Obligatory Disclosure: I’m one of Check-Mate Industries’ sponsored shooters, which came about after agreeing to field test their 1911 and 92 magazines over a period of several years. The sponsorship was a nice gesture; I genuinely appreciate and prefer their magazines for my Beretta 92D and various 1911 regardless of the sponsorship.
Ok…over several years, I’ve had some detailed discussions with Check-Mate’s partners over the 92 magazines-and I’ve been running 8 of the dry-film ones of varying vintages (2005, 2008, 2010) interchangeably for carry and for thousands of rounds. During this period I’ve had exactly one magazine issue: One of the magazines was slightly oversize towards the tube base; it would easily insert and flawlessly chamber cartridges, but would not drop free from the frame without manually pulling it out. Check-Mate found it to be slightly oversize, sent it through the sizing die, and returned it to me-where it’s performed without any subsequent hiccups. All Check-Mate magazines have a lifetime warranty, and Check-Mate stands behind them.
DoD magazine issues: There are two: One, the original (up to late 2004) DoD specified phosphate finish, applied internally and externally; a crackle-type finish, its ridges trapped the fine talc-like sand/dust indegenous to Iraq and Afghanistan, precluding effective cartridge travel inside the magazine; and Two, allegedly insufficient spring tensility.
Regarding the original phosphate finish-it’s essential to understand that it was a DoD CONTRACT MANDATED finish, not something Check-Mate chose willy-nilly on their own. DoD’s original intention was that the phosphate coating, applied both externally and internally, would be ideal for corrosion prevention in temperate climates (which in fact all reports that I’ve come across indicates that it does). Obviously, that finish was a massive “fail” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Check-Mate, upon hearing reports of magazine issues in-theatre, actually imported some sand from the theater, analyzed the proble, and provided an alternative dry-film finish, whach was approved by DoD and massively injected into the suppky chain. Unfortunately, the PHOSPHATE coated magazines were not purged from the theatre-both magazine types were intermixed at the arms-room/unit level, according to my understanding. The dry-film magazines have performed superbly, and also have what I consider to be a advantageous hardened steel, low profile baseplate. At one point, Check-Mate offered DoD to refinish all stocke of the phosphate coated magazines with the dry-film finish, at a cost of .40 per magazine-DoD declined.
Another sidebar comment: Check-Mate was not chosen as the DoD M9 magazine contractor based on their being the lowest cost bid-their selection was based on their being adjudged by DoD a superior performer of previous contracts/products. A subsequent DoD contractor of 92 magazines, Airtronics, WAS reputedly selected primarily based on bid price; after a relatively brief period, the contract was re-let to Check-Mate.
Springs. I’ve personally had exactly zero problems with the sprigs in all of my Check-Mate 92 magazines. All of mine are their standard springs, save for one, which is an experimental stainless steel one that never made it into full production. I’ve kept several of my magazines loaded for months at a time. Again, zero issues encountered-and my magazines aren’t exactly babyied in use. I do, however, initially and periodically disassemble them, clean them, apply Dry-Slide (a dry-film molydisulfide lubricant/anticorrosive) to the inside of the tubes, followers, baseplate inners and the springs. Tube/baseplate exteriors receive a protective coat of Weapon Shield. I STRONGLY suspect that the most significant issue inherent to springage is maltreatment at the operator level, with springs inappropriately/inadvertantly/carelessly stretched, and then re-inserted-such compromises the integrity of the tensility.
A simple protocol for Check-Mate magazines: Use the dry-film ones-which’ll be any with a 2005 and later rollmarked date on the tube sides, (on one or both sides). Keep the tubes clean, and don’t mangle the springs during maintenance. If there’s insufficient spring tensility, REPLACE the spring-don’t attempt a “field-expedient” stretch fix-it works, at best, only very. very temporarily, and then the spring quickly reverts to it’s previously weakened state.
I’ve used Beretta, Beretta-produced MDS and Check-Mate magazines in my 92s. I prefer the Check-Mates. I also like the metal-baseplated Beretta magazines, and the MDS magazines (which seem to have consistantly produced with the aluminum baseplates). I’ve heard excellent reports regarding the Beretta PVD sand-displacing magazines (the OEM magazines with the USMC contract and commercial M9A1 pistols), benefitting from both the PVD finish and an internal strake which provides a “stand-off” space precluding sand inhibiting cartridge travel inside the magazine tube, but they’re expensive, and the Check-Mate dry-film magazines seem to do the same job well at a significantly lower cost.
Now that you probably know far more than you ever wanted about the magazines…
Best, Jon