TexasCHLforum.com

MadMonkey wrote:Don't forget the Army also decided that UCP is the best camo

Even they have recognized what a bad decision that one was...thank God.

bronco78 wrote:

maverick2076 wrote: As for ordering mags, I received a shipment of 900 brand new, tan follower mags less than a year ago...two weeks after I ordered them through the system. I also ordered about 1000 tan-follower mags before my last deployment in 2009...and got those in 2-3 weeks as well. The Army supply system isn't having any problems delivering them.

The system has had several periods of un availability for the new mags.. no, Im not guessing.

maverick2076 wrote: Finally, the old aluminum mags weren't junk. Like a lot of things, those mags (and the current ones, and PMags) are expendable. Units should be disposing of them when they become unserviceable. Most units don't, which leads to crappy mags staying in circulation.

Thanks for the lesson
I've been doing this for a day or two...so lets just agree that my experience may be a bit different then yours

Yes they are crap, dropped ONCE, banged against a door way,. the ground, a car, or any other barricade, cover, or hard surface, the body dents, and eh feed lips will bend in a sing drop.

Yes when new, and very clean, they do great.. used them for many years in places a bit busier then a supply room.

And when used in real life, they fail quickly.

Replacing them during AFORGEN is a great idea, and not a problem. Replacing them when you work from remote patrol bases, COPs and Firm bases is a bit more involved.. Im sure life on a FOB makes getting replacement mags easier,, not sure, 4 deployments, never been on one.

Nice of you to try to make some implications about where and when I served in the sandbox. Let me enlighten you. First tour was running convoys driving HETs. On the road for 8-12 days at a time in '04. Never had a mag malfunction on a convoy. Of course, I carried twice my basic load in the truck in case of malfunctions, went through my mags after every convoy, and disposed of the crap ones.

My second deployment was as a supply SGT for a unit attached to the CJSOTF. With guys at 12 outsites across the country, getting them supplies was a challenge...expecially when sites are so remote and small that there is no regular mail or convoy service. Oftentimes, getting supplies to our outsites required a nighttime helicopter ride, hopping from camp to camp, dropping off equipment and picking up broken equipment. I did what was necessary to take care of my guys and make sure they had everything...including mags to replace unserviceable ones.

Mags break. It happens. That's why they are expendable. However, they don't spontaneously break, the stress of firing from them doesn't break them, and they don't fall apart because rounds are loaded in them. They break and malfunction because they aren't cleaned, they are dropped, slammed around, bashed into doorframes, used as makeshift hammers, had IBA's dropped on top of them, etc. PMCS your mags so you find the bad ones before you need them. And then replace them. The problem is most guys don't bother to check their mags, leave them in their kit, drop them in the truck or on the floor, drop their IBA on top of them, and only pull the mag out when they load it in their weapon. You wouldn't treat your M4 that way. Why treat your mag that way?

bronco78 wrote:
What unit has these " inferior mags " Ive not seen any one with them? Were they purchased by individual soldiers or though unit supply? As for "so many plastic mags out there that aren't that good." must be a unit deal, as I've not noticed the same deal.

Last time we ordered the new MAG

NSN 1005-01-561-7200
Redesigned follower and a stronger spring provides greater reliability and fewer malfunctions
5.56mm 30-round improved magazine
Aluminum construction
Teflon Coated Gray Finish

The order was canceled several times, and once only a dozen of so were shipped and received, that from an order to support a DIV HQ company.

So we purchased a known quality, better, and AVAILABLE MAG.

This will continue to happen until the Army supply system gets itself straightened out.

The old supplied aluminum mags are junk. the Army knows this.. what should have happened is bulk shipments to each unit UIC based on each units number of property book assigned M16/M4 rifles, prioritized by current status in the AFORGEN cycle or current deployment status.

The problems I've seen have mostly been with individual soldiers, but I have seen instances of suppy SGT's buying crap mags in bulk on the GPC right before the deployment.

As for ordering mags, I received a shipment of 900 brand new, tan follower mags less than a year ago...two weeks after I ordered them through the system. I also ordered about 1000 tan-follower mags before my last deployment in 2009...and got those in 2-3 weeks as well. The Army supply system isn't having any problems delivering them.

Finally, the old aluminum mags weren't junk. Like a lot of things, those mags (and the current ones, and PMags) are expendable. Units should be disposing of them when they become unserviceable. Most units don't, which leads to crappy mags staying in circulation.

bronco78 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:bronco78, what concerns me is if soldiers will be disciplined for ignoring the order and continuing to use these magazines. I would not like to see that happen. If this order is just noise, then it's not a big deal. But if soldiers in the field are being disciplined for using a superior magazine, then I'd rather see the person who issued the order fry instead of the boots on the ground shooter.

I'd be ignorant to say it wont happen. Just as a Commander who drinks and drives hands out ART15 punishment for the same thing. 1SG's who are late to everything chastise and berate, task "extra" duties to there soldiers who do the same, LEO's speed when not on official business and hand out tickets when citizens do the same...ect ect.

Likewise, a few commanders and other ignorant fools, will read that TACOM message, post it on the company bulletin board and then go about LOOKING for offenders.... tis the way of the world....

The vast majority will go about the business of training young men and women to be the very best they can be at the job assigned, using the best equipment available to them..

Hopefully this will get published and posted, if only to keep younger soldiers from buying crappy knockoff Pmags and deploying with them. Personally, I have no problems with Pmags. I think that the new, tan-follower mags are perfectly reliable mags and have no problems using them in the sandbox. With regards to reliability, they are easily the equal of the Pmags. Unfortunately, there are so many plastic mags out there that aren't that good. We need to keep soldiers from buying those inferior mags and using them in the field.

[quote="Jumping Frog
And they banned them with no explanation conveniently at the beginning of a 4-day weekend so there will be no one around to respond to questions. I can't imagine there isn't a political reason (and some moron bureaucrat) involved here.

[/quote]


This ban was pushed out through official channels a few weeks ago. If I still have the original message in my inbox, I'll post it when I get back to the Armory after Memorial Day.

bronco78 wrote:1: They have never been authorized for use, none, never, not allowed.

You are 100% wrong on that one. Trust me. I'm a Supply SGT, and was a Supply SGT on my last trip in the sandbox. They were easy to procure in the system and perfectly acceptable and authorized for issue and use.

donkey wrote:A couple of things to keep in mind:

1. NSNs are assigned by the Defense Logistics Agency and can be assigned based on a request by any military service and many federal agencies. Just because an item has a NSN doesn't mean that it is authorized for use.

2. Just because PMAGs are issued to the 75th Ranger Regiment and other units assigned to USSOCOM doesn't mean that they are authorized to be used by every unit. USSOCOM units use plenty of items that are not authorized for use in the rest of the military.

3. Some soldiers think all polymer magazines are created equal. You have guys that go out and buy PMAG knock-offs because they cost less and they end up using a magazine than is inferior to both the PMAG and the standard USGI magazine. In typical military fashion the solution is to ban all polymer magazines, rather than identify substandard brands.

4. TACOM doesn't like it when individual units order and then equipment their soldiers with equipment that hasn't been blessed by TACOM itself. It's not so much that the Army is against polymer magazines, it's just against polymer magazines that it hasn't authorized. Just your typical military bureaucracy at work.

5. The biggest issue with magazines, whether PMAGs or USGI, is that units keep them even when they've gotten to the point where they are no longer serviceable. Magazines are suppose to be disposable. They are meant to be used and when they reach the point where they are worn out they should be discarded and new magazines issued. Unfortunately too many units don't do this because of budget issues and/or a lack of training.

There are a lot of good points here which address most of the reasons that this decision has come down. Joes using crappy PMag knockoffs are a big problem. Also, PMags aren't infallible. The new issue mag, with the TAN follower, is a pretty damn good magazine. Easily the equal, or better, of the PMag.