Military bans PMAGS

[oh1bullitt]

More or less........yes.

[GhostTX]

They won't work in the new M27 IAR rifle so that would be my guess as to the reason they banned them.

I hear SAWs don't like them either, but I have also heard they run like shit any time you try and use the axillary magazine feed mechanism.

Mapul is coming out with the PMag M3, which is compatible with the IAR and others.

http://store.magpul.com/product/MAG557/2

[ceyko]

Ever see a Hmmv running on 2 cylinders, pouring smoke, on 4 flats with every bit of glass spiderwebbed and a LMTV being drug sideways by a Bradley until you can get out of the way enough to thermite it?

Na, never seen that scenario play out. I was a civilian REMF at Victory.

[Forever_frost]

Na, never seen that scenario play out. I was a civilian REMF at Victory.

Seems I'm still working on the anger from that incident. Sorry about that

[exlude]

During our firefight, we had our combat loads only. That's 7 mags per soldier and I had 4 drums plus what was in my weapon and the 7 mags. No 203 rounds (they took them as they didn't want us using them), took the morphine and IV kits out of our combat medic bags, the Brads had 200 rounds of 7.62 and about 5 rounds of 20mm. Our QRF brads were taken out of the AO during the fight but that's a story that has a lot of anger and bitterness for me.

Ever see a Hmmv running on 2 cylinders, pouring smoke, on 4 flats with every bit of glass spiderwebbed and a LMTV being drug sideways by a Bradley until you can get out of the way enough to thermite it?

Holy fuck, where were you and why were you carrying so little ammo?

Pretty much the only restriction we have in my AO is they don't want us using the Mk19s due to collateral damage. Other than that, our MRAPs and MATVs are probably more loaded than your Bradleys were.

[Forever_frost]

Holy fuck, where were you and why were you carrying so little ammo?

Pretty much the only restriction we have in my AO is they don't want us using the Mk19s due to collateral damage. Other than that, our MRAPs and MATVs are probably more loaded than your Bradleys were.

Sadr City, 2004. We had just come in off a patrol and another went out. They got ambushed and we rolled in with what we were literally carrying on us at the moment.

[ceyko]

Seems I'm still working on the anger from that incident. Sorry about that

No offense taken here, saw some some crazy shit either way - just not your specific scenario and admittedly everything I had to deal with was MINOR compared to gate guards, patrols and so on.

Frankly, it pisses me off that troops/units have to supply their own shit. How much are we paying for these wars? The least we could do is get a shit ton of mil-surplus out of it. Well, and not make the troops pay for shit that should be paid for already.

[GhostTX]

Army reverses course

...we meant it was "recommended"....

The Pentagon has clarified the Army’s stance on a recent safety message that effectively banned a certain high-performance, commercial M4 magazine, which means soldiers can keep using their PMAGs.

The confusion began when Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a message in April, declaring that the only government-issued aluminum magazines were authorized for use in the M4 and M16 rifles.

TACOM officials released the message to address reports of Army units using “unauthorized” commercial, polymer magazines such as the popular PMAG, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp., in 2007. The decision left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has demonstrated its extreme reliability in combat and has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

Army officials acknowledged June 6 that TACOM’s message was poorly written and not intended as a directive on the use of PMAGs. Matthew Bourke, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon responding to questions from Mililtary.com, said the message should have included guidance that the final decision rests with commanders in the field.

“At best, the message is incomplete; at worst the message allows soldiers to jump to the wrong conclusions,” Bourke said. “Maintenance Information Messages [from TACOM] are permissive. They are not an order. They are not a directive. All content and direction in those messages are optional for the recipient.”

It’s still unclear why TACOM issued the message at this time, but sources say it might have something to do with the $10.7 million contract TACOM Rock Island awarded to Brownells Inc. in 2009 to produce 1.4 million improved magazines by January 2010.

Program Executive Office Soldier set out to develop the improved magazine after the M4 finished last against three other carbines in a 2007 reliability test. The “dust test” revealed that 27 percent of the M4’s stoppages were magazine related.

The improved magazine uses a redesigned “follower,” the part that sits on the magazine’s internal spring and feeds the rounds into the M4’s upper receiver. The new tan-colored follower features an extended rear leg and modified bullet protrusion for improved round stacking and orientation. The self-leveling/anti-tilt follower reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants, PEO Soldier officials maintain.

In late May, Military.com asked PEO Soldier if weapons officials had tested to see how the improved magazine performs against the PMAG. The command responded through Army public affairs that weapons officials had conducted “limited side-by-side testing and found that no commercial magazine was superior to the improved magazine,” Bourke said.

By contrast, PMAGs have developed a word-of-mouth reputation for being extremely reliable as well as durable. Special operations units such as Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment issue PMAGs as do many infantry units before war-zone deployments.

Soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, had been issued PMAGs before deploying to Afghanistan in 2009. On Oct. 3 of that year, they fought off a bold enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating that lasted for more than six hours and left eight Americans dead. Some soldiers fired up to 40 PMAGs from their M4s without a single stoppage.

Army officials maintain that TACOM’s message was intended to make soldiers aware that not all commercial magazines have gone through the same testing as the improved magazine, but concede that there are exceptions.

“The main message we want to get out is – although the Army does support and is confident in the improved, tan-follower magazine – we don’t want soldiers to fear punishment for using PMAGs,” Bourke said.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html?ESRC=eb.nl