Honest Assessment of AR PMags

No product is perfect. MagPul PMags are considered to be very reliable and are therefore very popular.

But in the long term, are they durable? I am NOT talking about spring failure, but the eventual fatigue and cracking of the spine of the mag body itself. I have no doubt that MagPul springs are as durable or possibly better than USGI springs. I am having my doubts about the long-term durability of the mag body itself.

I want to discuss the durability of PMag AR magazine bodies when left loaded for a long period of time without using the dust cover.

It is interesting to note that MagPul supplies a cover with each mag to take tension off the feed lips, and in this scenario a PMag should last a long, long time even fully loaded.

However, dust covers get lost, broken, accidentally knocked off the top of mags, etc., and so the bottom line is: How durable are PMag bodies when left loaded for a long time without the dust cover to take tension off the feed lips? I want to be as objective as possible, without simply posting link after link showing both sides of the durability argument. I’ve picked a handful of sources that appear to illustrate the two extremes.

[video=youtube_share;iZE2jEhOPQY]https://youtu.be/iZE2jEhOPQY[/video]

Underneath the video, the person who uploaded it stated that MagPul’s apparent response is that the mags are probably simply defective:

Magpul magazine failure. All the mags that have failed are Gen 2. 10 mags out of 12 that I bought one year ago have failed. I did send a email to Magpul they said “broken or defective PMAGs are actually extremely rare; however, defective ones do pop up now and again”. They said if I send the defective mags back they would send me new ones.

Larry Vickers gave his opinion of polymer mags in an old post right here on M4C (and he isn’t even talking about leaving them loaded):

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?145532-Now-is-the-time-to-stockpile-magazines&highlight=pmag

Polymer mags are the ones you are using now for everyday use ; the metal mags are the ones that will last for decades

Yes I am talking about your beloved Pmags; don’t expect them to be ‘like new’ years from now when you break them out of the wrapper

All plastic deteriorates over time - the USGI spec metal mags however can last a very long time as evidenced by the number of Vietnam era 20 round mags you still see in use

A word to the wise

On this forum, the person posting claims to have gotten an answer from MagPul on this question. I am assuming he his reporting the response accurately:

https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/i-finally-got-an-answer-from-magpul.125306/

Regarding the question of how long, we’ve had magazines fully loaded for over four years now with no Impact/Dust Cover on and have experienced no feed lip or spring issues. With the cover installed storage life is considered indefinite. There have also been PMAGS reportedly tested to hundreds-of-thousands of rounds (military vetting), and we know positively of ones that have gone tens-of-thousands, so usable life is quite excellent too.

The Magpul Team

Of course, we all know that the Marines finally approved the official use of PMags for duty:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/01/08/marines-approve-magpul-s-signature-polymer-ammunition-magazine/

The Marine Corps has approved Magpul Industries Corp.'s signature polymer ammunition magazine for use in combat and training, according to a Magpul press release.

“The Magpul GenM3 PMag was the only magazine to perform to acceptable levels across all combinations of Marine Corps 5.56mm rifles and ammunition during testing. That magazine has, therefore, been approved for use for both training and combat,” Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) told Military Times.

Based out of Austin, Texas, Magpul’s polymer-based magazine, commonly referred to as the PMAG, has become a favorite of combat veterans and members of the special operations community since its inception in 2007.

Its rugged dependability has made it a top performer among private competitors in the small-arms accessory sector.

“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,” said an Army infantryman deployed to Afghanistan.

The purpose of this thread is not to “start a flame war” or to give a bad review to what may very well be a durable product. The purpose of this thread is an honest discussion of what appears to be a contradiction in the assessment of MagPul PMag durability when left loaded without the dust cover.

So, were the mags in the video simply defective?

Have any of you experienced “mag body fatigue” in PMags that have been left loaded for a long time without the dust cover?

Is the dust cover an essential piece of kit for a PMag, and should be considered “the one thing” that keeps the mag working even after years of being loaded?

Do we accept that the mag bodies can fail from the tension of being loaded long-term?
If so, do we concede that a MagPul AR PMag should only be left loaded for a long time if the dust cover is used?
If we do accept that this is a limitation of an otherwise fantastic product, do we simply consider the fatigue problem a “reasonable limitation” and rock on?
In comparison, a metal mag body is prone to dents and a PMag is not. Do we call the limitations of each type of mag acceptable for its particular configuration?
Or do we view the potential to fail just from being loaded in storage an unacceptable weakness of the PMag, since a dent in a metal mag is largely due to misuse or abuse?
In other words, do we disallow fatigue failure of the PMag because the failure may occur even if the mag isn’t being used?

[b]My take:

Full disclosure: Although I really love Glock PMags, I do have a bias against AR PMags. I think they are bulky, don’t fit a lot of vest pouches, and in general I’ve had enough good experiences with USGI mags to make me not “need” PMags. I probably have less than 20 of them.

I’m also more of a “prepper” and not an operator. I’d have to defer to those who shoot for a living for opinions on anything but long-term storage.

I also have to allow for the possibility that I missed MagPul possibly having a “bad batch” or “bad run” that resulted in the video above.

But the bottom line is: I have to agree with Larry Vickers’ assessment above.

Although PMags may be great allowing for limitations that every product has, to my mind even the possibility of mag body fatigue just from being loaded in storage is unacceptable to me.[/b]

What’s your take?

If Jesus were to use an M4… he’d use PMAGs.

Mags are consumables. Pmags may (debatable) not be the best long term storage option (I have 6 m3’s that have been loaded for 4 years and no signs of cracking) but for actual usage imo they’re the best you can buy. They have passed gov testing with flying colors, I think in one test they didn’t experience a single malfunction (I’m sure the Magpul guys on the forum can chime in)

I’m actually hoping they will, too. To my mind, the question creates enough doubt that a good, supportable rebuttal is more than welcome. I’m literally asking to be proven wrong.

HK mags are the only mags i trust in a go bag

I’m really starting to like the Israeli Fab Defense - Ultimags.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I’d say that is fair.

Worry about long term storage without covers is probably less fair. Storage is not an activity where one can expect to loose the covers. Just taking the covers off mags before they go into the range rotation will keep them from being lost.

Expecting plastic mag bodies to disintegrate over time while the plastic follower in your metal mag does not, seems a little short sighted to me.

I also wouldn’t worry about needing pmags if you prefer GI.

Is it?

Are they the same material?

Are they the same thickness of material?

Are they subjected to the same stresses?

Apples and oranges, I think.

Except Vickers’s statement was directed at “all plastics” in general, to include the degradation of NIW polymer magazines.

Yes, I thought I had noted that in my first post, that his statement wasn’t about stresses from being left loaded per se.

Quoting the above:

There is a common misconception that the dust/impact cover supplied with most PMAG products is in some way required to prevent feed lip creep or spread over time. This is not the case. When initially loaded, the PMAG GEN M3, and all PMAGs in the current lineup, exhibit a tiny normalization of feed lip geometry within a very small window of time measured in days, and then this geometry then remains stable over many years, heat cycles, cooling cycles, and outdoor UV and weather exposure. We routinely load magazines and place them into stable indoor, hot, cold, and outdoor exposure storage to monitor various batches of material. These magazines are occasionally function tested and reloaded with no issues.

Then why the cracked mags in the video in my first post?

Is there that much difference in quality between Gen 2 and Gen 3 mags?

Were the ones in the video a manufacturer defect and not typical?

The point is that his statement is meaningless in this context and arguable erroneous. Sure, all polymers degrade over time, but on what time scale? Feed lip spread can result in metal mags, too, so an erroneous blanket statement about polymer magazines has no purpose. I’ve heard of early production AUG magazines still working fine, and those are from the late 1970s.

I have never heard of feed lip spread in metal mags. Is this really prevalent? I tend not to store mags loaded no matter what type, but it would be good to know the specs on metal mags and feed lip spreading.

I have Pmags that have been loaded for years. Left in a car. Baked in the summer. Frozen in the winter.

I believe Vickers comments were rebutted fairly well by materials science types when that thread happened. He’s also been known to push the products of the people who pay him (looking at you Tango down mag). I don’t look to Vickers to impartially speak about product. Disclosure: I’m a very happy user of two VCAS slings.

My one caveat on Mr. Vickers’ post is that he probably has the same bias a lot of us have: He’s “old school” and prefers what he served with and what works, and mistrusts new innovations to a certain extent. I have that bias on occasion also.

So, why did the PMags in the video I posted crack at the spine?

The H&K Maritime steel magazines had a reputation for feed lip spread from simple loaded storage.

Who knows. I’m inclined to think that they were defective; regardless, without a large sample size and detailed analysis, there’s no way for us to divine what went wrong. You either trust Magpul’s in-house analysis or you don’t.

Do you have a link to this? I’d like to study this subject further.

I literally found this just a few seconds ago:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/05/03/steel-vs-polymer-magazines-whats-more-reliable/

The biggest advantage of metal mags is having metal feed lips. The feed lips are the most problematic area of polymer magazines and over time they have the ability to thin and crack from use. Some of the most popular metal magazines are HK’s steel magazines designed for the 416 and AR variants. They are some of the most robust metal magazines on the market but are much heavier than other options. I’ve had very good luck with metal mags with a few exceptions.

The biggest downside to polymer magazines is durability over time. I’ve had a few different polymer magazines break on me either at the range or even while loading if they are cheap magazines. I have broken a few different Magpul 308 P-Mags whether it’s the feed lips or the actual structural defects.

There are a few different types of hybrid magazines on the market today. One of the most well known hybrid styles would be the Lancer magazines. I call them a “hybrid” magazineս because they are polymer magazineս but haվե metal feed lips. This brings the best of both worlds together with the lightweight polymer magazines and the reliability of metal feed lips. I’ve run a few different style Lancer magazines and I have had really good luck so far.

IIRC the makers of polymer AK magazines discovered the all-polymer design to be inadequate and recommended the “hybrid” mags. Of course, the AK magazine is a different animal to a certain extent and uses a locking tab on the mag itself. But the point is that metal reinforcement of polymer mags seems to be a reasonable “fix” for the inadequacies of all-polymer mags. If that’s not the reason for “hybrid” mags–then why do they exist?

Let’s not stray too far from the “mags are a disposable item” idea. Metal mags problems are that the feed lips may spread and then it’s f’d They were designed to used 8 times. Polymer gives the feed lips some elasticity and they may be used longer as a result.

The bottom line is main brand mags are going to be quite serviceable for a long time. And also, ANYTHING in the current mass production marketplace will have bad apples. Don’t read too much into it.

Metal mags can only be used 8 times? Where are you getting this?