Issue: TACOM has become aware of units ordering 30 rd. commercial (i.e. polymer, etc.) magazines for their M4/M16 family of weapons. The M4/M16 Army authorized magazines are the following: NSN 1005-00-561-7200 (improved magazine) and NSN 1005-00-921-5004 (older magazine; use until exhaustion).
Rest of the story at the link. Don’t think many people will listen to this until its strictly enforced, there’s a lot of us using PMAGS in the army. Ill keep using them and my TangoDown mags until I’m forced to stop.
They do have a NSN, and a bunch of units have bought and issued them. TACOM is now putting out that the only mags listed as authorized in the -10 are the Army issued ones.
There are too many polymer magazines on the market and there are a lot of soldiers that only hear “polymer is better” and buy the cheapest out there. Tapco, Bulgarian, TD, PMAG, Lancer etc. Which one works and works best for combat use? Even here on this site, many prefer one over another. While companies claim that their product is “combat ready” that is a marketing term, not reality. By saying NO to polymer mags, that should make the USGI mag, which has worked since the beginning, the standard in the field. This is the first time in history that there has been so many accessories availiable for a fielded combat weapon. Sights, grips, foreends, magazines…etc and a way to put them in the hands of the troops. Many hang stuff on their weapon for no other reason to be like that other guy, so that must be better. Even in a rifle squad, damn near every rifle is outfitted different. Some have quality parts, some are complete crap. The Army is trying to to stop the flow of non standardized/tested magazines from getting into the hands of our Soldiers. Hope it works.
I think this is great news. Plain old GI mags work great. I’m so sick and tired of seeing pmag related stoppages and watching people look for issues with the gun instead of shitcanning their stupid plastic mags. I haven’t messed with the ARC mags because for me they aren’t a solution to a problem. My green and tan follower mags are all stellar performers.
Just like trying to develop their own polymer mag even though the Pmag was already avalible.
As if the USGI mags don’t have their fair share of problems.
Why don’t they just do an IW type test of magazines and see which ones come out on top rather then forcing adherence to outdated requirements?
Only a matter of time until they start fining soldiers for using non-issued items on their guns and gear. That’ll be a brilliant move of stupidity too. Just like this one.
Beleive it or not people This is a good idea. I don’t know were you get the information stating that usgi mags are prone to problems in comparison to Pmags, etc.
I’d rather have one of my guys buy it because his USGI mag crapped the bed than have the same with Pmag. At least I can blame Uncle Sam.
All kidding aside, I love my Pmags but always have a 1/2 dozen USGI mags on my side for when TSHTF. Proven to work is better than the cool factor, and given time sooner or later a polymer mag maker will meet the requirements for approval.
Of course it is. We had plenty of issues in extremely cold temps with PMAGs. Aside from the obnoxious clanking/springing sound empty USGI magazines make when thrown in a drop pouch, I have absolutely zero issues with them. They stack better, they’re more streamlined, smaller… I greatly prefer them in almost every regard. Plus, with the USMC utilizing the IAR, having PMAGs floating around is now a liability.
I was not involved in the test so I cannot testify to the fact but Marine Corps Systems Command, PM Individual Weapons thinks otherwise and specifically quotes that test and say PMAG were tested and didn’t meet the specifications
