HKPRO Forums banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
G

·
$64.95 for MKE marked MP5 mags is ridiculous especially when you can still get German mags at $60, but that set's your price expectation on the ETS mags. I'll also add the $30 POF mags were reasonable, but a couple required cleaning/polishing on the interior of the mag body.

The last USA made mags marked "CM" at $40 were crap, but considering the manufacture was Todd Bailey it figures. I would have better chances with the Korean mags at $20 each instead.

Do better and somewhere near $35 each would be sweet!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,823 Posts
I've posted over there and if they can maintain a price point near or below what RTG has POF mags for ($29) I will probably pick up 20+ and they function reliably. The MKEs were so hit or miss in the mag catch fitment department. Granted its a stamped and rolled sheet metal receiver so the tolerances are going to wider than a billet or forged receiver. However their AR15 and Glock magazines are excellent and I hope they can bring that to the MP5
 

·
The Librarian
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
ETS AR15 and Glock mags are under $20, so if they can do the same $20 for reliable MP5 mags, I would definitely give them a try! The only polymer MP5 mags I've had experience with were the MKEs and those ran me $20 new. While they work, they could have been better. I'm definitely interested in what ETS can bring to market.
 

·
Teufelshund Tactical
Joined
·
7,704 Posts
My concern is lack of a steel insert at the feed lip area and the quality of the overall material.
Think back to H&K's work with polymer magazines that goes back to the early 90s. They tried not putting steel inserts in and used a softer polymer and the result was feed lips that would expand under the tension of a fully compressed magazine spring and fully loaded magazine and when dropped on hard surfaces, the feed lips would chip or crack.
We're out in Texas this week and just finished a three day handgun course where several students were running the ETS Glock magazines. I'll just say, the issue I described above is a concern. So, my advice is to wait and see on how well these perform, if and when they are released and do your own testing before you go out and purchase half a dozen.
 

·
The Librarian
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
My concern is lack of a steel insert at the feed lip area and the quality of the overall material.
I get this, but why is that AR15 mags are so different? Look at the HK556 clear poly mags or even G36 mags... even Magpul mags. No metal inserts and no issues. Why are MP5 and UMP mags prone to this issue? Seems only the pistol calibers are effected.
 

·
Teufelshund Tactical
Joined
·
7,704 Posts
I get this, but why is that AR15 mags are so different? Look at the HK556 clear poly mags or even G36 mags... even Magpul mags. No metal inserts and no issues. Why are MP5 and UMP mags prone to this issue? Seems only the pistol calibers are effected.
H&K over-engineers everything; part of the cost associated with their design and manufacture process.
For other companies, like Magpul, they have been doing this a long time. They also invested a huge amount of money and material, and equally important, internal and external testing before they released their models and have continually improved on the original concept.
When the quality of the material is not up to par, you have more flex, more chance for damage. And when you start selling a new design without a thorough internal and external field test, you can have issues. I'm no expert here, but I've got enough connections within the community to tell you that H&K has not been provided these MP5 magazines to "test and evaluate" and neither have the other premier trainers I know, including the one I'm working with this week. Not saying that has to be done, but it is more common, and helps deliver a non-biased assessment from real field conditions.
Again, not trying to be all doom and gloom. Just saying, that I'd like to see performance results before I start ordering a bunch myself or recommending them to others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
I'll stick a toe in the water with three of them and see how they do on a few busy range days in a few different guns.

I just don't trust anyone's testing as much as my own.

If they are good to go, I'll go back for more.
 

·
The Librarian
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
H&K over-engineers everything; part of the cost associated with their design and manufacture process.
For other companies, like Magpul, they have been doing this a long time. They also invested a huge amount of money and material, and equally important, internal and external testing before they released their models and have continually improved on the original concept.
When the quality of the material is not up to par, you have more flex, more chance for damage. And when you start selling a new design without a thorough internal and external field test, you can have issues. I'm no expert here, but I've got enough connections within the community to tell you that H&K has not been provided these MP5 magazines to "test and evaluate" and neither have the other premier trainers I know, including the one I'm working with this week. Not saying that has to be done, but it is more common, and helps deliver a non-biased assessment from real field conditions.
Again, not trying to be all doom and gloom. Just saying, that I'd like to see performance results before I start ordering a bunch myself or recommending them to others.
Thanks James!

Fargo, I also agree and will be doing my own testing as well.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top