TexasCHLforum.com

In Reversal, Army Bans High-Performance Rifle Mags

The Army has ordered that soldiers may use only government-issued magazines with their M4 carbines, a move that effectively bans one of the most dependable and widely used commercial-made magazines on today’s battlefield.

The past decade of war has spawned a wave of innovation in the commercial soldier weapons and equipment market. As a result, trigger-pullers in the Army, Marines and various service special operations communities now go to war armed with commercially designed kit that’s been tested under the most extreme combat conditions.

Near the top of such advancements is the PMAG polymer M4 magazine, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp. in 2007. Its rugged design has made it as one of the top performers in the small-arms accessory arena, according to combat veterans who credit the PMAG with drastically improving the reliability of the M4.

Despite the success of the PMAG, 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.

What difference does it make? Well...

Soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, had been issued PMAGs before deploying to Afghanistan in 2009. On Oct. 3 of that year, they fought off a bold enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating that lasted for more than six hours and left eight Americans dead. Some soldiers fired up to 40 PMAGs from their M4s without a single stoppage.

And...

TACOM’s message authorizes soldiers to use the Army’s improved magazine, which PEO Soldier developed after the M4 finished last against three other carbines in a 2007 reliability test. The “dust test” revealed that 27 percent of the M4’s stoppages were magazine related.

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.

The various branches of the military are supplied by a specific vendor for small arms magazines. Perhaps this vendor is losing out on sales. Follow the money.

Moron government politicians making decisions about something which they know nothing about aside, I wonder if this means PMAG prices are going to drop due to the decreased demand.

yeah, but I'm sure there are many Commander's/ Sergeant-Majors/ First-Sergeants out there that will turn an eye or encourage their troops to use the PMAGs. Just carry an extra army-issued magazine and insert it after a firefight...

The official magazine supplier for Colt, the official manufacturer of the M-4 carbine, is a company known as Okay Industries. They are located in New Britain, Connecticut. A quick search on the internet shows them undergoing a massive corporate expansion project, as they make other products besides the M-16/M-4 magazines. Maybe a new, giant batch order of magazines was requisitioned from them to "spread the wealth" and the Army and/or DOD and/or the current administration needs to justify the large batch order. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, by any stretch of the imagination, that sort of thing has occurred. Okay magazines are pretty darned good and built to the DOD specs, but PMAGs are no joke, either.

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.

Looks like someone got paid off

If the various Pmags are so crappy, why does each version of them have it's own National Stock Number so our soldiers can order them?

Pawpaw wrote:If the various Pmags are so crappy, why does each version of them have it's own National Stock Number so our soldiers can order them?

But they aren't crappy. They just don't want them to use them.

Sandbox veterans who have experienced both magazine types in those harsh conditions when their lives were on the line seem pretty uniformly appalled at this decision.

Read some of the comments to the article.

MadMonkey wrote:Looks like someone got paid off

I'd say so. Quoting from the article:

The decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

“The PMAG is a great product … lightweight and durable. I have seen numerous special ops teams from all services pass through here, and they all use PMAGs. Also, a large amount of Marine infantry here use PMAGS, including their Force Recon elements.”

TACOM officials said the message was issued because of “numerous reports that Army units are using unauthorized magazines,” 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.”

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.

How on earth does the PMAG get an Army-approved national stock number if it is unauthorized for use? How on earth is the magazine standard issue with the 75th Ranger Regiment if it is unauthorized for use? How on earth has it been routinely issued to infantry units before deployments if it is not approved for use? HOW ON EARTH IS THE ARMY NOT AN AUTHORIZED USER, WHEN THE PMAG HAS AN ARMY-ISSUED NSN? That's bovine manure.

Somebody at Okay Industries did a little research in the Colt requirements, bribed a congressman or someone, and got this order issued. Nasty little boogers, putting profit ahead of soldier survivability.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:Looks like someone got paid off

I'd say so. Quoting from the article:

The decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

“The PMAG is a great product … lightweight and durable. I have seen numerous special ops teams from all services pass through here, and they all use PMAGs. Also, a large amount of Marine infantry here use PMAGS, including their Force Recon elements.”

TACOM officials said the message was issued because of “numerous reports that Army units are using unauthorized magazines,” 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.”

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.

How on earth does the PMAG get an Army-approved national stock number if it is unauthorized for use? How on earth is the magazine standard issue with the 75th Ranger Regiment if it is unauthorized for use? How on earth has it been routinely issued to infantry units before deployments if it is not approved for use? HOW ON EARTH IS THE ARMY NOT AN AUTHORIZED USER, WHEN THE PMAG HAS AN ARMY-ISSUED NSN? That's bovine manure.

Somebody at Okay Industries did a little research in the Colt requirements, bribed a congressman or someone, and got this order issued. Nasty little boogers, putting profit ahead of soldier survivability.

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.

C-dub wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:If the various Pmags are so crappy, why does each version of them have it's own National Stock Number so our soldiers can order them?

But they aren't crappy. They just don't want them to use them.

Now see? This is why we so desperately need a sarcasm font.

Jumping Frog wrote:Sandbox veterans who have experienced both magazine types in those harsh conditions when their lives were on the line seem pretty uniformly appalled at this decision.

Read some of the comments to the article.

QFT!!!

Pawpaw wrote:Now see? This is why we so desperately need a sarcasm font.

Or you could volunteer your old avatar as a sarcasm smilie.

Anyone have any idea whether Magpul uses union labor? I'd almost guarantee that Okay Industries uses union labor since they are located in Connecticut. Not saying that's it, but it is possible...