TexasCHLforum.com

bulletslap wrote:I also prefer a heel release magazine weapon for the same reason. My ideas are definitely out of fashion however.

My always-with BUG is a Seecamp L32. Out of fashion or not, I'd rather have a tiny all-steel dispenser of copper-plated lead than have no firearm at all.

Javier730 wrote:Try that with a 1911 and you'll spend the next 15 years sighing about all the scratches. They will also bring nightmares about the idiot mark you made while reassembling it. Ohh and it might not fire if you get a bit of dust in it from pounding the mag on concrete.

Shirley, you jest.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=special+forces+pistols

Luv my Glocks, but don't dis my 1911s.

Yep. That's the way stock Glock mags fit in for-model stock Glocks (say that 10 times fast). "For-model" meaning for the designated round capacity; one nice benefit of Glocks is that models in the same line can use any equal or larger capacity magazine).

Can't comment on the reason they were designed with the mag baseplate protruding, but if I had to guess I'd say it was because if, in a high-stress situation, the mag failed to eject it would be much easier to grasp and assist with extraction.

I have some 1911s and 2011s (still my favorite platforms) with extended magwells. I can do a reload in one of those almost twice as fast as I can in any of my stock Glocks. But if a mag failed to release, I'd be in more trouble with those 1911s than with a Glock.

I'll also note that I've never felt the need to experiment with any but Glock OEM magazines. Lotta rounds through a lotta mags, and I'd only buy factory Glock.