Saw on the Marine times newspaper that the HK IAR's are not MAGPUL friendly. I imagine that a lot of the units will forbid the use of them because of that. I foresee a bump in used to lightly used mags coming on the 2nd hand market.
Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
- Thread starter Lawmaker
- Start date
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do the E-Mags work with them, or is it just the SCARs?</div></div>
I was wondering the same thing. I think they would. However knowing the mentality of "higher ups" I think they would just ban all pmags.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do the E-Mags work with them, or is it just the SCARs?</div></div>
I was wondering the same thing. I think they would. However knowing the mentality of "higher ups" I think they would just ban all pmags.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bikemancs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the pmags don't work, do the surefire mags? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
</div></div>
Its the IAR, not the MAGs. HK is using their own magwell design which does not accept the PMag or the Surefire mags.
I hear that Surefire is working on redesigning their mags to work on firearms with out of spec mag wells.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bikemancs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the pmags don't work, do the surefire mags? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
</div></div>
Its the IAR, not the MAGs. HK is using their own magwell design which does not accept the PMag or the Surefire mags.
I hear that Surefire is working on redesigning their mags to work on firearms with out of spec mag wells.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
The P-mags dont work, in my Full-Auto FN FN/C...223cal.
but, it takes about any other mags: HK, mil.spec., FN, ect...
It would be nice, to get some nice used P-mags for around
$6-$8 bucks!
LOBO 151
The P-mags dont work, in my Full-Auto FN FN/C...223cal.
but, it takes about any other mags: HK, mil.spec., FN, ect...
It would be nice, to get some nice used P-mags for around
$6-$8 bucks!
LOBO 151
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Postal0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bikemancs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the pmags don't work, do the surefire mags? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
</div></div>
Its the IAR, not the MAGs. HK is using their own magwell design which does not accept the PMag or the Surefire mags.
I hear that Surefire is working on redesigning their mags to work on firearms with out of spec mag wells. </div></div>
Uh, dude - the 416 does not have an "out of spec" mag well - it has a STANAG mag well, a spec that has been around since 1980.
"Feed system 20, 30-round STANAG magazine or 100-round Beta C-Mag"
The P-Mag is not STANAG compliant.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Postal0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bikemancs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the pmags don't work, do the surefire mags? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
</div></div>
Its the IAR, not the MAGs. HK is using their own magwell design which does not accept the PMag or the Surefire mags.
I hear that Surefire is working on redesigning their mags to work on firearms with out of spec mag wells. </div></div>
Uh, dude - the 416 does not have an "out of spec" mag well - it has a STANAG mag well, a spec that has been around since 1980.
"Feed system 20, 30-round STANAG magazine or 100-round Beta C-Mag"
The P-Mag is not STANAG compliant.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Postal0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bikemancs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the pmags don't work, do the surefire mags? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
</div></div>
Its the IAR, not the MAGs. HK is using their own magwell design which does not accept the PMag or the Surefire mags.
I hear that Surefire is working on redesigning their mags to work on firearms with out of spec mag wells. </div></div>
Uh, dude - the 416 does not have an "out of spec" mag well - it has a STANAG mag well, a spec that has been around since 1980.
"Feed system 20, 30-round STANAG magazine or 100-round Beta C-Mag"
The P-Mag is not STANAG compliant. </div></div>
Your wrong on this one Leo , its been well documented that the hk AR pattern rifles have a proprietary mag well . They changed the funnel design and angle at the opening . So yes by definition since the HK rifles do not follow the TDP for M16's / M4's the mag well is out of spec . Also IIRC there are issues running Beta mags also because the drums don't clear
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Postal0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bikemancs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the pmags don't work, do the surefire mags? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Major f-up on Magpul's part to not make the P-mag STANAG compatible right out of the gate. The standard has only been around since 1980.
</div></div>
Its the IAR, not the MAGs. HK is using their own magwell design which does not accept the PMag or the Surefire mags.
I hear that Surefire is working on redesigning their mags to work on firearms with out of spec mag wells. </div></div>
Uh, dude - the 416 does not have an "out of spec" mag well - it has a STANAG mag well, a spec that has been around since 1980.
"Feed system 20, 30-round STANAG magazine or 100-round Beta C-Mag"
The P-Mag is not STANAG compliant. </div></div>
Your wrong on this one Leo , its been well documented that the hk AR pattern rifles have a proprietary mag well . They changed the funnel design and angle at the opening . So yes by definition since the HK rifles do not follow the TDP for M16's / M4's the mag well is out of spec . Also IIRC there are issues running Beta mags also because the drums don't clear
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
Sorry Chuck, you are the one that is wrong here.
The original P-Mag was not made to STANAG specs - it was optimized for the AR15/M16 platform. Note that OPTIMIZED is not in compliance with the STANAG spec.
The 416 on the other hand takes STANAG spec mags - which the P-Mag is not - though the E-Mag Magpul makes IS a STANAG spec mag (like all the USGI spec magazines prior to the invention of the plastic wonder from Boulder).
The 416 mag well is not proprietary - the proprietary/optimized item in this discussion is the P-Mag.
The P-Mag was optimized for the AR15/M16, which the 416 is not. Don't confuse de facto with written standard.
Sorry Chuck, you are the one that is wrong here.
The original P-Mag was not made to STANAG specs - it was optimized for the AR15/M16 platform. Note that OPTIMIZED is not in compliance with the STANAG spec.
The 416 on the other hand takes STANAG spec mags - which the P-Mag is not - though the E-Mag Magpul makes IS a STANAG spec mag (like all the USGI spec magazines prior to the invention of the plastic wonder from Boulder).
The 416 mag well is not proprietary - the proprietary/optimized item in this discussion is the P-Mag.
The P-Mag was optimized for the AR15/M16, which the 416 is not. Don't confuse de facto with written standard.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
The 416 has a lot more problems than the magwell. They have so many issues that many units (military and LE) are staying away from them. Hopefully HK will get there stuff together some day because they have the ability to make some really great products.
The 416 has a lot more problems than the magwell. They have so many issues that many units (military and LE) are staying away from them. Hopefully HK will get there stuff together some day because they have the ability to make some really great products.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
Perfect timing. I need about 6 on the cheap.
Perfect timing. I need about 6 on the cheap.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
The STANAG magizine that You talk about was copied from the M16 mags all ready in existance . So we are right back to the TDP for the M16's and M4's which HK is out of spec from . HK changed there mag well for one thing and that was to sell there mags .
The STANAG magizine that You talk about was copied from the M16 mags all ready in existance . So we are right back to the TDP for the M16's and M4's which HK is out of spec from . HK changed there mag well for one thing and that was to sell there mags .
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Chuck, you are the one that is wrong here.
The original P-Mag was not made to STANAG specs - it was optimized for the AR15/M16 platform. Note that OPTIMIZED is not in compliance with the STANAG spec.
The 416 on the other hand takes STANAG spec mags - which the P-Mag is not - though the E-Mag Magpul makes IS a STANAG spec mag (like all the USGI spec magazines prior to the invention of the plastic wonder from Boulder).
The 416 mag well is not proprietary - the proprietary/optimized item in this discussion is the P-Mag.
The P-Mag was optimized for the AR15/M16, which the 416 is not. Don't confuse de facto with written standard. </div></div>
You are both correct to a point.
The HK 416 accepts STANAG mags but it does not have a Mil-Spec mag well. It is longer than the M4/M-16 and does not accept PMags.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Chuck, you are the one that is wrong here.
The original P-Mag was not made to STANAG specs - it was optimized for the AR15/M16 platform. Note that OPTIMIZED is not in compliance with the STANAG spec.
The 416 on the other hand takes STANAG spec mags - which the P-Mag is not - though the E-Mag Magpul makes IS a STANAG spec mag (like all the USGI spec magazines prior to the invention of the plastic wonder from Boulder).
The 416 mag well is not proprietary - the proprietary/optimized item in this discussion is the P-Mag.
The P-Mag was optimized for the AR15/M16, which the 416 is not. Don't confuse de facto with written standard. </div></div>
You are both correct to a point.
The HK 416 accepts STANAG mags but it does not have a Mil-Spec mag well. It is longer than the M4/M-16 and does not accept PMags.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
On the flip side I have seen a lot more HK mags floating around in the .mil . Now those things are expensive.
Surefire should of had this under control. They just came out with their design. And they were marketing it towards the IAR.
Here is the question. Do the HK mags stick out farther on the M16s then a MILSPEC?
On the flip side I have seen a lot more HK mags floating around in the .mil . Now those things are expensive.
Surefire should of had this under control. They just came out with their design. And they were marketing it towards the IAR.
Here is the question. Do the HK mags stick out farther on the M16s then a MILSPEC?
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
The IAR is another cluster.
About half the RPM of a SAW and not compatible with all currently fielded magazines. (SAW..750–1,000 rounds per minute, IAR...560 to 640 rpm).
When you need a SAW you don't need reduced fire power. Heck an M4 will run 700-950 round/min for awhile (until the barrel melts
)
Pat
The IAR is another cluster.
About half the RPM of a SAW and not compatible with all currently fielded magazines. (SAW..750–1,000 rounds per minute, IAR...560 to 640 rpm).
When you need a SAW you don't need reduced fire power. Heck an M4 will run 700-950 round/min for awhile (until the barrel melts
Pat
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... The 416 on the other hand takes STANAG spec mags ...</div></div>
The delayed hi cap mags from the new Surefire Mag division in Reno, NV will be STANAG compliant:
http://bcove.me/celdhs59
Surefire tweaks High Capacity Mag; new ship date 6/30/2011
Surefire shared some hot footage of a 100 round High Capacity Magazine function test with us. They ran 5 100-round mags back-to-back turning an M4 gas tube into a light bulb in the process. Don’t try this with your own, stock AR, though. They used a heavy-barrel, select-fire milspec Colt with a beefed up gas tube to deal with the extreme heat produced by 500 rounds of continuous fire. Watch it glow. Try this with your AR and you’ll watch the gas tube melt.
As far as the ship date of the new mags, Surefire representative Ron Canfield tells us the company has delayed both models if the HCM to make minor changes to the mags to guarantee they function in the broadest number of AR platforms possible. The new ship date is June 30, 2011.
Tolerances vary widely across the spectrum of AR manufactures and while Surefire’s current design works fine in milspec Colt rifles, it runs less reliably in some commercial ARs.
The best we can figure is that the HCM, being based on the USGI mag, works just fine with M4 and M16 rifles that adhere to Colt’s technology package. Commercial M4 Rifle manufacturers that deviate at all from the spec present a problem for the HCM because they are already using a steeper, M4 style feed ramp (M4 feed ramps are steeper than older M16 feed ramps). Some of these guns also cycle faster and harder which lead to a condition called bullet bounce. I witnessed this firsthand at SHOT Show 2011 when I shot the SF HCM in a brand new LMT that was running a little faster than a milspec Colt M4. At first, I thought the gun was short-stroking, but it turns out it was a case of bullet bounce. Somewhere around round 60 on the second mag, the LMT stopped with the bolt carrier held up about an inch from it’s fully seated position. We switched over to a Colt M4 and carried on through 3 more 100 round mags without a stoppage.
Bullet bounce happens when the top bullet in the magazine is upset as it’s fed. The tip of the bullet hits the steeper M4 feed ramp and bounces back instead of sliding smoothly up and into the chamber. In some fast/hard cycling guns, this can cause bullet setback (the bullet gets pushed back into the casing, reducing OAL) which will turn into a partial bolt override when the shortened round fails to feed. To prevent bullet bounce, Surefire is likely adjusting the lips on the HCM to feed a little more smoothly. This jives with what I was told by Mr. Canfield when he told me, “we’re adjusting the ribs at the top of the magazine to make it compatible with more commercial ARs.”
The most obvious follow-on question for Surefire is why not use this tactical pause to address compatibility with Heckler & Koch’s peculiar HK416/M27 IAR magazine well? The H&K magazine well is a little longer and a little tighter than the milspec package. The sides of the HCM flare where the quad stack is throated down to a double stack. The top of this flare is positioned low enough to allow the mag to work with a standard mag well; but the flare prevents the mag from seating in H&Ks deeper mag well. Further, H&Ks mag well is dimensioned a few thousand’s smaller internally which makes a snug fit for a USGI mag, and a dangerously tight, non-dropfree fit for any continuous-curve designed mag like a PMAG or the HCM. These designs take advantage of the larger volume of the milspec mag well to increase feed reliability. These mags are tight in the H&K and can’t reach the mag catch and will fall out. (This is why Magpul made the EMAG. It’s pared down externally and the depth stop is lowered compared to a PMAG to allow the mag to go deeper in the mag well.)
Canfield explains the scope of work and leaves the door open for a later upgrade. He tells me “the current SureFire HCM is designed to fit and function reliably in STANAG 4179 mag wells. Because a mag well isn’t the only part of the rifle that affects how well the mag will feed and to ensure reliability with as many platforms as possible, we’re making design changes to account for the differences in the unprecedented amount of M4/M16-style rifles in production. The HK mag well is a different spec that we don’t intend to address with this design modification.”
It’s clear from the video and my own trigger time that the HCM feeds rounds to a milspec M4 like it’s breastfeeding its own leadthirsty spawn. So, Surefire is doing whats right by the AR crowd; making sure the mag works in more than just rifles fielded by the DoD. Plenty of law enforcement agencies run rifles made by companies other than Colt (or FNH). Holding back production ’till the mag proves itself in a variety of M4 style platforms will hold things up a bit, but it will be worth it in the end.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... The 416 on the other hand takes STANAG spec mags ...</div></div>
The delayed hi cap mags from the new Surefire Mag division in Reno, NV will be STANAG compliant:
http://bcove.me/celdhs59
Surefire tweaks High Capacity Mag; new ship date 6/30/2011
Surefire shared some hot footage of a 100 round High Capacity Magazine function test with us. They ran 5 100-round mags back-to-back turning an M4 gas tube into a light bulb in the process. Don’t try this with your own, stock AR, though. They used a heavy-barrel, select-fire milspec Colt with a beefed up gas tube to deal with the extreme heat produced by 500 rounds of continuous fire. Watch it glow. Try this with your AR and you’ll watch the gas tube melt.
As far as the ship date of the new mags, Surefire representative Ron Canfield tells us the company has delayed both models if the HCM to make minor changes to the mags to guarantee they function in the broadest number of AR platforms possible. The new ship date is June 30, 2011.
Tolerances vary widely across the spectrum of AR manufactures and while Surefire’s current design works fine in milspec Colt rifles, it runs less reliably in some commercial ARs.
The best we can figure is that the HCM, being based on the USGI mag, works just fine with M4 and M16 rifles that adhere to Colt’s technology package. Commercial M4 Rifle manufacturers that deviate at all from the spec present a problem for the HCM because they are already using a steeper, M4 style feed ramp (M4 feed ramps are steeper than older M16 feed ramps). Some of these guns also cycle faster and harder which lead to a condition called bullet bounce. I witnessed this firsthand at SHOT Show 2011 when I shot the SF HCM in a brand new LMT that was running a little faster than a milspec Colt M4. At first, I thought the gun was short-stroking, but it turns out it was a case of bullet bounce. Somewhere around round 60 on the second mag, the LMT stopped with the bolt carrier held up about an inch from it’s fully seated position. We switched over to a Colt M4 and carried on through 3 more 100 round mags without a stoppage.
Bullet bounce happens when the top bullet in the magazine is upset as it’s fed. The tip of the bullet hits the steeper M4 feed ramp and bounces back instead of sliding smoothly up and into the chamber. In some fast/hard cycling guns, this can cause bullet setback (the bullet gets pushed back into the casing, reducing OAL) which will turn into a partial bolt override when the shortened round fails to feed. To prevent bullet bounce, Surefire is likely adjusting the lips on the HCM to feed a little more smoothly. This jives with what I was told by Mr. Canfield when he told me, “we’re adjusting the ribs at the top of the magazine to make it compatible with more commercial ARs.”
The most obvious follow-on question for Surefire is why not use this tactical pause to address compatibility with Heckler & Koch’s peculiar HK416/M27 IAR magazine well? The H&K magazine well is a little longer and a little tighter than the milspec package. The sides of the HCM flare where the quad stack is throated down to a double stack. The top of this flare is positioned low enough to allow the mag to work with a standard mag well; but the flare prevents the mag from seating in H&Ks deeper mag well. Further, H&Ks mag well is dimensioned a few thousand’s smaller internally which makes a snug fit for a USGI mag, and a dangerously tight, non-dropfree fit for any continuous-curve designed mag like a PMAG or the HCM. These designs take advantage of the larger volume of the milspec mag well to increase feed reliability. These mags are tight in the H&K and can’t reach the mag catch and will fall out. (This is why Magpul made the EMAG. It’s pared down externally and the depth stop is lowered compared to a PMAG to allow the mag to go deeper in the mag well.)
Canfield explains the scope of work and leaves the door open for a later upgrade. He tells me “the current SureFire HCM is designed to fit and function reliably in STANAG 4179 mag wells. Because a mag well isn’t the only part of the rifle that affects how well the mag will feed and to ensure reliability with as many platforms as possible, we’re making design changes to account for the differences in the unprecedented amount of M4/M16-style rifles in production. The HK mag well is a different spec that we don’t intend to address with this design modification.”
It’s clear from the video and my own trigger time that the HCM feeds rounds to a milspec M4 like it’s breastfeeding its own leadthirsty spawn. So, Surefire is doing whats right by the AR crowd; making sure the mag works in more than just rifles fielded by the DoD. Plenty of law enforcement agencies run rifles made by companies other than Colt (or FNH). Holding back production ’till the mag proves itself in a variety of M4 style platforms will hold things up a bit, but it will be worth it in the end.
Re: Bunch of Magpul mags about to flood the market?
So, "The HK mag well is a different spec that we don’t intend to address with this design modification." I would think that would be who they are marketing towards.
I agree the IAR is a questionable replacement. Surprised that USMC went with another foreign gun maker (M9). The benefits that I see are weight, profile and ability to fire on a closed bolt. But you will lose the volume of fire of a M249.
Dont get me wrong I like the idea of a closed bolt fired weapon. I remember having a over zealous SAW gunner start an assault to the sound of a slam and no rounds firing.
So, "The HK mag well is a different spec that we don’t intend to address with this design modification." I would think that would be who they are marketing towards.
I agree the IAR is a questionable replacement. Surprised that USMC went with another foreign gun maker (M9). The benefits that I see are weight, profile and ability to fire on a closed bolt. But you will lose the volume of fire of a M249.
Dont get me wrong I like the idea of a closed bolt fired weapon. I remember having a over zealous SAW gunner start an assault to the sound of a slam and no rounds firing.
