I’ve read that M-16/M-4 magazines were initially intended to be disposable, but of course now that’s not the case, with troops being issued a certain number and being accountable for their return.
Now that the military considers magazines to be non-disposable, what changes over time have been made to the original GI design? Are materials different? Tolerances? What makes today’s GI magazines substantially different from the old throw-away designs originally fielded?
As far as I’m aware, the original 20 round straight mag was designed properly from the start and had no revisions.
Features include a heat treated aluminum body, dry film finish and stainless steel spring.
They are reported to be very reliable.
The 30 round mag was a later adaptation, but suffers from the partially straight/ partially curved geometry that complicates feeding.
Magpul followers provide a significant improvement in 30 rounders.
GI mags work well, provided the feed lips are in good shape.
Feedlips can get worn out from use or damaged from being dropped.
If the feedlips are worn out, spreading or damaged, the mag should be used for training only.
So there haven’t been significant revisions to the original magazine designs, besides followers? That’s interesting. Obviously, properly built GI magazines are very reliable, but I find it strange that something designed to be disposable proved to accidentally be sufficiently strong to last many years.
They still are intended to be disposable.
I highly doubt that the military will be asking for a mag count and discipline if your short a few mags after a fire fight.
As far as I’m aware, the original 20 round straight mag was designed properly from the start and had no revisions.
Does anyone know what the going price was for this magazine before the ban talk? Was it about $10 new?
Online sellers had 20-round GI style mags for $13-18.
Really in a way they are still “disposable” as in, use them until they wear out and then replace them. They are classified as an expendable item (less than 100$ in value and not consumed in use) as opposed to a durable or consumable. They also (from what I’ve seen) aren’t tracked that closely. Usually the only grief a CDR may have from a property standpoint is that 1 magazine is listed as BII for the M16 FOW and thus is responsible for 1 mag per M4 on his property book. An infantry company will always have enough to cover this and excess magazines are not added to the property books (again from what I’ve seen other units may, depends on the units PBO). So how accountability was supposed to work was when a soldier was issued mags, usually the armorer issued it to him on a 2062 hand receipt, and when it came time to clear the unit he would turn in however many mags he had signed for on the 2062. In reality that hand receipt would usually get lost in the shuffle of deployments, personnel change over etc and really didn’t matter. Not to mention that no one wants to go through the hassle of doing a statement of charges on a few m4 mags if it wasnt lost. Kind of a long winded response, I know, but trying to clear up some misconceptions about how property works in the army and to highlight that they really are disposable in a way.
Thanks LtNovakUSA, that’s very enlightening.
What civilians call disposable may not be the same thing in the military. Many items are not tracked individually, such as pens and pencils. When they are used up, they get thrown away and replaced. This does not mean they are thrown away after each use or even frequently.
They’re not disposable. They just wear out. I highly doubt they were designed to be disposable.
Before the recent hysteria, these were each ~$14
I’m sure they’ll have more in a few months.
“In Stock” quantities used to show hundreds…
http://www.44mag.com/product/nhmtg_20_ar15_magazine/223_ar15_magazines
http://www.44mag.com/product/nhmtg_magazine_magpul_follower/223_ar15_magazines
Exactly. Under the DoD procurement umbrella, the term is consumable and that generally covers any item that is of low cost that is either unable to be repaired/reconditioned or deemed not worth the cost. They’re used until they’re gone (pens, paper, fuel) or worn out (magazines, nuts, bolts, screws, etc etc) at which point they’re thrown out and replaced.
In the case of magazines “worn out” can simply mean “I didn’t have time to pick it up while I was getting shot at.”
This is as opposed to high dollar items like generators, trucks and even the rifle itself which get some form of repair/reset action when they show signs of age and wear.
The example closest to me is the aircraft I support, when they come back from long term deployment to theater, the first place they go is to depot level maintenance and reset to return them standard configuration and condition.
Close, but not exactly. Consumables are consumed in use. For example MREs. Once you eat it, you can’t eat it again. Fuel, once you burn it you can’t burn it again. A magazine though can be used again. It’s an expendable. (less than 100$ but isn’t consumed in use) If it disintegrated upon firing 30 rounds then it would be consumable. And yes “Durable” items are things that “retain they’re original identity after use but aren’t coded as expendable”. An M4, hand tools, an M1A2 Abrams etc. The whole supply/property thing is a huge can of worms and is why there is an MOS dedicated to it. It’s also why being a company executive officer is such a massive PITA. (Sorry about the thread derail, if you have any questions about this exciting (read dull as hell) subject feel free to PM me, I got to deal with this crap day in and day out for over a year both CONUS and OCONUS)
I could be wrong but I think we’re talking from two different perspectives ie procurement vs supply, that have two different definitions.
You did get me curious enough to dig through the DAU glossary though. No definition of expendable but I found nearly half a dozen other definitions that a magazine could potentially fit under although consumable does seem to be the closest. Don’t know why I ever expected DAU to actually have a clear answer… :rolleyes:
Now that I’ve reminded myself have $(%*&#$# terrible DAU is and how much of my life I wasted in those courses, think I’m gonna go hang myself… :suicide:
Eugene Stoner gave an interview several years ago where they were discussing various aspects and issues with the M16.
Some of the things he said were that (IIRC) magazines were meant to be pre-loaded and issued and not continually re-used and the issues with the DoD/Army changing propellant type, removing the chrome from the bores, BCG’s, etc…
Do you hav a link?
To the OP most recently the Army improved the magazine with an anti-tilt follower and an enhanced spring.
No, it was in a magazine. I believe that when I met him several years back he stated something along the same lines.
The other stuff is well-known (propellant changes, chrome, etc…).
This is what I was referring to. Seems like the consensus is that, aside from follower changes and the development of the 30-round magazine, nothing has really changed vs. the original pre-load-and-dispose magazine design.
It’s not for lack of a recognition of the issue.The problem is that the mags were not designed to be terribly durable, and because you’re talking about a weapon with relatively close clearances and tolerances, there just isn’t any room to add more material to the feed lips for reinforcement.
I’ve also seen interviews stating that the mags were meant to be issued loaded and tossed after they were emptied. Might have been on “Tales of the gun,” can’t remember if it was Stoner himself who said it, or Atwater.
Got it. Must be why they used aluminum instead of steel like the m14. So I guess they were planning on lugging around mag boxes instead of just stripper clips.