[Joey101]

Are there any differences in reliability between a single stack mag vs. a double stack mag?

[wally]

If you are talking .45ACP 1911 style guns, in my experience there is a world of difference in reliablity between the single stacks which rarely fail and the Para Ordnance mags (used as well by Kimber BP, Springfield, and Armscor) which haver rather short spring life and are very prone to feed failures from the follower binding once a little dirt/fouling has gotten inside the mag body.

I've no experience with the STI/STV double stacks which appear to use different mag tubes.

I love my double stack .45 1911s at the range, but I doubt I'd trust any of them enough for use as CCW. I've Para P14, P13, & P10, Kimber BP in 3", 4", & 5", Springfield P12 clone, and Armscor P14 clone.

In 9mm and .40S&W I find double stacks are at least as reliable as my single stack 1911s. But would I still say this if I had experience in a place like Iraq?

--wally.

[Vern Humphrey]

There is a problem with double-stack, single feed magazines (which is virtually all high capacity pistol magazines.) The cartridge must roll as it moves into single feed position. Under adverse conditions, friction from sand, grit, etc., can cause problems. It is more difficult, therefore to make a reliable double stack mag than a single stack.

[Zak Smith]

There are a LOT of reliable BHPs, Glocks, SIGs, and even "1911/2011" double-stack SV/STI's. If there were an endemic problem, it ought to be obvious by now.

[Vern Humphrey]

There are a LOT of reliable BHPs, Glocks, SIGs, and even "1911/2011" double-stack SV/STI's. If there were an endemic problem, it ought to be obvious by now.

It is an endemic problem and it is obvious. The US did not use double-stack, single-feed magazines in combat until Desert Storm, and there were many failures (almost all in training prior to the ground attack.) Magazine problems have plagued the M9, and great emphasis is placed on getting quality mags.

[Zak Smith]

So prove it's a problem with double-stack mags in general. Your statement merely supports the proposition that Beretta mags are junk, not that double-stack mags are inherently unreliable.

-z

[Vern Humphrey]

So prove it's a problem with double-stack mags in general. Your statement merely supports the proposition that Beretta mags are junk, not that double-stack mags are inherently unreliable.

-z

If the prime manufacturer and designer of the gun cannot produce a satisfactory magazine, it's a pretty good indicator that such magazines are difficult to produce.

[Zak Smith]

You still haven't given any evidence that there is a problem not specific to the Beretta design.

The BHP has been around since the 30's. Is it known for having unreliable magazines?

[Vern Humphrey]

You still haven't given any evidence that there is a problem not specific to the Beretta design.

The BHP has been around since the 30's. Is it known for having unreliable magazines?

If you think the Beretta design is the problem, it's up to you to show the Beretta design is fundamentally different from other double-stack, single feed magazines.

The BHP has been used by a lot of countries -- but let's remember a lot of countries have used some pretty rediculous pistols. Most Armies don't take pistols as seriously as we do.

[Chris Rhines]

This is truly silly.

No, there is no reliability difference between single and double-column magazines.

- Chris

[Vern Humphrey]

This is truly silly.

No, there is no reliability difference between single and double-column magazines.

- Chris

If you cruise around, you'll find a lot of people having problems with them.

[Zak Smith]

If you think the Beretta design is the problem, it's up to you to show ...

See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Also
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/hasty.htm
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm

[Zak Smith]

If you cruise around, you'll find a lot of people having problems with them.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/anon.htm

[Vern Humphrey]

See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Also
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/hasty.htm
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm

And all of this proves there is some fundamental difference between the design of M9 magazines and other magazines?:p

[Zak Smith]

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html

Hope this helps.

[Vern Humphrey]

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html

Hope this helps.

I still don't see anything that says the M9 magazine is fundamentally different from any other double-stack, single-feed magazine.:p

[Justin]

Zak is pointing out that your arguments are all logically fallacious by any standards of serious debate.

There is no need for him to "prove" anything about the reliability of Beretta magazines because, quite frankly, your arguments are all untenable. You've already lost.

When you're standing in a hole, stop digging.

[Vern Humphrey]

Zak is pointing out that your arguments are all logically fallacious by any standards of serious debate.

It's funny that he hasn't stated a single fallacy -- only posted links to generalized discussions of logic.

There is no need for him to "prove" anything about the reliability of Beretta magazines because, quite frankly, your arguments are all untenable. You've already lost.

When you're standing in a hole, stop digging.

No, he's showing that I've somehow impugned his religion.

Double-column, single-feed magazines are more difficult to make reliable under extereme conditions that single stack magazines.

[WarMachine]

Well, I might not have any exhaustive scientific testing done by review boards during times of armageddon but:

In my experience, a reliable gun is a reliable gun. I have encountered single-stack 1911 that would jam and double stack guns that would jam. A reliable firearm is when the gun is working as intended. How that is accomplished iand with what type of mags? I couldn't care less.

SIG, GLOCK, Berettas (military M9 aside), Rugers etc. are all reliable firearms. There are a number of 1911 companies that crank out reliable models as well. Splitting hairs over whether a single-stack mag or double-stack mag is more reliable while using DIFFERENT GUNS are allowing for far too many variables and is asinine. With a well-designed gun, this isn't an issue.

I'd put an STI/SVI double stack against any single stack 1911 any day of the week for reliability, and vice-versa.

[Azrael256]

Double-column, single-feed magazines are more difficult to make reliable under extereme conditions that single stack magazines. That statement right there is flat, simple, obvious logic. There are more pieces to the equation that have to move in more complex ways in a double stack, so there is a higher probability that something won't move just right. "Extreme conditions," which I assume means sand, dirt, mud, rain and the like will affect the more complex system in more significant ways than the simpler system.

But, like any other system, keep it clean, keep it tuned, and keep the parts in spec, and it will work as well as it was designed. Btw, my Springer double-stack GI came from the factory with what is almost certainly a mec-gar mag, and all the additional mags I have purchased have been mec-gar. I clean them as carefully as I do any other gun part, so I'm not worried about sudden failure during carry.

[taliv]

i don't have an opinion on this one way or the other yet, but it is interesting.

the AR15/M16 uses double stack fairly reliably, yet there is always a lot of discussion regarding the "real M4 feed ramps" over on arfcom. this could support vern's argument that it's more difficult to make doublestack feed reliably. but also, once you make it right, is it less reliable than single stacks? dunno

plenty of old subguns like grease guns used a single feed ramp, but the mag flaired out so that the bullets were stacked like a double-stack. newer subguns like the HK UMP are doublestack. i'm unaware of any of these really having a reputation for feeding problems.

seems like a lot of newer guns are going to the doublestack. e.g. FNH 5.7, but then, nobody's got enough money to put more than a mag or two through one of these, so we may never know :)

maybe that's because the mfgs don't have any concerns about reliablity, or maybe that's because marketing highcap mags is a lot easier

[Vern Humphrey]

That statement right there is flat, simple, obvious logic. There are more pieces to the equation that have to move in more complex ways in a double stack, so there is a higher probability that something won't move just right. "Extreme conditions," which I assume means sand, dirt, mud, rain and the like will affect the more complex system in more significant ways than the simpler system.

Which is my point.

But, like any other system, keep it clean, keep it tuned, and keep the parts in spec, and it will work as well as it was designed. Btw, my Springer double-stack GI came from the factory with what is almost certainly a mec-gar mag, and all the additional mags I have purchased have been mec-gar. I clean them as carefully as I do any other gun part, so I'm not worried about sudden failure during carry.

Yes, if you keep them clean, good magazines will work as designed. But when you are in extreme conditions -- when you can't keep things as clean as you would like, then some mechanisms are more likely to fail than others.

[Vern Humphrey]

i don't have an opinion on this one way or the other yet, but it is interesting.

the AR15/M16 uses double stack fairly reliably, yet there is always a lot of discussion regarding the "real M4 feed ramps" over on arfcom. this could support vern's argument that it's more difficult to make doublestack feed reliably. but also, once you make it right, is it less reliable than single stacks? dunno

The M16, M14 and so on use a double-stack, double-feed magazine. There is no requirement for the cartridges to roll to transition to single feed.

plenty of old subguns like grease guns used a single feed ramp, but the mag flaired out so that the bullets were stacked like a double-stack. newer subguns like the HK UMP are doublestack. i'm unaware of any of these really having a reputation for feeding problems.

The old Grease Gun, Thompson, Sten and so on were also double-column, double-feed

[Azrael256]

when you can't keep things as clean as you would like Yeah, but that's just one of the reasons. In an army fielding 1911s, I would be hard pressed to find a replacement part for anything magazine related in the supply train. There would be no magazines, no mag catches, and not even proper grips anywhere in inventory. I would end up with a very fancy single-shot pistol at best, and a poor excuse for a club at worst.

taliv, there is a difference between the M16 or AK feed system and the double stack 1911. The double stack 1911 necks up to a single stack at the top of the magazine, and thus you have a double stack, single feed. The AK mag, however, maintains the double stack right up to the feed lips, and the bolt strips left, then right, then left, then right, and so on as the action cycles. In this double stack, double feed (not to be confused with a double feed jam) system, the cartridges don't have to roll around under spring pressure to rise up the mag body. That's where the problem comes in for the double stack 1911.

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah, but that's just one of the reasons. In an army fielding 1911s, I would be hard pressed to find a replacement part for anything magazine related in the supply train. There would be no magazines, no mag catches, and not even proper grips anywhere in inventory. I would end up with a very fancy single-shot pistol at best, and a poor excuse for a club at worst.

I never had a problem, and I was in that Army for more than 22 years. There were plenty of spare parts, magazines, cleaning gear, tools and so on in the system.

My first tour in Viet Nam, as an adviser to Viet Namese infantry, I carried a Colt M357 (but then I was issued that miserable excuse for a weapon, the M2 carbine.) My second tour, I carried an M1911 -- and as a company commander in a Mech unit, that gun was subjected to extreme conditions regularly -- Mech rode around in a cloud of dust.

[RecoilRob]

I believe the pic enclosed is a grease gun mag and it is double-stack, single feed. But, most (if not all) SMG's and Military weapons use the double stack-double feed format for reliability reasons.

No question, the double feed mag will be more reliable given the same test conditions. However, the WEAPON will feed better from a single feed mag.

When dealing with feeding whatever cartridge, you are faced with the problem of aligning them to the chamber either in the magazine or during the feed cycle in the weapon.

If space permits, it probably IS more reliable to do the lateral alignment after being released from the magazine..ala Thompson et al.

But, most pistols do not have room inside the slide to accomodate a dual-feed mag and the attending shuffling of cartridge to the chamber.

So, I guess it comes down to proper metallurgy, design and cleanliness to assure weapon functionality.....regardless of design.

[Zak Smith]

Zak is pointing out that your arguments are all logically fallacious by any standards of serious debate.
It's funny that he hasn't stated a single fallacy -- only posted links to generalized discussions of logic.

You didn't follow any of those links, because they quite clearly list the fallacies you used. The last link was a general discussion of logic because you have not formed a rational argument supporting your proposition yet.

Here they are spelled out in the order referenced:

1. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

2. Hasty Generalization. Definition: The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion.

3. Fallacy of Exclusion. Definition: Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

4. Anonymous Authorities. Definition: The authority in question is not named. This is a type of appeal to authority because when an authority is not named it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert. However the fallacy is so common it deserves special mention. A variation on this fallacy is the appeal to rumour. Because the source of a rumour is typically not known, it is not possible to determine whether to believe the rumour. Very often false and harmful rumours are deliberately started in order to discredit an opponent.

Your epistemology is not robust.

[chopinbloc]

If the prime manufacturer and designer of the gun cannot produce a satisfactory magazine, it's a pretty good indicator that such magazines are difficult to produce.

if i might add something - the m9 is identical to the beretta m92f except for markings. the army awarded the contract to the company, in part because the pistol was drop dead reliable but then awarded the contract for the most failure prone componenet of any weapon - the magazine - to other manufacturers. some of these off brand mags work, some do not. this happens with single stack 1911 mags as well, btw. factory beretta mags work flawlessly in any reasonable conditions and only stop up when full of enough junk to stop any other magazine, single stack 1911 included. oh, and we're talking massive quantities of crap.

my glock mags work perfectly, no matter what. the after market scherer extended mag was crap. for some reason, my ten round kimber double stack mags seem to put up with just a little more dirt than the thirteen rounders for the same gun. neither is happy with any significant amount of dirt. if i have to tell my glocks to stop making fun of the kimber one more time.....

a double stack mag MAY be slightly more prone to failure but there are so many other factors involved as to make this irrelevant. a properly designed and manufactured mag will work in adverse conditions, regardless of whether it is single or double column. also, it seems to me that the larger the caliber, the heavier the cartridge, the lower the round count that can be reliably fed. it seems that by moving to a double stack you can add a couple more rounds and maintain reliability, though. for instance - seven, MAYBE eight seems the upper limit for single column .45 mags to be reliable over long term use. ten to MAYBE thirteen seems reliable over the long term with a double stack such as the glock style. and that brings me to my final point: we all know that there are crappy single stack 1911 mags out there but has anyone ever PERSONALLY encountered a factory glock mag that didn't work properly and HADN'T been physically destroyed or filled with quick setting cement? this is not meant to rehash the 1911 v glock argument, we all know that the 1911 is superior because it won't melt while you burn to death in a house fire. good 1911 mags are perfectly reliable. i'm saying this because the reliability of glock mags should prove that there is no fundamental deficiency in the double column, single feed design.

[Zundfolge]

So let me get this straight, Vern here has had problems with a Beretta pistol with a double stack magazine therefore ALL double stack magazine fed pistols are less reliable than ALL single stack magazine fed pistols?


So my Steyr M40 (which has never had a feed problem in several thousand rounds) is somehow less reliable by design than a Lorcin which is a single stack.

Clearly because of the feed problems many Lorcin owners have experienced isn't because that particular model of gun is crap, its because single stack magazines are less reliable than double stack.



Vern, go write on the board a thousand times; Correlation does NOT equal Causation.

[Vern Humphrey]

So let me get this straight, Vern here has had problems with a Beretta pistol with a double stack magazine therefore ALL double stack magazine fed pistols are less reliable than ALL single stack magazine fed pistols?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you've got a personality issue here.

Double-stack, single-feed magazines require the cartridges to roll as they move into single feed position. As I pointed out, under severe conditions, this can impact reliability. As someone else pointed out, what you have is essentially more "moving parts" in such a magazine -- and it's an old engineering rule that more moving parts tends to affect reliability.

So my Steyr M40 (which has never had a feed problem in several thousand rounds) is somehow less reliable by design than a Lorcin which is a single stack.

Don't be silly. There are many other things that affect reliability than magazine design.

Clearly because of the feed problems many Lorcin owners have experienced isn't because that particular model of gun is crap, its because single stack magazines are less reliable than double stack.

Let me point out -- in a friendly fashion -- when you play the fool, some people may think you aren't playing.:p



Vern, go write on the board a thousand times; Correlation does NOT equal Causation.

Zundfolge, go write on the board a thousand times; In the future I will try to debate like a gentleman.

[HSMITH]

95% of my singlestack mag experience has been with the M1911 type. 75% of my doublestack mag experience has also been with the M1911 type.

I have had FAR more trouble with singlestack magazines than I have with doublestacks. Why? Quality of manufacture, plain and simple. My doublestacks came after I learned that quality is way more important than quantity in magazines. My doublestack mags have all been OEM or premium aftermarket where my singlestack mags included some cheap garbage.

Since going to OEM or quality premium aftermarket mags my magazine troubles are flat gone regardless of gun used.

Doublestack magazines are not more prone to failure than singlestack mags provided they are of equal quality. I've only got a couple hundred thousand rounds under my belt to form this opinion so take it for what it is worth to you.

[Vern Humphrey]

95% of my singlestack mag experience has been with the M1911 type. 75% of my doublestack mag experience has also been with the M1911 type.

I have had FAR more trouble with singlestack magazines than I have with doublestacks. Why? Quality of manufacture, plain and simple. My doublestacks came after I learned that quality is way more important than quantity in magazines. My doublestack mags have all been OEM or premium aftermarket where my singlestack mags included some cheap garbage.

Since going to OEM or quality premium aftermarket mags my magazine troubles are flat gone regardless of gun used.

Doublestack magazines are not more prone to failure than singlestack mags provided they are of equal quality. I've only got a couple hundred thousand rounds under my belt to form this opinion so take it for what it is worth to you.

Quality of manufacture is one major point in determining reliability, no doubt about it.

However, the double-stack, single-feed design does carry a penalty. It requires cartridges to roll as they move into feed position, and that is a potential failure point. All other things being equal, single stack and double-stack, double-feed magazines will tend to be more reliable under severe conditions.

And I've fired a round or two myself -- including under what I would call "severe conditions."

[sobrbiker883]

Please take no offense at me being a newbie to this board and chiming my $.02 in.

On the issue at hand, my stand is that some mags that feed double into a single (pistol style) are better designed than others. While the large dimple in the Beretta mags makes an attempt, I believe if you look inside a Glock mag there are rails parallel to the length of the mag to allow debris to work its way clear while the rounds are "spinning" into the tighter necked area.

That being said, I would counter myself that the good old dependable single stack 1911-style slide rounds straight up the sides all the time, therefore debunking my prior statement.........interesting.

At this point I harken back to the original posit-that its the Beretta mags causing the hooplah about unreliability. My next train of thought goes away from the magazine design to the pistol design. Beretta's have an open slide that will allow more deritus in while firing in dirty/dusty conditions. Sigs, BHP's, 1911's, Glocks have only an ejection port.

I blame the slide. (Even though I just bought a PT99 Taurus). My PT99 will not ride on my hip on my bike for thousands of miles and be expected to fire when needed, that's my 1911's job. The Taurus will see range time and plinking, not Defend My Life duty (unless its the closest gun handy when some crank fiend thinks my place would be good for a home invasion).

I hope my logic is acceptable, and its just my opinion, I could be wrong. I come to learn, not teach.

[Vern Humphrey]

Beretta's have an open slide that will allow more deritus in while firing in dirty/dusty conditions. Sigs, BHP's, 1911's, Glocks have only an ejection port.


Some say the open slide is there to increase reliability -- certainly every "reliability package" I know of for the M1911 involves lowering the ejection port to provide a bigger window to throw the empties out of.

But you could be right -- an attempt to make it eject more reliably may have opened the gun to admit more crud.

[Correia]

Interestingly enough, the magazines that Vern is referencing have a different set of issues than being double stack. In conversations with unit armorers, the problem mags were the type that had the corrosion resistant coating applied to the internals of the magazines. (per .gov spec) Apparently sand likes to stick to this surface instead of dropping free. The mags that did not have the coating did not have as many reliability issues.

Outside of the US Military, the most popular new pistol in the middle east right now is the Glock. Which is also a double stack gun. They are popular amongst the contractors.

From my own experiments, I know that lots of sand introduced directly into pretty much any magazine will shut the gun down. Single or double. Strangely enough the one magazine that could take the most sand before shutting the gun down was the AK47 mag. Sand between the cartridges and sand between the follower and side walls slows the action. The AK follower allowed more to drop through. The FAL mag was the easiest rifle mag to jam with sand, followed by the AR.

On pistols, a single stack 7 round Colt mag will have problems with sand just as easily as a Glock mag. I don't think the cartridge turning to move into the single position has nearly as much to do with it, as the space between the follower and the side wall allowing sand to fall through.

Vern, no offense intended, and I respect your service, but there weren't exactly a whole lot of double stack handguns in our inventory during Vietnam. :)

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, no offense intended, and I respect your service, but there weren't exactly a whole lot of double stack handguns in our inventory during Vietnam.
I'm not basing my comments on double-stack, single feed magazines on Viet Nam experience, but on more current experience. (Although I did take a Browning hi-Power, made by Inglis of Canada, off the body of an NVA lieutenant.)