Army bans commercial M-4 magazines

[donkey]

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.

[Jumping Frog]

A couple of things to keep in mind:

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.

Yeah, for every informed soldier using Pmags and Lancers there's also some poor schmuck using Tapco mags.

[The Annoyed Man]

This is just dumb. I'd be willing to bet that in a really gritty/sandy/windy enviroment, a well-built polymer magazine is a better functioning piece of kit than even a well-made steel magazine—simply because of the characteristics of polymers. If any of these new contract steel magazines fail, putting a soldier's life in peril, I would sincerely hope that there would be a congressional investigation into why this order was issued. If it an't broke, don't fix it. I don't think that soldiers in the field would be preferring PMAGs to GI issued mags if there were no real advantage. After all, they have to pay for their PMAGs, which is a disincentive to acquisition unless it really is a better magazine.

I will say that the steel DPMS brand magazines that came with my AR10 are very well built and I like them just fine. But I have yet to see a metal AR15 magazine that I liked. They all seemed kind of flimsy to me. The steel magazines that came with my Bushmaster eventually broke at the spot-welds, and that was without that much usage. That's when I started using PMAGS and I've never looked back. I suppose that there are good quality "unbreakable" metal magazines for the AR15. I just haven't seen one yet. And since PMAGs are reasonably priced and easy to get, I've just always bought them instead.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG067-36.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; This is what you want, Steel Ar mags. Best there is.

$53.00 a pop. That's because HK hates us and we suck.

$14.20 a pop PMAG. That's because Magpul respects us and wants our business. Will handle whatever the steel mag will handle, and combat proven for many years now. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/231937 ... nd-polymer.

It's a no-brainer.

[txjim42]

I have four Okay Industries "Mil-Spec" magazines. It is quite legal to buy them, IF you can find them. They, like all magazines meeting the mil-spec, are made with an aluminum body and the "green follower" which helps prevent failures-to-feed. They feed well from MY AR-15 and drop free just fine. I trust them to work. That said, they are nothing special, either. They cannot be improved because they have to meet the mil-spec and it takes quite a while to get the mil-spec either amended or superseded. Standard government bureaucracy, you know. I don't own any, but I have seen the PMAGs. If the GIs using them in the sandbox say they are better than the Okay Industries mags, I believe them. THEY, the folks on the pointy end of the spear, are the authority, as far as I'm concerned.

I have a quantity of both Okay and NHMTG 30-rd mags and NHMTG 20-rd mags. Quite happy with them all. No PMags, but I suppose I will some day.

If you're looking for Okay Ind. Mags, $12.03 each:
http://www.buylci.com//ItemDisplayF.aspx?itemid=801800

LCI also has some really nice MWC's:
http://www.buylci.com//ItemDisplayF.aspx?itemid=600409

[Carry-a-Kimber]

$14.20 a pop PMAG. That's because Magpul respects us and wants our business. Will handle whatever the steel mag will handle, and combat proven for many years now. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/231937 ... nd-polymer.

It's a no-brainer.

TAM, you're paying too much for your PMAGs.

[The Annoyed Man]

$14.20 a pop PMAG. That's because Magpul respects us and wants our business. Will handle whatever the steel mag will handle, and combat proven for many years now. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/231937 ... nd-polymer.

It's a no-brainer.

TAM, you're paying too much for your PMAGs.

Oh I know you can find them for cheaper than that. I just grabbed that at random off the Midway site. I was just trying to show the difference between buying PMAGs versus buying an overpriced (because they hate us and we suck) HK mag. CTD's prices are in the $12 range.

[E.Marquez]

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.

[Heartland Patriot]

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.

[maverick2076]

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.

[maverick2076]

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.

[maverick2076]

[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.

[E.Marquez]

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.

[E.Marquez]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[speedsix]

...that's great news...it galls me to think that our boys/girls would be denied the best...