How important is AW mag compatibility to you? Would you buy a non-AW cut action in 2025?

[DocAutomatic]

I'm curious about the level of preference for AW mag compatibility here on the Hide.

Do you place importance on an action being compatible with AW mags?

Do you consider AW mag compatibility to be a requirement for any of your action purchases going forward (assuming you intend to use DBM for said build)?

What in particular do you like or dislike about AW mags versus AICS mags?

 

[Basher]

I think AICS is far more prevalent than AW and have no problem running an AICS mags. At present I only have a Tikka in .223 using AICS mags, and no AW-based actions.

That being said, if I had my way, all centerfire rifles would use the AW mag as I find it superior.

 

[Mauser48]

Seems like a lot of them never work right. If I truly want AW mags I'm buying the whole AI rifle. Aics mags don't bother me on a custom build.

 

[Rob01]

Never saw a need for an AW mag. I have actions that can use them but I never will.

 

[memilanuk]

Just bought my first action with an AW cut (ARC CDG), and picked up a couple AI AW mags for it. Fingers crossed that they live up to the hype, cuz I really kinda hate AICS mags - they're a PITA to load, and I've never felt like they fed all that great compared to other true double-stack / double-feed systems. That said, I do have two Origin actions that I love, even with the AICS mags. So... we'll see? Kinda doubt I'm going to suddenly be selling those two actions just because they don't take AW mags.

 

[DRAKENBURG]

I personally prefer a BDL cut because it is very versatile and reliable. You can run an internal extended magazine or a AICS magazine.

AW is a very specialized cut for people that needs at least a 10 round magazine that is short to maneuver around in confined spaces. They work most reliably with actions with a locking lug at the bottom and cases with the same diameter as 308 Winchester. If this fills your need, then it is the best, for everyone else, I will recommend a BDL cut.

 

[anon]

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/m14-magazines-in-a-bolt-gun.35611/ and the Parker Hale.

I like the idea of double stack, double feed.

Maybe perfect is the enemy of good enough, but I like the mags that came with the AT-X, and the machined aluminum 6BR mags for it too.

Someday, I may have an action that will use the AT-X mags in my AT-X AICS.

Or, I could get rid of all of my short action bolt guns that are not the AT-X ...

 

[OREGUN]

Aics magazines are fine and have worked, with tuning, for a long time in most actions. But AW mags are shorter, easier to load with 12 rounds or more, and in my experience, have required less tuning to make reliable. I’ll never go back to anything else in short action/.308 parent cases and consider it a deal breaker on an action if it’s not AW compatible.

 

[Rob01]

I have never had to tune an AICS mag in over 20 years of using them. I still have and use the original ones I bought back in 2004, as well as others I have bought along the way, and have used them in many different actions, stocks and chassis without a hiccup in multiple calibers as well. I think people trying to tune them like they are told they need to on the internet causes more issues than it solves.

The only pro to AW I see is their shorter length if you need it.

 

[DocAutomatic]

For those with experience using both mags (preferably in the same action), do you notice any difference in feel/smoothness or friction to overcome when chambering a round? On the one hand a round from an AW mag must go towards the centerline in addition to going up, on the other hand true double stack/double feed mags (at least in every other firearm I have experienced), like AW mags, generally have less internal friction than double stack/single feed mags (like AICS). Unfortunately I don't have what I need to make this comparison myself at the moment.

 

[OREGUN]

I have never had to tune an AICS mag in over 20 years of using them. I still have and use the original ones I bought back in 2004, as well as others I have bought along the way, and have used them in many different actions, stocks and chassis without a hiccup in multiple calibers as well. I think people trying to tune them like they are told they need to on the internet causes more issues than it solves.

The only pro to AW I see is their shorter length if you need it.

Until MDT fixed some things about their follower and the shape of the box itself, every AICS pattern mag I ever had for BR, BRA, and Dasher required some reshaping of the feed lips to point the round more nose-up in the magazine so that the bullet nose would feed reliably into the chamber. .308 and 6.5CM/.260 rem did not require any tuning, in my usage. That is in multiple different R700 pattern actions.

 

[OREGUN]

For those with experience using both mags (preferably in the same action), do you notice any difference in feel/smoothness or friction to overcome when chambering a round? On the one hand a round from an AW mag must go towards the centerline in addition to going up, on the other hand true double stack/double feed mags (at least in every other firearm I have experienced), like AW mags, generally have less internal friction than double stack/single feed mags (like AICS). Unfortunately I don't have what I need to make this comparison myself at the moment.

I think there’s noticeably less bolt force needed to feed the first of twelve rounds off the top of an AW mag than a standard AICS mag.

 

[Rob01]

Until MDT fixed some things about their follower and the shape of the box itself, every AICS pattern mag I ever had for BR, BRA, and Dasher required some reshaping of the feed lips to point the round more nose-up in the magazine so that the bullet nose would feed reliably into the chamber. .308 and 6.5CM/.260 rem did not require any tuning, in my usage. That is in multiple different R700 pattern actions.

Never used any BRs or the like. Do they make AW mags for the BRs or just kits?

 

[OREGUN]

Never used any BRs or the like. Do they make AW mags for the BRs or just kits?

Gray ops is making a AW BR mag with an adjustable catch that is pretty much perfect. Not sure about kits for the AW. I was on the fence about using AW until there was a magazine specifically made for the shorter cases. Now I’m a total convert for everything.

 

[st1650]

I 3d printed my own 6dasher/BR AW inserts and they feed flawlessly. Generally I feel that the AW magazine is a more “elegant” solution than the AICS although I’ve never had an issue feeding from AICS except for subsonic 300blk.

Still hoping someone could come up with a AW insert for feeding 223 and 22ARC.

That said AICS is still the best way to run 223, Grendel/ARC and PRC/SAUM cases. It’s also the best way to run flush hunter magazines.

 

[corsairpilot62]

AW mags for .30-06 family, would be amazing.

 

[JR1200W3]

There's one stage in 1:3 matches that I wish I had an AW mag, but that's it. I also don't think AW cuts in the bottom of the action constitute AW comparability. If you don't have a 6 o'clock lug when feeding you're just ice-skating uphill.

AW mags feed the first round or two a little easier but the con is that they can develop weak springs and fail to push a round all the way up and/or be prone to nose dives in some setups. They can also confuse people when they don't feed as they're running the bolt because the normal feeding is so smooth and subtle. I've had a couple of guns that I used AW mags with. I would use them if a gun dictated it, but I would never build a gun specifically to use AW mags because I think it doesn't really matter. All my buddies that are into AW mags are buying Grey Ops mags now. Super expensive and niche. Kind of indicates that if AW mags were the ultimate solution they wouldn't be trying to upgrade.

I tune AICS mags to feed smoothly. Since the feed lips are closer together you have much more flexibility to do so. With AW mags you can't do much to tune them since the feed lip holds the round in on only one side. You don't have a lot of flexibility to mess with the feed lips.