HKPRO Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
How it is possible that Magpul changes their design to fit into lesser design, that everyone is going to dump? ;)

Probably they has SA80 in mind, not possible to do that just for HK417/M27! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
How it is possible that Magpul changes their design to fit into lesser design, that everyone is going to dump? ;)

Probably they has SA80 in mind, not possible to do that just for HK417/M27! :D
Hey it only took them 3 tries to come up with something that functions just as good as a USGI mag and only costs three times as much. They're brilliant over there.

-W
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
I'd say that's a little unfair.

I've been using Pmags since '06 and other then a couple that were part of the recall (that they replaced entirely for free) my Pmags have run better then my USGI mags this entire time.

I know that not a lot of folks on this forum like running their investments hard, but I do. And one of the first casualties of a hard training session in an active gravel pit is magazines. I've had brand new USGI magazines last less then half a day of being dropped , kicked around (moving while shooting and incorperating reloads while doing so, etc.), and just general wear and tear.

The Pmags on the other hand took it all in stride, even when accidentally stepped on. Got a little scratched, but they keep working even when covered in mud. The USGI mags on the other hand....er......not so much. They dent easily when doing combat reloads, don't like being stepped on at all, and i've had more then one decide to **** the bed on me and ust pop the baseplate and dump all my ammo on the ground. Keep in mind i'm talking about nearly brand new Ok mags that had been used maybe 3 to 4 times prior and didn't even have finish wear on them yet.

To put it bluntly, Once I got into training, all of my USGI mags got turned into static range mags because I didn't want to hurt anymore of them. They're fragile.

As to the Pmag/416 issue, Pmags were originally designed to fit Milspec guns. HK 416s were not milspec at the time and technically were not up until the Marines adopted the M27 series of rifle.

All of that being said, having abused several different kinds of magazines in my life in training, my go to mags are Pmags, USGI are static range mags, Thermolds get used as targets, Orlites are used as trade fodder and HK mags get sold for cash to buy more ammo (too many feed lip issues to justify the expense of the HK magazines).

p.s. I paid around 12 dollars apiece for my stash of Pmags (close to 40 of them), so cost vs. USGI mags was never an issue for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Look at all the hate because the 416 couldn't use them until now. I used to have to run two sets of GI springs in my GI mags to get them to run reliably suppressed. It did hell to the feed lips but it worked. The PMags did no such thing. I also used to get type 3 malfunctions due to the crappy GI mags, not so with the PMags. Just be happy the company gave yall something that works, they never gave up on the HK guys and here you are. They could have did nothing at all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,571 Posts
Magpul already has "Pmags" that work with the HK416. They are called the Emag and were specifically designed to work with deep or tight magwell guns like the HK 416, SCAR, etc., so a Magpul product that worked already existed.

Much of the grief that HK got for not being able to use Pmags continued even after Magpul fixed the issue by releasing the Emag, mostly it seems because some people had bought a bunch of Pmags and weren't will to spend a penny more on another mag for their $2500 gun. If those people weren't willing to buy Emags, they probably aren't interested in buying the M3 mag, and would still rather HK "fix" their gun to work with the original Pmag.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
I did the smart thing and only got the HK upper to go with a milspec lower.

No need for the non-milspec HK lower or its stupidly high price.

I never did like paying extra for a name. That's why I don't buy Colt products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
B

Hey, me too! I swapped my Hk lowers.
Soo just to toss it out there... But because the HK416/M27 is made for the military to the point where is have an official military designation, doesn't that now fall into Milspec classification? Since it isbuilt to the military specs for the M27 IAR?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,571 Posts
Depends on the specification of the tender. Probably the only "spec" is that it had to be compatible with use a standard GI or STANAG mag, which the HK is. I don't think the exact dimensions and cut of a Colt M4 is a "milspec" that all guns the military have to conform to. There is no requirement that they accept Pmags.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
Soo just to toss it out there... But because the HK416/M27 is made for the military to the point where is have an official military designation, doesn't that now fall into Milspec classification? Since it isbuilt to the military specs for the M27 IAR?
Don't confuse being used by the military as being "milspec". There There is a "military specificatin" issued for the M16 series of weapons, I.E. the TDP. The 416 was originally offered up as an alternative without there being an official demand for a new weapon, hence it wasn't made to a "mil-spec TDP".

Now that the M27 IAR has become the first actually issued version of the 416 series, it's TDP is now one of many mil-specs. Which means that every other variant of the 416 still does not meet mil-spec.

Lastly, the Pmag was originally designed how many years ago compared to the M27 being officially adopted by the USMC just last year?

Once again, the Pmag was designed for mil-spec US rifles. Now that a mod of the 416 has a mil-spec TDP, the Pmag has evolved.

This is the way of the world, always has been, always will be. There is absolutly nothing wrong with Magpuls timeline on this.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
Depends on the specification of the tender. Probably the only "spec" is that it had to be compatible with use a standard GI or STANAG mag, which the HK is. I don't think the exact dimensions and cut of a Colt M4 is a "milspec" that all guns the military have to conform to. There is no requirement that they accept Pmags.
You are incorrect.

The dimensions (both internal and external) are part of the M16 family of weapons various TDPs which are in fact the specifications that the military uses, hence, Mil-spec.

What this means is that the Pmag was designed to fit a mil-spec United States issued firearm. At the time Pmags were developed, the 416 in any variant was not officially issued and thusly was not a mil-spec weapon.

Now that the M27 IAR is an officially issued weapon, it's TDP is it's "mil-spec". The newest generation of Pmag now meets this TDP/mil-spec as well as all other pre-existing mil-specs.

Edited to add: As it were, no magazine is designed to be "compatible" with another magazine. They are designed to be compatible with the weapon system.

The Mil-spec revolves entirely around the TDP (Technical Data Package) of the weapon itself. Any accessory designed for the weapon must adapt to the mil-spec, or convince the military that the new part is good enough to cause change to the mil-spec to assimilate the new part into the mil-spec.

HK did not deisgn the 416 in response to a .Mil bid for a new weapon system. Don't confuse a bid contract for the Mil-spec either. That is the beginning of a process that may lead to a new item becomming milspec, but does not constitute the mil-spec to begin with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
I hate the term "mil-spec". It's a marketing term. It's like "aircraft grade aluminum". There is no such technical specification for "aircraft grade aluminum". There is, however, a technical specification for the type of aluminum pot metal that must be used in a Boeing 737 ash tray. This makes this aluminum "aircraft grade aluminum", and thus marketing folks can get away with using the term to sell crappy metal.

There was, once upon a time, a STANAG (NATO) proposal for a standard 5.56 magazine. A specification was written and proposed, but it was never voted on and accepted, therefor there is also no "standard STANAG" magazine specification.

Grumpy is right. The original pmag was designed to fit fine in the rifles and carbines being fielded by US military at the time of its design. There is no technical specification for such a coincidence (intended or not), however.

-W
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
The term "mil-spec" isn't just a marketing term. It is reference to "military specifications" required for the production of an item.

Like I said, the Mil-spec is based on the Technical Data Package which lists everything from the type of material used to the dimensions of every piece as well as hardening requirements, surface treatments, coatings, testing processes, etc. Any variation from this means a product does not meet milspec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Right, Grumpy. The military also once issued chewing gum, however. This makes chewing gum a "mil-spec" bonding agent.

I guess my point is that calling something "mil-spec" isn't necessarily a compliment.

-W
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
That i'll agree with you on. The "milspec" existed for a reason. Time and advancing technology put all techincal matters in perspective and some aspects of the milspec are still valid and some become obsolete.

The adherence to the milspec at the cost of advancement is pretty ******* stupid IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Don't confuse being used by the military as being "milspec". There There is a "military specificatin" issued for the M16 series of weapons, I.E. the TDP. The 416 was originally offered up as an alternative without there being an official demand for a new weapon, hence it wasn't made to a "mil-spec TDP".

Now that the M27 IAR has become the first actually issued version of the 416 series, it's TDP is now one of many mil-specs. Which means that every other variant of the 416 still does not meet mil-spec.

Lastly, the Pmag was originally designed how many years ago compared to the M27 being officially adopted by the USMC just last year?

Once again, the Pmag was designed for mil-spec US rifles. Now that a mod of the 416 has a mil-spec TDP, the Pmag has evolved.

This is the way of the world, always has been, always will be. There is absolutly nothing wrong with Magpuls timeline on this.
You are answering a question that I didnt ask... and before you edited it earlier today you used 5 entire paragraphs to do so while still telling me exactly what i said in the first place. My question was directed to you and another member stated you used "milspec" lowers (your words not mine) by choice or replacement in your verbiage, this is why i used the quotes. I did not mention PMag compatibility or timeline of Magpul or any other the other things you had put into reply before your editing spree, simply that time changes and military specifications do as well, just like a2 and a3 upper did a few years back.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
879 Posts
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. I do not edit my posts to the degree that you think I did once I hit send. I do my best to make sure I say the proper thing before i hit send and at the most, I edit for spelling or to ADD to the post. Trust me. I have a reputation on other sites for this.

Insofar as the topic being discussed, The statement of yours that I replied to seemed as if you were trying to say that a 416 variant was in fact milspec and that Magpul had failed to account for this, hence, magpul had failed somehow. At least that's how I took your statement with no other context to clarify it.

Editing to ADD to the above statement that my point was that since no version of the 416 had a milspec TDP at the time the Pmag was devised, it doesn't matter if a version of it does now. The Pmag was initially made for the American market and they produced a product appropriate for that market. They continue to do so.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top