Yeah..I can hear the muttering out in the field now: "F-it..what are they gonna do..send me to Afghanistan..??"

I think OG has it spot on.. Those guys should use what they feel comfortable with, and what makes them more effective. Confidence in your weapon is probably very much like confidence in many things and is very important to performance.

Army reverses and clarifies statement: "You can use PMAGs, it's not what we meant!"

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/...7570&rank=1

the marines i know said Eff that, they'll take their magazines that they paid for, that work better, and leave their issued junk elsewhere.

one of them spent most of his time using an AK, as he picked it up off a dead insurgent and he didnt have to worry about ammo for a while, he said there were partially used AK magazines all over the place in most of the bad parts of the country.

The AR-15 was originally intended to be a replacement for the M1 Carbine and not a frontline combat rifle. The weapon was also designed around lightly built 20 round magazines that were supposed to be used once and thrown away, which of course never happened. Magazine issues increased when the 30 round version was introduced. That it took until 2007 with the introduction of the PMAG for a decent AR mag to become available is criminal.

Easy. Make Emags the official magazine. That is exactly what the British just did.



To be fair the original AR-10 was meant to be a frontline rifle. From what I understand the AR-15 is just a scaled down version of it.

Scaling down an existing design can create a lot of issues, it would have been better to start with a totally clean sheet for the application.

The 5.56 round should have been developed more also instead of taking a off the shelf varmint round and magnumizing it. More case taper probably would have helped reliabilty somewhat.

Yep. I never understood why so many intermediate cartridges with ballistics that were extremely similar to the new flavors of 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel (except 30 years ago) were never adopted by the U.S. I guess it was just because they were foreign standards.

Yea, there was quite a few options they could have chosen but didn't.

Personally I think they should have gone with a 6.5mm and a moderately shortened 30-06 case...or just gone with the Brit round (.280??)

Gotta love Army logic.

When I was deployed I got issued a rag tag collection of magazines from quite a few manufacters. Half where new from Brownells of all freaken places. When did they get into the defense contract biz? But having Joe show up with whatever the unproven fad mag is (it changes every few minutes it seems) can have all sorts of badness happen. If PMAGS are truelly so wonderful they should have a NSN number for units to order them. Indivdual soldiers should NEVER have to buy gear out of there own pockets........EVER. Also didn't Pmags jam up the few scars in 5.56 the Army bought for some unknown stupid reason? Has anyone tested them is M249? Not that you would ever want to use a magazine with that thing.........but find out the hard way it does not work is not worth my life.

Oh and my brownell STANG magazines worked fine BTW. But I did get lucky and got a brand spanking new m4 when I deployed. Brand spanken ugly when I gave it back.

Oh and 5.56 works fine out of 18 to 20 inch barrel out to 300 or so meters. Shorter barrel and longer ranges......ya it kind of sucks. But thousands upon thousands of dead people can't be wrong.