Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Funny cause a chap over on calguns left his Pmags loaded for an extended period of time and the noticed some started to crack along the spine in the back, showing the stress was taking a toll. It did not happen on all of them (black ones), but it did happen on some. Also at one time Magpul used to straight up say ON THEIR WEBSITE the following.
So calling my statements not accurate ironically is not accurate.
Your statements are accurate. What Mag-Pul say's is meaningless because of course they'll defend it.
It's their product. There have been several cases of P-Mags splitting and cracking. Along the spine, as well as various other places. They're plastic. They are also not steel reinforced like Factory Glock mags, or Lancer. This is why I won't even bother with Mag-Pul Glock magazines. They are not reinforced, or worth it. Glock OEM magazines are. I'll save the lousy few bucks elsewhere. Remember, they are cheaper for a reason.
Mag-Pul has not remedied this condition, because it continues to appear on a regular basis. They've screwed with the plastic / Polymer formulation, and that has helped some. But they cannot change the design, or increase wall thickness, because it would cost them a fortune to do so. When these things came on the market, they were sold as the end all, cure all. Every mall ninja at ARFCOM jumped on the P-Mag bandwagon. Since then reality has set in, along with several problems. Eventually leading up to both the Army and Marines banning them. That didn't happen because they were so problem free and wonderful.
As I said, I'm a fan of P-Mags, but I only use them at the range. For that they are fine. If they crack or fail, (and yes, I've had a few that have), there is a 55 gallon trash can nearby. They are good, cheap, mostly reliable range magazines. But I would never store them loaded for reasons that have already been outlined by myself and many others. Here is a good example. There are dozens more examples out there of them cracking and splitting. Yes, Mag-Pul is very good about replacing them. But the problem is they are replacing them with the same thing.
http://www.xcrforum.com/forum/26-endless...sh-reality.html
1) It's a magazine. Eugine Stoner designed the M16 with the intent that the magazine was disposable. Something that should be kept in mind, regardless of what it is made of.
2) Neither the Army, nor the USMC, has banned the PMAG.
3) Magpul constantly changes the moulding and the process and formula by which they make PMAGs, in an effort (successful) to make them better. MAGPUL has stoopid deep pockets, and yes, they do spend the money. That said, you cannot cram more material into it because then a) It wouldn't fit in the mag well because it got fatter, for lack of a technical term, or b) it would not hold ammunition, because it got fatter internally.
4) They do split and break, yes, but I have found that if I can cram it into the mag-well, it will work, with regard to the spine splitting. Sure, it won't hold rounds in a mag pouch, but I can hold it together, and get it in the mag well, and it runs. Kinda neat, as a metal mag would choke and due if you broke it down the spine. That said, the PMAG is much more durable than the metal USGI mags. Still breakable, sure! But not as easily. Also, plastic splits...you can see it. Metal deforms slightly, and takes a gauge, or a malfunction to clue you in vs. visual inspection.
5) It's a magazine. It costs less than the ammo it holds. Let's not get so attached to them...if they can't get run over by a truck, work for 1,000 loadings, or sustain a 20 foot fall from your roof...replace it!
