The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 23, 2009, 09:41 AM   #1
TRguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2008
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 682
NEW Dept of Defense AR Mag Follower to be issued

NEW Dept of Defense AR Mag Follower to be issued

http://www.defencetalk.com/improved-...ability-23413/



The Army has begun fielding a new 5.56mm 30-round "improved magazine" that delivers a significant increase in reliability for M-16 and M-4 weapons.

Bolstering the already high reliability ratings of the M-16 and M-4, the improved magazine reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants.....
__________________
Two is One, One is None
TRguy is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 10:41 AM   #2
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,903
Looks like something similar to the Magpul anti tilt follower.

I retrofit all my GI style 30 round STANAGs with that follower anyway.
Technosavant is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 11:43 AM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,689
So PEO Soldier introduces an improved high-reliability magazine some 5-7 years after such magazines and followers have been available on the civilian market?

I'd be interested in hearing how the PEO follower stacks up against the Magpul follower; because unless there is a significant enhancement in performance over that, it looks like PEO spent five years developing a product that was already available at any gun show.

I sure hope I am wrong on that; because I would hate to think our procurement system is so jacked up that an easily implemented product improvement that improves mag reliability by 50% hit the civilian market 5 years prior to the mil.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 11:48 AM   #4
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
And the follower bullet 'nub' is on a different side. Now it'll be even harder to know if the mags are loaded to 30 or 29.
__________________
E Pluribus Unum
KChen986 is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 01:13 PM   #5
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
And the follower bullet 'nub' is on a different side. Now it'll be even harder to know if the mags are loaded to 30 or 29.
I'm not sure why the side of the nub would make a bit of difference. Unless the maximum compressible space is decreased, it should have the same capacity as before.
Technosavant is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 01:21 PM   #6
ISC
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
Technosavant Quote:
I'm not sure why the side of the nub would make a bit of difference. Unless the maximum compressible space is decreased, it should have the same capacity as before.
Which side of the mag the last round is on depends on whether it has an even or odd number of rounds in it.
ISC is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 03:50 PM   #7
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Which side of the mag the last round is on depends on whether it has an even or odd number of rounds in it.
Well, yeah, and it may take some adjustment to remember which way it is when fully loaded, but I'm not seeing why that simple switch would indicate one round less capacity.

And for the record, the first line of the article is:
Quote:
The Army has begun fielding a new 5.56mm 30-round "improved magazine" that delivers a significant increase in reliability for M-16 and M-4 weapons.
Since it leads off by quoting a 30 round capacity, I'd bet that they haven't cut it to 29.

Last edited by Technosavant; December 23, 2009 at 03:51 PM. Reason: Added quote from article
Technosavant is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 04:13 PM   #8
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Why don't they just start buying PMAG's?
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 07:45 PM   #9
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
Technosavant,

I usually double check my mags to make sure they're loaded @ 30 by seeing if all the mags' top-most rounds are on one side. Imagine soldiers receiving these magazines/followers in the field and mixing them with their former USGI mag followers. Now it's slightly more difficult to know if the mags are topped off or not.

Just a small consideration, but I don't see why the DOD couldn't have placed the nub on the same side to prevent this.
__________________
E Pluribus Unum
KChen986 is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 08:37 PM   #10
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,689
I think there have been some tests showing that when a mag is fully loaded, it loads better from the right than the left for some reason. Not sure how reliable the testing was (Internet rumor) or whether that was a factor; but it may explain the decision to move the nub.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 23, 2009, 08:43 PM   #11
bigghoss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,659
while I'm not in the army I'm employed by the department of the army as an armed guard and our m16 mags are crap. bulged out, bent feed lips, old style followers. we have some with the newer green "anti-tilt followers" and even they get crooked and stuck. they need to just buy better mags to begin with. I wish they'd let people who know the equipment buy the equipement.
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.
bigghoss is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 10:09 AM   #12
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,464
Quote:
Why don't they just start buying PMAG's?
Because they break in the extreme cold. The military doesn't want to have to have different magazines for different environments.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:00 PM   #13
LukeA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 542
Quote:
Because they break in the extreme cold. The military doesn't want to have to have different magazines for different environments.
Polycarbonate has a low working temperature of -135˚C. That's pretty extreme. I'd be more worried about the coefficient of thermal expansion differences between my brass cartridges and steel chamber (and aluminum upper and lower) at that temperature.
LukeA is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:28 PM   #14
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
Yea...I don't understand why the .mil is researching their own polymer mags instead of just fielding Pmags either...
__________________
E Pluribus Unum
KChen986 is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:42 PM   #15
tINY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2005
Location: Orygun
Posts: 2,589


Because it's a federal bureaucracy...


-tINY

tINY is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:45 PM   #16
LukeA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 542
I bet Magpul can't come close to being able to produce mags at a rate high enough to supply the entire military.
LukeA is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:47 PM   #17
tINY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2005
Location: Orygun
Posts: 2,589

The tooling would be easy to set up if they had a large contract.



-tINY

tINY is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:50 PM   #18
davlandrum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Lane County Oregon
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
they need to just buy better mags to begin with.
If they buy better mags, they are "wasting our tax dollars", if they buy cheap mags, they are "not supporting the troops".

I would be willing to bet most Americans want our troops to have the best available equipment, just as long as they don't have to pay for it.

Same way they scream for better schools, but won't vote for a property tax to do that.
__________________
U.S Army, Retired

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. -Potter Stewart
davlandrum is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 12:52 PM   #19
NSO_w/_SIG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2004
Posts: 553
Quote:
Because they break in the extreme cold. The military doesn't want to have to have different magazines for different environments.
All the independent tests I've seen suggest otherwise
NSO_w/_SIG is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 01:08 PM   #20
DanThaMan
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Location: IL
Posts: 153
I'd like to conduct my own tests on comparing/contrasting the two

Here's a link if anyone cares to see a computer simulation of the new mag at work.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/4184964248/
DanThaMan is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 03:22 PM   #21
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
Because they break in the extreme cold. The military doesn't want to have to have different magazines for different environments.
Wrong.
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old December 24, 2009, 05:12 PM   #22
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Bolstering the already high reliability ratings of the M-16 and M-4, the improved magazine reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants.....
I almost had eggnog on my computer screen after reading that.

Quote:
So PEO Soldier introduces an improved high-reliability magazine some 5-7 years after such magazines and followers have been available on the civilian market?
The military finally got around to issuing optics after others had been using them successfully for years. Heck, they are finally starting to get around to looking into suppressors.

The military rarely buys the best equipment for the troops. Partially because there isn't as much congregational kickback money to be made. Partially because the best equipment is also often the newest equipment and may also have serious bugs. Partially because the military doesn't like new things and would rather cling to obsolete tactics and equipment than try something new, no matter how much better it is.

Cost isn't a valid reason because we blow hundreds of billions on aircraft that do little besides sit on the ground waiting for the Soviets to rush through the Fulda gap.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11388 seconds with 9 queries