APA Paragon AI and AW magazines??

[brianf]

morning guys, was clicking around and i stopped by APA American Precision Arms

had a 308 from them back when they were Patriot Arms, and had some other work done by them

their rifle was excellent/accurate everything a custom should be

so i figured id stop by and see what they are up to as of late

this video confuses me although i have limited knowledge of magazines and bottom metal other than shooting AICS chassis and AX rifles

if im correct how can a action be cut for both magazines, arent they different sizes in general

people have issues with a mag being just a little off and it wont feed, how are 2 mags working?

he doesnt say that he is messing with the OEM mags at all

 

[Adam B]

If the action is cut to accept AW magazines it can run AICS magazines but you will have to pick one. The mag catch height is different for each type of magazine. I have never had any luck trying to run both types of magazines on the same magazine catch.

 

[brianf]

If the action is cut to accept AW magazines it can run AICS magazines but you will have to pick one. The mag catch height is different for each type of magazine. I have never had any luck trying to run both types of magazines on the same magazine catch.

thats what i thought but knowing Jared doesnt put out crap kit, im guessing he got it to work somehow.

he was big into the tactical stuff then he rotated toward hunting rifles with tactical guts, then walnut stocks etc

which is prob why we dont see much about him anymore

figured someone on the hide might have one of the dual mag rifles

 

[MarinePMI]

I've never seen his new RTG bottom metal, but if I had to venture a guess, it has a serrated mag latch of some type. Notice when he said "Once the AW mag has been fitted, and AICS mag can also be used". My guess (and it is purely a guess/suspicion) is that his latch is serrated to have to two catch points. Since we know the difference between location the AW and AICS magazines (indexed from the top of the mag), it be pretty straight forward to design a latch that has double teeth (vice just coming to an end), whereby each "tooth" grabs the mag latch protrusion of each type of magazine. I'd bet with one mag (AW, IIRC, is shorter) you'd probably get a slight double click, as the mag latch protrusion ran over the first "tooth", but is actually locked into place by the second "tooth" (the end of the mag latch). If you're clever, you might even make it miss the first notch by changing some angles.

Again, just totally guessing, but if I were to design a dual magazine capable latch, that'd be how I'd do it (though there's another way I can think of to do it as well, but it's more complicated).

<shrug> It'd be nice to actually see how it works, and remove the guessing.

Haven't seen him in awhile (shot with him at the SHC '15, in the same squad), but wish him well.

 

[brianf]

i was hoping this would get some traction for obvious reasons

thanks for the info...seems logical if thats the way it works

what do you think about width of mag in the bottom metal?

what do you think about the cut in the receiver?

thanks again

 

[MarinePMI]

Not sure I'm following you. The width is the same between AW and AICS IIRC (at least, my AT will accept an AICS, it just won't latch in place). As to the receiver, I think that has more to do with the feed ramp overhanging the magazine in certain actions.

 

[Adam B]

The receiver has to be cut for AW magazines in order for them to work. I am 90% sure the AW magazines are a touch wider than the AICS mags but the opening on most guns can accommodate both with ease.

 

[brianf]

ok, i thought i read that the cut had to be larger for the AW

and ive read, gunsmiths say that a double stack mage opening is larger than a single stack opening..

i just didnt know how much

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Once all the action cuts, magazine latches, etc etc are completed it still would be my luck that unless I used the exact and I mean the exact magazines used to test the function I would run into problems with this magazine, that magazine, those magazines, etc etc.

For me this would be getting into the "universal" category of things and we all know the translation of "universal" for us Murphy's Law scholars, lol.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[brianf]

im thinking thats why there might not be many replies, as of yet

 

[morganlamprecht]

running both is doable

both my impact builds are cut for AWs...they are also cut correctly so that AICS mags dont over insert into the action and bind the bolt...i cant speak to any other action brands "AW cut"

i believe the cut for AWs is slightly cut in the front and more clearance for the feed lips...the magazine itself is not wider with AWs, but the feed lips are wider for the double stack/stagger vs single stack/center...not 100% sure as both mine were refinished after cutting and i dont have an AICS cut impact handy to compare

the action cut controls the max height the mags can go...the latch controls how high/tight its held

impact1 w/ AWs


impact2 w/ 223A AICS


impact1 w/ AWs pressure on the mag


impact1 w/ AICS pressure on the mag

 

[THEIS]

im thinking thats why there might not be many replies, as of yet

Hi,

Because we are all the damn poster children for proof that Murphy has all the power in the universe, lol?

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[brianf]

so it is possible!!

have you tried several different mags etc or you only run the same from day one

thanks

 

[brianf]

forgot to add

are those mags out of the bag

if they arent from "amazon" its a different story

thanks again

 

[morganlamprecht]

so it is possible!!

have you tried several different mags etc or you only run the same from day one

thanks

i think i have 6 AW mags, 4 AICS mags, and 3 AICS 223 mags in rotation right now...they all work, i dont have any of them marked for certain rifle except the 223 AICS mag modded for my AT, but it works in my impacts also

only issue is on some of the AICS i spread the first 1/2" or so of the lips out so the round strips smoother...doesnt make or break function, just makes it smoother

all my AW/AICS mags are actual AI brand except the 223s are Accurate...i havent messed with any other brand in these rifles

because of the known potential risks with AW mags and 2 lug actions, i keep a couple spare AICS mags in my pack...havent had to use them yet

one rifle has 5k+ rounds on it, the other probably 2-3k

 

[morganlamprecht]

i think i forgot to add...both of those rifles are custom fit bottom metals...they are not just dropped in

both were cut to certain depths based on the mag catch/action fit

so AICS+AW is possible in the same action, but it is controlled by the action cut/bottom metal/latch...not sure how the APA is handling it, but its doable if done right

 

[MarinePMI]

Morgan, I think the premise here is that his action can use either type of magazine, without changing anything (latch or anything). Or maybe I misunderstood the video(?)...

 

[morganlamprecht]

it was kind of confusing how he worded it, but seemed the same as my setups if im understanding the video correctly...

both of mine would run AICS mags out of the box, dropped in, no mods

neither would run the AWs 100%

once the bottom metal/latches were fitted...they both run either type of mag

thats what i heard at least with the "once fitted to AWs" comment...maybe i misunderstood

im not sure how action alone could be responsible for using both mags since the mag position matters a lot and thats controlled by the metal/latch...but i dont know it all and ive been wrong before lol

 

[NW Valkyrie]

Hi brianf- the short answer is AICS style mags still work in AW rifles because it's more forgiving.

Slightly longer:
A single round presented in line with the bore is less fussy on mag height and feed lip spacing vs a double stack config.

Longer still:
AW mags are wider than AICS compatible. Anyone with a set of calipers can easily measure the difference, but you don't even need em. A pair of .308 based staggered cartridges require more space than one single stacked. Hence the AW "cut"

The challenge all AW action makers face is how to accommodate the wider AW feed lips while still allowing AICS mags to work.

The workaround is the front of the magazine opening is tapered to stop AICS mags while accommodating wider-in-the-rear AW mags.

Important service announcement! Since AICS mags are only stopped by the front of the mag opening, upward pressure can cause AICS mags to "tip" in the rear and cause feeding problems. Here is what Zermatt Arms has on their web site-
"AW magazine wells will accept AW magazines as well as AICS pattern magazines. Running AICS pattern magazines in an AW cut receiver does present a greater potential for feeding issues. Upward pressure on AICS magazines can create a bind on the bolt that does not allow the bolt to be pushed forward."

When setting up an AW action, the first step is to adjust the magazine catch. This is generally lower than an AICS mag, and allows the AW mag to sit nice and flush with the action.

Getting back to your question, since we have now lowered the magazine catch to accommodate AW mags doesn't this mean the AICS mag will now have feeding issues?

Fortunately no. Since as noted, AICS can have more slop and still feed reliably. Sure it might be .020 lower than preferred, but a single stack can easily handle this.

To wrap this up, it might sound like I'm arguing against AW mags. On the contrary. I much prefer the easier loading and shorter height of AW mags. I run a 3-lug action, but have heard from many that run 2-lug just fine. In addition I chose a chassis w/ adjustable mag catch and prevents AICS mags from hitting the action. I run AW as much as possible.

I know we have lots of gunsmiths on the Hide. If anything I said is wrong please let me know. This is my experience to date.

 

[brianf]

Great explanation

 

[morganlamprecht]

i have never had to set mags lower in a stock/chassis to run AW mags w/ a 2 lug action

so far ive set up them up in an couple MPAs, AT, KRG, and multiple manners/foundation combos...had to go higher in all of them, usually ~.040-.070

going lower increases the AW/2 lug problem to begin with...that is when the bullet hits the feed ramp and tilts up, the rear of the case tilts down causing it to slip off of the bolt nose

the above has all been with impacts or defiances...ive seen bighorns be more forgiving on mag position, i suspect from something to do with not having a bolt nose/being control round feed

 

[Terry Cross]

When setting up an AW action, the first step is to adjust the magazine catch. This is generally lower than an AICS mag, and allows the AW mag to sit nice and flush with the action.

Getting back to your question, since we have now lowered the magazine catch to accommodate AW mags doesn't this mean the AICS mag will now have feeding issues?

Are you sure you mean "lower"?


./

 

[brianf]

@Terry Cross
since it seems possible with some tweaking (from what ive seen here so far) have you ever thought about it or the juice isnt worth the squeeze?

have you seen agencies and customers complain about 5 rd mags or its just pain in the ass customers and posters like me being a wanting everything lol

thanks

 

[-Time-]

running both is doable

both my impact builds are cut for AWs...they are also cut correctly so that AICS mags dont over insert into the action and bind the bolt...i cant speak to any other action brands "AW cut"

i believe the cut for AWs is slightly cut in the front and more clearance for the feed lips...the magazine itself is not wider with AWs, but the feed lips are wider for the double stack/stagger vs single stack/center...not 100% sure as both mine were refinished after cutting and i dont have an AICS cut impact handy to compare

the action cut controls the max height the mags can go...the latch controls how high/tight its held

impact1 w/ AWs


impact2 w/ 223A AICS


impact1 w/ AWs pressure on the mag


impact1 w/ AICS pressure on the mag

I have an ultimatum deadline in a KRG whiskey 3 that also runs both perfectly. I had to trim the mag catch for action fit, but AICS and AW mags both feed flawlessly, no matter what kind of pressure or where I put on the mags. The deadline is AW cut with an over insertion stop. As far as I could tell when I tested them AICS and AW mags only really differed in feed lip width.

 

[Terry Cross]

@Terry Cross
since it seems possible with some tweaking (from what ive seen here so far) have you ever thought about it or the juice isnt worth the squeeze?

have you seen agencies and customers complain about 5 rd mags or its just pain in the ass customers and posters like me being a wanting everything lol

thanks

On a 2 lug action the AW mags have to be positioned as close as possible to the bolt patch without actually getting in the way.
Obviously the receiver has to be cut for the AW in the first place. Most of those AW mag cuts follow the original R&D Guardian design (remember Randy?).

In most action/bottom metal combos, if the mag latch is located high enough to position the AW mag for feeding, many of the AICS mags will not "click" into place before the feed lips contact the bolt body or the front of the mag hits the bottom of the receiver below the feed ramp.

I have not had anyone that actually uses their rifles for work complain about 5 round mags.
I would even venture to say that if PRS/NRL stayed within the original framework of stage design/intent instead of evolving into 8, 12, 14, etc. round stages, magazine capacity in a precision bolt gun would be super low in internet searches for aspiring new gun owners.

In the mean time, it is a burgeoning business opportunity for companies outfitting their sponsored shooters and trying to get into the latest poll of "what the pros use".

Here is the deal. Accuracy International magazines are dimensionally all over the place when several years worth of production is measured. That alone makes it hard to be specific on what will always work across the board. Then you take into account MDT, Accurate, MagPul and others that make clones of the Accuracy International. While all of those make very nice products, they individually bring in A LOT more variables because.........

Accuracy International does not and has not released dimensional prints or CAD of any of their magazines to anyone even when offering so sign NDAs, etc.
Accordingly anyone making bottom metal, clone magazines, etc. is making educated guesses and a bit of a gamble based on measured samples of Acc Intl. mags. I have been lucky to have very good experience already logged with the SENTINEL and LongSword DBMs when rolling out the conventional Mk1 and Mk2 DBMs so I have been very fortunate to see good results from users so far.

When it comes to a rifle that absolutely, positively HAS to feed at a critical time I will always push the users to stay with AICS pattern mags produced by Accuracy International over the AW pattern mags.

I still have customers wanting SENTINEL rifles shipped with AW mags but those guns are fitted to position the mag very close to the bolt path. Most either will not let AICS mags click into place or will do so reluctantly and with possible rub by the bolt body.

Most actions and most bottom metals can still be made to bind the bolt when pushing up on the magazine (with the weight of the rifle, not with fingers). Even if the front of the mag ceases vertical travel due to contact with the bottom of the receiver under the ramp, the rear of the mag can still tilt up and get the lips into conflict with the bolt. Only exceptions seem to be the combination of magazine X fitting into bottom metal Y very tightly so that the tilt is limited.

I have already cured the magazine overtravel issue with the Mk2 long action DBMs and the Gen II Mk1s are doing the same.

Everybody is going to have different ideas, opinions and experiences on this so take my ramblings with a grain of salt.



./

 

[brianf]

Excellent answer...thanks a lot.
Makes sense across the board.

 

[MarinePMI]

To add to Terry's post, I'd point out that an AI-AT mag well will accept AICS mags, but it will not latch them into place. If an AI platform does that, it should tell people something.

This is from a guy that grabbed the wrong mags, going out the door on a 2100 mile drive, and finding out he had the wrong mags once he was in the wilds of Montana. Fortunately, it wasn't my primary gun for that trip (which did take standard AICS mags)...

Now I just carry a spare of both in my pack...just in case I have another senior moment.

 

[NW Valkyrie]

It's interesting we all have different experiences setting up AW mags. In my rifle, when I set the mag catch for AICS the AW mags barely fit and the pressure causes the feed lips to be distorted. Feeding sucks as expected because double stack mags need to be set just right.

Lowering the mag catch allows the AW mags to sit properly against the action while removing the feed lip distortion. For me, lowering is the answer.

I see many others discussing removing material on the mag catch to get it to sit right. I see less posts of people TIG welding additional material to get the mag height higher for those who's stock/chassis don't offer an adjustable option. That's why I generalized about people generally needing to lower, but admit I did not gather the data scientifically

I do agree mag specs are all over the place and if you want to run AW an adjustable catch makes things a lot easier.

 

[MarinePMI]

...And why I posted (again) about the need for adjustable mag wells.

Adjustability for the shooter is only one aspect of a good chassis/stock system IMHO. Adjustability for component matching is the other...