual clarification put out on the street to tell Soldiers and Marines if they can procure Magpul mags in place of USGI ones, or if they are forced to stick with allegedly inferior ones from the armory. There's some potential for this to go down like Dragon-Skin and other commercially-procured armor in theater, but I'm wondering if anyone has seen anything yet.

I've seen a few Soldiers reference using the PMAG, including some who say they were issue items (discretionary funds maybe).

That said, an optimal solution would be government testing. I heard a rumor that the magazine has made its way to Picatinny Arsenal; hopefully that is a step towards formal evaluation.

This touches upon why most of the pundits are wrong about what constitutes a "good" infantry rifle. A modern rifle is a SYSTEM, and to ignore the magazine to weapon interface is a serious mistake.

I disagree with the comment about the magazine being fragile because it is aluminum: You can make aluminum harder than steel, with the correct alloy and hardening treatment, as is demonstrated by the HK mags, which although they are steel, they are much "softer" than USGI mags.

There is also an institutional/cultural dynamic at work, here. While magazines are "supposed" to be disposable, the culture of the US military is to ratchet up property accountability and ratchet down logistics in ways not foreseen by weapons and sub-system designers, leading to failures within the system.

The M60 machinegun, for example, was designed to run with a special lube. However, once it was adopted, the Army decided to drop that particular lube, and M60 rate of failure went up. Even a relatively poorly designed weapon as the M60 operates quite well with the correct type of lubrication.

Excellent point 120mm. I think we as a military do a terrible job of training gunfighters who to acutally perform 1st echelon maintenance and inspection of the serviceability of weapons and other "system-related" equipment like magazines. The company I support just went through a wholesale replacement of magazines because of the number of related failures at a recent live-fire cycle.

It goes back to crap like stretching magazine springs b/c of an ill-informed idea that one needs to do that.

It also goes back to issues (at least in the Marine Corps from what I have seen) of custodians - not armorers - being the first point of friction when a Marine walks up to the window and asks if he can get a few new magazines to replace what he perceives are bad ones.

I even had to pull a Gunnery Sergeant Armory Chief aside when he began ripping a new one in a junior Marine for allowing his Plt Sgt to crush a magazine to render it inoperable and unmistakeably in need of replacement after the Plt Sgt inspected its damaged feed lips.

I even shocked the majority of Marines in my first company when I explained to them that carbeurator clean rifles gouged chrome were not my standard of cleanliness. Free of dirt, rust, and caked carbon were my priorities, and if the q-tip came out with some hazy gray on it, it wasn't the end of the world. It's terribly hard to remove bad habits even when it reduces the workload. Go figure.

I guess it's just one more thing where good small-unit leadership matters.

Use the system the way it was designed and it generally works. Whether the correct system was specified and procured is a different matter...:rolleyes:

I was lucky enough to work the troop test on the M60 at Campbell in 57 and that on the M16 at Bragg in 63. In both cases the recommendation of the division to DA was overrules on political grounds; the M60 to justify Springfield Armory (the original) and the M16 because Colt had contributed to Kennedy's 1960 campaign.

Overcleaning has ruined more weapons than anything else, bar none.

Good leaders get their troops to automatically go into maintenance mode at all lulls and halts; really good and well trained troops do it reflexively and it take only seconds to check all their web gear and weapons...

Good troops also unconsciously count the rounds they've fired (easy to do when you almost never fire on automatic; which is what should happen) and thus don't need holes or clear tracks in their magazines to know the number of rounds remaining. Technology subsituted for training is never a good fix...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I was lucky enough to work the troop test on the M60 at Campbell in 57 and that on the M16 at Bragg in 63. In both cases the recommendation of the division to DA was overrules on political grounds; the M60 to justify Springfield Armory (the original) and the M16 because Colt had contributed to Kennedy's 1960 campaign.

---

Ken,

I find your take on it interesting. I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that some of the old SF hands were among the few who liked the AR15/M16 when it first came out. I thought they seemed to think it suited their needs even if it wasn't a traditional main battle rifle.

My impression was formed from two books: the controversial The New Legions by Donald Duncan; War Story by Jim Morris.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Ken,

I find your take on it interesting. I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that some of the old SF hands were among the few who liked the AR15/M16 when it first came out. I thought they seemed to think it suited their needs even if it wasn't a traditional main battle rifle.

My impression was formed from two books: the controversial The New Legions by Donald Duncan; War Story by Jim Morris.

---

82d was to (1) develop a shortened parachute version of the M14, (2) keep the M14 for worldwide service (3) buy AR-15s For the South Viet Namese (a few were purchased) and (4) buy some AR-15s for 'special purpose units.'

We invited guys over from SWC (7th SF Gp) to take part in the test and they did. The original weapon with the original ammo did better than did the M-16 with that really dumb Bolt Closure Device and the less powerful (and dirtier) powder in the cartridge. The far later move to the hybrid heavy / light barrel and the shorter barreled M4 still using the SS 109 (M855) cartridge was just dumb, though they did dump the ball powder.

The Air Force also wanted the AR-15 because LeMay liked it. :confused:

The Marines did not want it. The rumor that some Marines at the time wanted to bring back the M1903 (the original, straight stock variant) is probably not true. :D

We killed a lot of pigs for the Oscar Meyer packing plant in Fayetteville. The recommendation was predicated mostly on stopping power. A secondary concern was maintenance, tertiary was fragility. I know Division forwarded that to DA recommending approval as did XVIII Abn Corps. We were told DA sent it to DoD and I'm sure that the fact that TRW (who had the M14 contract at the time at $90.00 a copy, cheaper than the M1) had contributed to Nixon's campaign and Colt had contributed to Kennedy's had no bearing on the SecDef's decision in overruling the DAB (who supported the Army) in order to buy the then $274.00 M16. :rolleyes:

Finally 48 years later, the correct magazine is selected.

The company known as Tangodown has developed, with coaching from Big Green, among others within the tactical shooting community, on what kind of magazine is really needed for M4/M16 type rifles.

Observe the thought that went into the construction details:

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a...1/m/2681058363

http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/...e/DSCN0330.JPG