TexasCHLforum.com

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.

maverick2076 wrote:

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.

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 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..

maverick2076 wrote:

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.

Never said they were not available, nor used... MY supply sergeants purchased them at my direction two deployments ago The Supply Sergeants in my battalion purchased them 1 deployment ago, the supply sergeants in our DIV purchased them this last deployment... I get it, there WERE available with an NSN.

I said never authorized... not included for use in any Technical Manual, or update, Nor TACOM message, nor FM... nor any other ARMY document that stated they were authorized for use in a M16, M4 weapon system. If you have seen PMAGS stated as authorized for use, please forward me a copy, a link, or a direction to find that document. Thanks.


Available and authorized are two very different things.

There were available though the system, and we bought them by the arm load, used them for years, will continue to use them, until provided something as good. If not provided a functional, reliable, quality MAG from the US ARMY ordering system, Soldiers will continue to purchase them and go about there business.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

bronco78 wrote:1: They have never been authorized for use, none, never, not allowed.
2: Nothing will change overall come Tuesday.
3: Those that are using a quality mag while deployed, will continue to do so.

. my opinion is this is a tempest in a tea pot, which will be universally ignored.

I trust you for matters as relates to A. The US Army and B. The "Sandbox". But if the Rangers have been using them, how have they not been authorized? I can see individual soldiers buying and using what they want despite what they are issued, but a whole large unit like the Rangers? Just trying to reconcile what that article said and always looking to expand my knowledge. In regards to numbers 2 and 3, I'm 100% certain you are correct.

My point was, there were never certified, authorized, not in the TM.

We have been using them for years now, and the last two deployments many units bought them for there Soldiers during the train up period prior to deployment.

We have done the same for weapon lubes for many years, tried, selected what has worked better then issued CLP, and though it's never been an Authorized lube, it's used, because it works.

1: They have never been authorized for use, none, never, not allowed.
2: Nothing will change overall come Tuesday.
3: Those that are using a quality mag while deployed, will continue to do so.

. my opinion is this is a tempest in a tea pot, which will be universally ignored.