to be different then anyone else?

 

They are a handy size. A nice compromise, at least in my mind.

I like 20 and 25 round mags on carbines.

 

At the time of creation, 20 round mags were pretty much the standard battle rifle capacity in the First World and they probably figured 25% more is just gravy at that point. It may also have been a product of maximum geometry and 25 happened to be what they got with the spring/follower/internal geometry they insisted upon, as noted HK built it as a very robust and reliable magazine.

It could also be surmised that they didn't want to make the initial too long to keep up with cyclic/action rate and/or to not inhibit prone shooting without the bipod. And by that token, maybe the 40-round aluminum/disposable was more a product of the style of combat seen in SE Asia at the time...

No doubt that 30-round was done to follow suit with the other standards (AR, AK, MP5, etc.)


I run 25-round mags (20 with 5-round extension) in scoped AR's to keep the mag profile shorter than a 30 with out taking the full capacity hit of just a 20 rounder mag. Sounds pretty stupid when you tell people you run 20's with +5's but it those that get it understand.

Cheers

 

At the time of creation, 20 round mags were pretty much the standard battle rifle capacity in the First World and they probably figured 25% more is just gravy at that point. It may also have been a product of maximum geometry and 25 happened to be what they got with the spring/follower/internal geometry they insisted upon, as noted HK built it as a very robust and reliable magazine.

It could also be surmised that they didn't want to make the initial too long to keep up with cyclic/action rate and/or to not inhibit prone shooting without the bipod. And by that token, maybe the 40-round aluminum/disposable was more a product of the style of combat seen in SE Asia at the time...

No doubt that 30-round was done to follow suit with the other standards (AR, AK, MP5, etc.)


I run 25-round mags (20 with 5-round extension) in scoped AR's to keep the mag profile shorter than a 30 with out taking the full capacity hit of just a 20 rounder mag. Sounds pretty stupid when you tell people you run 20's with +5's but it those that get it understand.

Cheers

Great insight here- I agree with all you said- It is interesting how they added 5 more rounds to the then-standard 20 round mag capacity when the first M16's were introduced-

20 also the number being used in all 7.62x51 battle rifles that NATO was using at the time before the 5.56 became standard. G3, FN, M1A, etc.

There is a nice geometry to the rifle when the 25 rounder is being used- The 40 seems a little awkward but I would guess reassuring if there are multiple targets engaging you. I also didn't know the 40 was considered a "disposable" mag? interesting.

I too like using the 25 rounder when shooting the 93- Saves ammo- Ironically, I find myself putting just 20 rounds in at a time- a standard box.

 

Another thing to consider for reasoning of 25-rnd Mags is the fact that many of the countries that originally adopted the HK33 rifle years ago probably had 5.56 x 45 ammo packaged in 25-rnd boxes versus 20-rnd boxes; especially ammo packaged in sealed plastic 'battle packs'...

 

Possible, but unlikely. Pretty much everything was based on a 10-round stripper clip design.

 

Could be, but I'd sure like if HK made a stripper clip guide for HK33/93 mags; believe Stripper Clips & Guide was developed for M-16 platform...

 

I've often wondered this myself, however when you look at the M16 going from 20's to 30's from the vietnam era to now, Its not that far off that the trasnition from 308 to 556 would result in multiple capacities until you found that right spot.

I think they only make 30s now, yes?

 

I've often wondered this myself, however when you look at the M16 going from 20's to 30's from the vietnam era to now, Its not that far off that the trasnition from 308 to 556 would result in multiple capacities until you found that right spot.

I think they only make 30s now, yes?

Plenty of mil spec makers do 20 rd mags now, even updated with modern springs and followers

 

I almost replied to this a few days ago.
I've read that Colt mags for the initial Armalite trials were 25 rounders and were changed to 20s at the government's request.

The disposable mag thing is much older than the Colt AR style Vietnam era. You can probably argue that the M1 Carbine mag was disposable or at least semi disposable. The Chauchat magazines in WWI is another example whether completely intentional or not. (Take a look at Forgotten Weapons' and C&Rsenal's video article on WWI machine guns for details on that.)

Given the dropped, damaged and contaminated magazines in combat conditions, resupply of magazines is a regularly required thing. The penny pincher's idea of simply making them cheap and disposable keeps coming around. Likewise supplying ammo pre loaded in the mag is another idea that keeps coming around and possibly one that isn't all bad. (Kind of keeping in with the theme of disposable or at least attributable magazines: I've generally wondered if the Europeans take less of a consumable view of mags than we do in the U.S.. I base that on the fact that pistol mags in particular were often serial marked to the gun they were issued with and to the fact that pistols often had a heel catch mag release rather than a button release and even with a button release may have been fitted with a magazine brake rather than allow an empty mag to drop free. Compared with the U.S. where an empty mag isn't just supposed to drop free but is often expected to eject itself forcefully from the gun when the release is pressed. Of course the Europeans appear to have mostly caught up to the button release and the ejecting mags at this point. 25-30 years does make a difference.)

As for the number of rounds in a magazine... That's been all over the map throughout history from the invention of the repeater. There probably IS some obsessive compulsive in every supply chain that is thinking that the number of rounds in a box or a stripper clip or a can of ammo should have some matching integral relation to the number of rounds in a gun or a magazine but historically round count in a gun or a magazine has probably covered most of the numbers it could possibly hit and only rarely is there any real thought behind it. I once had a friend who said bullet count in magazines never made any sense to him as it never worked out to an even number of mags per box or vice versa, there was according to him always either rounds left over or a partially filled magazine. At the time I had to wonder since he had a CCW if he'd ever considered that even if his mag to rounds per box count worked out it probably wouldn't when he put one up the spout of his carry piece.

 

I wonder if you loaded a 20 round 7.62 mag and a 5.56 25 round mag if you would find they weigh in close to each other.

The other thought is when I was in the Army in the 80s we had the 30s as standard issue but many were getting tired. We considered finding the earlier 20 round mags (which we considered far more reliable) to be gold. If you could only get one that was the carry mag in your rifle for 1st contact, leass weight humping it and more reliable for the first moments of contact.

 

People want to talk about how much the AR15 has changed; as much credit needs to go to magazine changes. Probably at least 3 follower design changes as well as spring upgrades not including the excessive use and misuse of the item our military is known for. Before I started at my current agency, I found a box left behind by a former employee of his GWOT mags....the idea that these were issued was criminal. Probably the same black-follower mags you didn't like 20 years earlier.

Today, the difference that mag makes among the weight of a MAWL, LPVO, Modlite, offset RDS/sight doesn't count for much.

While the weight difference is minimal, size is not for considering load. Say basic load is 200 rounds...doesn't matter size, you need 200 E-tickets to dispense. The volume of 9 308 mags (you got 1 in the gun) is going to be an absolute bear compared to 7 HK33 mags. 5.56 mags stacked 2x deep already sucks and hinders effectiveness. How you going to manage more and bigger mags?

 

Probably depends a little on the exact mix...
The 25 round 5.56 mag loaded is going to be a lot lighter than the 20 round 7.62 mag loaded all other things being equal BUT...things are rarely equal.

Looking at U.S. main service weapon progression:
IF you were talking aluminum 5.56 mag with 25 rounds for the AR-15/M16 and steel 7.62 mag for the M14 for example the above statement is going to be true. Same thing for a situation where you are looking at HK mags in both calibers made from steel.

For an aluminum HK mag with 20 rounds of 7.62 vs. a steel HK mag with 30 rounds of 5.56 I suspect you'd get a closer match.

I may have to get out the scale and check out some permutations of mags and ammo...

 

I think what I read was that for quite a while Colt owned the only magazine tooling for the 20s so the early GI 20s were all Colt. Colt also made the tooling for the 30s but that got provided as GFE to various small business set aside contractors. As the contractor made money from building magazines they typically expanded and no longer met the 'small business' requirement so the contract moved on to the next vendor along with the tooling. For some time Colt was the only one making 20 round mags that were considered worth a crap. There were a limited number of non-Colt 20s produced to mil specs on the civilian market before the Crime bill banned further production for 10 years. After the sunset (16 years ago) civilians bought new production like hotcakes.

15 years ago I knew guys serving who were still being issued black follower magazines. At least one guy said they worked fine and he never had any problems with them. Most said if they had any issues with a given mag or it looked like it was going to give problems it was crushed and discarded/replaced before they went out with it. One marine said his crew had a preference for Magpul mags to the point they'd sometimes save them and transfer ammo from the aluminum ones if that was the next batch they were issued and they had down time.

It seems reviews on the last mag follower change or two were a bit mixed the past few years.

 

I meant the HK33 ones. They are only making 30s. (HK)

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen some commercial aftermarket 30s 20s and MAYBE 25s from a couple different manufacturers but they were what I'd call less than first grade equipment.

 

25 round HK33 mags stick down below the rifle almost the same as G3 mags and aren't too tall for G3 mag pouches. If you are trying to equip happy G3 customers with 5.56 rifles, the many similarities would have been attractive.

Given that the HK33 was the third 5.56 to be NATO adopted after first the M16 in 1964 and the FN CAL in 1966, jumping to 25 rounds after those two 20 round arms was probably a big deal for 1968.

The next rifle out was the SIG 540 in 1977 and the FAMAS in 1978. I don't think the 540 had a 30 round mag right away, so it was the FAMAS that brought out another 25 round mag a full decade after the 33.

 

I want to say that the ammo was packaged in 25rnd packs same with 9mm was packed in 25rnd packs as well I know for the Isreal Army that is why they were issued 25rnd mags due to the ammo packaging later the 32rnd mag did come on line. I believe HK did not make the 40rnd mag I believe the Malaysian army

 

Prone