US Army Brass bans Magpul mags

[Four Fingers of Death]

Not cast boolits, but definetely military rifles:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/05/25/in-reversal-army-bans-high-performance-rifle-mags.html?ESRC=army.nl

Makes no kinda sense.

[John Boy]

The Army has ordered that soldiers may use only government-issued magazines with their M4 carbines
If I was to venture a guess, one or more military contractors of the aluminum magazines complained to TACOM

[shdwlkr]

Does anyone know if the military even authorized the use of the magpol magazine? Been known in the past to get the brass's shorts in a twist.

Another issue is how much was or is magpol charging for their mags. I know I can usually pick up the aluminum ones for around $10 each from time to time.

Still another issue the brass might not have even known they made ploymer mags that are so much better than the aluminum ones.

Then when talking about military brass and intelligence the two many times don't go together.

[bootsnthejeep]

I have a friend that just mustered out of the Navy after a stint as a Drone driver in Afghanistan. He was working deals for case lots of PMags from a gun shop owning friend back home because the Marines he was stationed with needed more PMags as their issue military mags continued to **** out because they couldn't take the abuse. They were getting them for about twelve bucks a piece, and the grunts were paying for them out of their own pocket so they could have decent equipment.

And, ban or not, that will most likely continue out where the Army actually puts foot to ***. Oddly enough, the pencil pushing brass that make these kind of imbecilic decisions don't seem to spend much time out at the FOBs or in harm's way in general.

[bootsnthejeep]

I mean, the aluminum mags are allegedly "cheaper". But let's say that in a extreme environment you smoke thru them at two or three times the rate of a PMag. Are they really 1/3 the cost?

And naturally, if the aluminum mags are half-price, let's say Uncle Sam buys them for $10 a whack. So they must only cost about two bucks to make. And if full boat retail on a PMag is $20, that must mean the Army units that are buying them must be paying $40 a piece for them thru the GSA, so I suppose the brass has a point. The aluminum mags ARE cheaper!

The very sort of decision made by somebody that the worst double feed they ever encountered was in their stapler.

[wtfooptimax200]

Good idea....take the best equipment on the market and tell our soldiers that they cannot use it due to cost. Maybe we should eliminate the use of high tech guided missiles since they are surely more expensive than the unguided missiles. We could also buy surplus Mosin Nagants and issue those, they are definitely cheaper than M4s, they don't require magazines (another cost savings), and they would surely cut down on the number of rounds fired by each soldier (yet another savings)! If I keep going I bet that I could cut our military operating budget by 99%, oh yeah and we would be speaking Chinese because we would no longer have the ability to effectively defend our freedom.

Sorry for the rant, but this stuff pisses me off.

[KYCaster]

That "article" reads like a press release from Magpul.

I've seen the same article posted in several places and I haven't yet read where the Army "banned Magpul mags".

Is it maybe possible that inferior mags are turning up in combat units and the brass is concerned that their continued use will eventually cause severe problems?

I just looked at Brownell's on line catalog and found 23 different 5.56/223 AR magazines, and I know for a fact that many of them are not reliable....I've seen them fail in competition so I don't like the idea of our soldiers depending on them in combat.

Seems to me that banning Tapco polymer mags while allowing Magpul polymer mags would just be opening a can of worms. Even banning polymer mags leaves the door open for poor quality metal mags. I see no problem with demanding the use of "approved" mags.

Just my opinion.

Jerry

BTW......GI mags don't just fail for no reason. A quick inspection at the end of the day would easily find any physical damage that's likely to cause a failure. If that's too much trouble for you then I don't think I'd want you watching my back.

[Four Fingers of Death]

Does anyone know if the military even authorized the use of the magpol magazine? Been known in the past to get the brass's shorts in a twist.

Another issue is how much was or is magpol charging for their mags. I know I can usually pick up the aluminum ones for around $10 each from time to time.

Still another issue the brass might not have even known they made ploymer mags that are so much better than the aluminum ones.

Then when talking about military brass and intelligence the two many times don't go together.

The article said that the magazines have an authorised military inventory number (or whatever you call it) and are available through normal Government purchasing/supply channels.

What has probably kicked off the problem is not so much that the issue alu-**** mags are cheaper, but the fact that there are are a lot of other brands of mags apart from the MagOuls that are being used with maybe not so stellar results.

My friend in teh Aussie Army was working with US Army personell in Afghanastan a few years back and his friend was sent a box of gear his Dad and Mum bought, which included magazines, gloves great goggles, space age socks, etc. My mate was admiring the gear and his friend got on the phone to Dad and Mum and a week later a gift parcel came for my Aussie mate! Gotta love that.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

kycaster,

it is immediately apparent that you have never served in combat in a war zone. When the military issued us (Ranger Company) the first 30-round magazines in RVN in 1969, our first test firing with 30 rounds in the mag was 100%. Every friggin M-16 jammed. Mostly failures to feed the first round. We had to limit them to 27 rounds, and then we had about 90% reliability.

My family members serving in Sandbox I and II get a care package as soon as we have their APO address. A dozen MagPul 30's with window, the six pound bag of Gummie Bears, and a few other necessities.

My nephew could have been a millionaire had he marked up all the magazines he got for his unit a dollar over cost.

Rich

[Chamfered]

This is pretty typical of military brass. I had a friend who served in Sand Box 1, officers in his position (armor unit supply types) were not issued side arms but told they need to make sure they can protect themselves while out in the local area purchasing material for the unit. His solution was to pay $600 for a new Berreta 92 stateside for carry while overseas and then turn it in as a war spoils at the end of the war, since he was not allowed to return to the states with any weapons, his or otherwise.
THe brass says don't use this or that, ultimately the troopers in the field will use what they need to or can get ahold of to get the job done.

[shdwlkr]

In every war stuff gets sent to those in harms way. During the Vietnam war there was a dad I knew that sent his son a 44 mag and all the ammo he could use the whole time he was there. His pistol got back to dad some how.

Most of those making the decision of what is and is not to be used have no clue what works. Think I am wrong why are are special forces going back to the 45 1911, M14? The simple fact is when you are hit with either you don't want to play anymore.

The beretta is a piece of junk and I write to a individual in the sand box that has to put them back together, as to the M4 well it may or may not be worth anything. Personally having played with the old models they sucked. I have a newer one that might be interesting when I get it working to my satisfaction.

Mags I have always had the aluminum models and never had and issue and yes they have been abused just because I do that with pro military stuff.

[Love Life]

Hmmmm. Probably a budget and logistics issue. Nothing wrong with the aluminum mags as long as you do required maintenance. Install self leveling followers and they are the bees knees. I never felt comfortable with poly mags, because when you drop in the prone and that 200 lbs falls on them they could break. That being said I have a lot of friends who swear by the PMags and haven't broken them.

Aluminum or PMag. They both work as required, and will not work if maintenance is not done on them. Who knows whay the Army pulled them, but then again it doesn't matter. Reply with an Aye Sir and carry on.

[dualsport]

I don't want to sidetrack this topic but it seems some of you have real world experience with ar15 mags so here goes. For those of us stuck with 10 rd. capacity limits (Calif.) what's the most reliable mag?

[crossbow2]

My experiance with "plastic" mags back in the 80's thoroughly impacted me negativley on them. Those canuck made black plastic magazines were junk , and how/why they made it into US Army issue sh% I cannot fathom still !. I won't use plastic mags yet today.

[waksupi]

Never forget, our military has the finest equipment in the world. Made by the lowest bidder.

[Artful]

My experiance with "plastic" mags back in the 80's thoroughly impacted me negativley on them. Those canuck made black plastic magazines were junk , and how/why they made it into US Army issue sh% I cannot fathom still !. I won't use plastic mags yet today.

Thermomelts :groner:

Oralite chippies

Yeah there have been a bunch of failures in plastic mag's but that's how we learn.

P-mag's have had some bad batches as well. But if the guys want them, and they work for them, I don't see why we some idiot back in the states saying he can't use them when the military has tested and said up front that their aluminum mag's aren't 100% either.
:killingpc

[bruce drake]

Never forget, our military has the finest equipment in the world. Made by the lowest bidder.

ditto

[RugerFan]

Good idea....take the best equipment on the market and tell our soldiers that they cannot use it due to cost.

Cost? What official source said this was about cost?


That "article" reads like a press release from Magpul.


Without a doubt.


kycaster,
it is immediately apparent that you have never served in combat in a war zone. When the military issued us (Ranger Company) the first 30-round magazines in RVN in 1969, our first test firing with 30 rounds in the mag was 100%. Every friggin M-16 jammed. Mostly failures to feed the first round. We had to limit them to 27 rounds, and then we had about 90% reliability.


How can you compare your 1969 issue M16A1 with old style mags (no longer in use) to current M4s with improved mags? The difference in reliability is night and day.


I hardly know where to begin with the article linked in post #1.

How about with the title; “In Reversal, Army Bans High-Performance Rifle Mags”

- There is no reversal. The mags were never authorized in the first place.

“Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a “safety of use message” in April that placed it, and all other polymer magazines, on an unauthorized list.”

- There is no “Unauthorized list”. Again they were just never authorized in the first place.

“Nor does it say what Army units should now do with the millions of dollars’ worth of PMAGs they’ve purchased over the years.”

- That’s not TACOM’s problem. Units should not have been ordering unauthorized equipment in the first place.

“PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.”

- No, it isn't an "Army-approved" NSN. Existence of a National Stock Number (NSN) does not constitute “authorization” for US Army use. Any federal agency can order items with an NSN. The magazines in question are managed by DLA not TACOM. Federal LE agencies “might” be authorized to use them (border patrol, game wardens, FBI etc).

” TACOM spokesman Eric Emerton said in a written response to questions from Military.com. Emerton added that only “authorized NSNs have ever been included in the technical manuals. Just because an item has an NSN, does not mean the Army is an authorized user.”

- Exactly the point I just made above.

“This seems to be a complete policy reversal, since PMAGs are standard issue with the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and they have been routinely issued to infantry units before war-zone deployments.”

- Again no policy reversal (This article is such garbage!). Just another example of units ordering unauthorized equipment. Definitely not “standard issue.”


US Army weapon systems and related equipment go through serious torture testing and must pass appropriate criteria. Is the PMAG a good magazine? It very well could be. However, the Army is confident in the durability and reliability of the current issue magazines. Soldiers do not have the leeway to decide what they bring to war. That’s just the bottom line.

[Artful]

US Army weapon systems and related equipment go through serious torture testing and must pass appropriate criteria. Is the PMAG a good magazine? It very well could be. However, the Army is confident in the durability and reliability of the current issue magazines. Soldiers do not have the leeway to decide what they bring to war. That’s just the bottom line.

You mean like this test in 2007

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html


...
After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army's Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.

Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.

The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages -- termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear -- the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem.

"The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the Army's top equipment buyer, in a Dec. 17 briefing at the Pentagon. Soldiers "have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made...

or the 2009 evalulation test resulting in another new magazine

http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2009/12/14/armys-improved-magazine-increases-weapons-reliability-%E2%80%9Ctan-is-the-plan%E2%80%9D-for-the-new-magazine/


... the Improved Magazine effectively reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants. Identified by a tan-colored follower, over 500,000 of the improved magazines have been fielded to units in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the U.S.

“With the improved magazines, we’re taking weapons reliability up another notch,” said LTC Chris Lehner, Product Manager Individual Weapons. “By incorporating a heavier, more corrosion resistant spring, along with a new follower design that does not tilt inside the casing, our engineers were able to develop a magazine that presents a round to the weapon with even greater stability. Increased magazine reliability results in overall improved weapon system performance.”

Currently, there are three different types of magazines in the supply inventory that can be identified by the color of the follower. The new, improved magazine follower is tan. Magazines with a green follower are strong performers and are acceptable so long as they are serviceable, but should be phased out from the force as the improved magazines are received. The oldest magazines have a black follower and should be turned in to supply sergeants.

“Soldiers can remember it like this: ‘Tan – is the plan. Green – start to lean. Black – take it back,’” said LTC Lehner. “While the improved magazines increase reliability to an even greater degree, the new magazines by no means reduce the importance of Soldiers keeping their weapons clean and lubricated appropriately for the environment. Also, Soldiers must be proficient on conducting immediate action (SPORTS) if their weapon has a stoppage.”...

I just have to wonder what the rest of the story really is?

[RugerFan]

Artful,
For the most part, if you're going to quote military.com, you're going to lose me because that is not a very reliable source of information. However, in this case I am aware of that Carbine test that took place 5 years ago. Flaws in the M4 were identified and for whatever reason, the decision was made to improve upon that platform rather than replace it altogether.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/army-shifts-modernization-focus-to-m4-carbine-improvements/


“We are currently taking a dual approach to improve the current weapon, the M4, as we move forward with a new carbine requirement. The Project Manager (PM) released a market survey in January 2010, seeking the best industry has to offer for improvements to the current M4. The PM expects to release an RFP [request for proposals] soon to compete the upgrade program.”

The second quote you posted shows the success of the new mag. I'm not sure what "rest of the story" you're seeking.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a bigger caliber (i.e 6.8 SPC), but the new M855A1 ammo is an upgrade that has improved terminal ballistics over the M855.

[BoolitSchuuter]

“Nor does it say what Army units should now do with the millions of dollars’ worth of PMAGs they’ve purchased over the years.[/B]”

- That’s not TACOM’s problem. Units should not have been ordering unauthorized equipment in the first place.




I'll take'em!!!! :shock: :bigsmyl2: [smilie=s:

[RugerFan]

I'll take'em!!!! :shock: :bigsmyl2: [smilie=s:

I'll bet you would. The writer of that "article" hasn't a clue. Army units can turn the (serviceable) mags back in to the supply system and they will get back to their source of supply. All units know this.

[Artful]

The second quote you posted shows the success of the new mag. I'm not sure what "rest of the story" you're seeking.


some more links for "rest of the story"

http://kitup.military.com/2012/05/army-stands-ban-unathorized-pmags.html


I’m not surprised that the Army wants everyone to use its Improved Magazine with the tan follower that’s supposed to cut down on stoppages in the M4. You have to give Army weapons officials credit for finally recognizing in late 2007 that the magazines with the green follower were poorly designed.

It was the way the Army went about improving the magazine that seemed a little questionable. Weapons officials quickly recognized that Magpul Industries Corp. was onto something with its new PMAG. But instead of testing Magpul’s polymer design, the Army tried unsuccessfully to develop its own polymer magazine, my sources tell me.

The Army didn’t want to adopt the PMAG because acquisition officials wanted to own the technical data rights, a condition Magpul wasn’t likely to agree to, sources say.

So the Army settled on improving the follower — which has a strong resemblance to Magpul’s original design. When fielding began in 2009, Army weapons officials maintained that the new design would decrease stoppages by 50 percent, but they would never really discuss the testing process. It’s also unclear how the new mags compared to the PMAG’s performance. That didn’t really matter, because units were free to continue using PMAGs which had an Army-approved national stock number.

That all changed, however, in April when TACOM released its Safety of Use message that authorized only two NSNs for use with the M4 — the improved magazine with the tan follower and the older magazine with the green follower.

Apparently, the NSN issued for the PMAG was never really authorized, TACOM spokesman Eric Emerton said in a written response to questions from Military.com.

...

I have asked the Army if it has any proof that the service’s new magazine can outperform or even equal the PMAG’s performance, but I am still waiting for an answer.

I at least feel a little better after finding this...

http://wethearmed.com/general-firearms-discussion/army's-new-tan-follower-m16m4-magazines/



My wife was issued the new mags for her deployment to afghan, so I took a couple of them to the range and tried them out. Took them out of the plastic bags at the range loaded them up to max cap. They were flawless, fired over 300 rnds through them. Them took them apart. The spring is defenitely more robust and thicker, the follower is longer on the front and rear, the center spring retaining post wider and a bit longer then the green one. Couldn't get it to tilt much at all.

after seeing the 50% reduction in failures over green followers, I wasn't feeling the love.

I also see The Army has also developed a nifty tool to check if the feed lips are worn out. It is kind of a no-go gauge for magazines. If this does not already exist for civilians or law enforcement, I imagine it will be a popular accessory.
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4177506544_6050b_95214_1-tfb.jpg

though this still makes me wonder about the people in hdqrtrs caring more about the people in the field.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/05/robert-farago/army-bans-p-mags/



The same infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan had this to say about the new and improved magazine:

“Like any magazine, they work great when they are brand new and haven’t been drug through the dirt and mud. I haven’t noticed much of a difference between these tan followers and the older green ones. After some time training up for the ‘Stan, the same issues started to occur: double feeds, rounds not feeding correctly so on and so on. While it seems to occur about half as often, it’s still not a great solution.

The magazines still get bent at the opening and are still prone to getting crushed in the middle. I haven’t seen any issues like this with the PMAG due to the polymer casing. I have seen an empty PMAG get run over by a MaxPro [vehicle] and operated flawlessly later that week when we tested it at the range. Last time I saw this happen to a standard issue magazine, it was scrap metal after that.”

and to follow up...

some practical information about P-mag failures...


Ok I have to chime in on this one.
During my deployment in 08-09 my unit ordered 10,000 Magpul mag’s and issued them out to the troops. After about 5-6 months in the deployment some Soldiers started to have problems with the mag’s, I.E. failure to feed. I was tasked to find out why so many of them had the same problems.

The conclusion that I came up with was that lack of Preventive Maintenance (P.M.) caused the inside of the mag’s to scuff so the follower would catch on the mag wall causing a failure to feed situation, deadly if you’re in a fire fight. So the unit recommended that all Magpul mag’s be pulled off line and replaced with the standard issued mag’s. Problems solved.

Not saying that Magpul makes crappy stuff but it doesn’t hold up to the atypical Soldier. With proper maintenance they should be good but getting Soldiers nowadays to clean up after themselves is hard enough. Let alone to do PM on their stuff.

Then you have the super-duper 100 round mag’s out there. Only have one thing to say about those, JUNK. Don’t waist you time or money on them.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/03/04/on-the-armys-new-tan-improved-magazines/


LTC Lehner here. My program office is responsible for the development, production, and fielding of the Improved Magazine (tan follower) along with all the pistols, shotguns, grenade launchers, sniper weapons, rifles/carbines, and even airburst weapons that our Army uses.

Hotgun, you are on target! Our Improved Magazine has been thoroughly tested in every environmental condition for the last several years. We have fired 40,000+ rounds through them, filmed their performance with high speed cameras, and did things to them to try and make them fail. Bottom line, these Improved Magazines offer a 50% reduction in the risk of a magazine related weapon stoppage over our previous Green follower magazines. P-mag, H+K, and others may have “tested” their magazines, but no one has the resources to test the way we do. When an Improved Magazine is fielded from my office (along with all the other kit we provide) there is a commitment and promise to our Soldiers that it will serve them extremely well in combat. The other manufactures of magazines (commercial magazines) usually will not or can not make this promise because of all the unknowns their magazines will face in battle.

As a side note, our Improved Magazines (with the tan, anti-tilt, follower) were developed a few years before similar magazines hit the market. The reason our magazines are only now available is due to the extensive testing regime we must put all of our equipment through. And it is a good thing we do, because there are many commercial magazines that our soldiers bought “off the shelf” that are starting to give them problems. More on this in the future.

For all Soldiers in OIF or OEF, be sure to keep your eyes open for the Armed Forces Network (AFN) Infomercial due out at the end of this month. You will actually learn valuable information on your Improved Magazine and where they are being issued in theater. Also you can log onto the PEO Soldier Web site to learn more about the magazine, new weapons, night vision devices, and body armor that we are fielding. Thank you for your time and keep up the fight!

Chris Lehner LTC, SF PM Individual Weapons

[RugerFan]

Concerning the first link (I copied some additional quotes)…….Like I said, military.com is not a reliable source of information. It appears the writer of both those articles is either a) Seriously misinformed, b) Doesn’t bother fact checking, or c) Is purposely misleading.


That all changed, however, in April when TACOM released its Safety of Use message that authorized only two NSNs for use with the M4


Or maybe there’s something behind the Army’s abrupt decision to ban all polymer magazines that hasn’t yet surfaced.

It’s not a “SOUM” (Safety of Use Message). The message is categorized “MI” (Maintenance Information). There is a difference. The MI didn’t change anything and there was no “abrupt decision to ban all polymer magazines”. The message is merely reminding Army units not to use unauthorized magazines. Just like they shouldn’t use ANY unauthorized equipment. This not a “Change” or “Reversal” of any kind. The only magazines EVER authorized for use are listed in the TM.


Weapons officials quickly recognized that Magpul Industries Corp. was onto something with its new PMAG...

Oh please! What “Weapons officials”? Is this supposed to be journalism? Nothing more than a shameless plug for MAGPUL. (I personally have no problem with the company MAGPUL. They make some fine products. It’s just that these two articles are complete garbage.)


It’s also unclear how the new mags compared to the PMAG’s performance. That didn’t really matter, because units were free to continue using PMAGs which had an Army-approved national stock number.

Again, the PMAG NSN was NEVER “Army-approved” and units were NEVER free to use them. Being in the federal supply system does not constitute US Army authorization. Never has.


Huh???? That must be why PMAGs are standard issue to special operations units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment — those boys are clearly confused.

No, not confused. "If" they are using PMAGs, it’s still technically unauthorized. They either aren't aware or just don’t care. Spec Ops units get to use unique equipment (including MP5s and other cool weaponry and gadgets). They frequently reach outside the normal scope of “Army issue.” They have it that way. Regular Army troops do not. Spec Ops has a unique mission. That’s just the way it is.

I am of the opinion that the writer has an agenda here.