Q for combat vets - magazine weight

The Army did a funny thing when they started going from the M-16 to the M-4.... they completely invalidated all the weight savings with the lighter rifle by loading it up with stuff. By the time you get done putting an ACOG, PEQ, maybe a white light and god forbid an M203.. the fighting weight is starting to get silly. If you put a six pound magazine on it the E-4 mafia is going to straight up murder you.

The general reason most all mags are 30 rounds or less is that the spring tension will make bigger mags less reliable. Even with the 30-rd mags, a lot of guys loaded 28 for greater reliability. Larger capacity also means more bulk, which is an counter to dynamic moving.

I am not a combat vet, but....

What are your opinions about a top load magazine holding 200 rounds, about 6 lbs. Too heavy to be manageable?

Click to expand...

It's certainly been done, back in the days before intermediate chamberings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun

But look at the way that it was employed, to get an answer to your question. Mags that load from the top and are big/heavy aren't really well suited to shoulder fired weapons.

Heavy wouldn't be the biggest problem.

The biggest problem would be where to put it so you could go dirt diving and not stick up like a flag saying 'Shoot Me First!!'

When you start talking 200 rounds, you are talking belt fed.

Much smaller footprint, much less weight, and much better reliability.

rc

top load magazine holding 200 rounds, about 6 lbs.

Click to expand...

If you need 200rds, it should be belted and full auto. My AR doesnt even weigh 6lbs...

JShirley said:

The M249 SAW/AR usually uses what looks like a magazine, but in fact is actually a box holding a belt of ammunition.

Click to expand...

Oh, the 249 will use STANAG mags... it's just the worst conceived and executed idea ever ever.

200 round mags are for plinking fun and for Gecko45 types only. Weight is very much an issue, but not the only issue.

Standard combat load for a dismounted infantryman is 210 rounds total (7x30 round mags), only 30 rounds are carried by the soldier's arms at a time, the rest are attached to his FLC which is a much easier way to carry the weight. A single, fully loaded PMAG weighs 17oz. (12oz for the ammo and 5oz for the mag itself). I suspect any 200 round mag would have to weigh more than 35oz but even if it didn't it would not be practical as it is hard to carry in your weapon and would provide a single point of total failure for the soldier's weapon system.

Not trying to discourage you building such a mag for plinkers like I am now. I wouldn't buy one, personally, but I'm sure some would absolutely love to own a few.

I was a Tanker. My M4 was just an accessory

Unless you're talking about THIS M4:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

200 rounds top loaded doesn't make sense. Heavy, even worse top heavy, plus where do your optics go?

Carrying enough 30 round 5.56 mags to add up to 200 is Goldilocks' "just right".

It has been my experience that when the poop hits the fan, you will have a lot of friends if you don't feel like 200 rounds are a goldilocks load. I liked 10 twenty round magazines and an extra 800 rounds just in case. God bless Eugene Stoner!

Nice thought Coop45 but who is going to carry those 800 rounds???

No one would ever use that magazine. The 30rd is pretty much the perfect balance between size, weight and capacity. If you need 200rds on tap carry a SAW.

Not a good idea for many reasons.

I want to run a mag through a few times before I trust it. Burning up 1000rds to validate this mag is $$$.

The beta mags were not well accepted in the middle east wars. I saw guys try them but they didn't try long.

Makes the weapon really heavy and off balance.

If the mag is damaged you have lost your basic load of ammo.

May make sense in a stationary position but then just get a belt fed.

Someone beat you to it:

A 200 round "magazine"*:



(and they are pretty unwieldy, hence the 100 round version....)


___________________
*Magazine in the sense of "a chamber, room or storage place for holding a supply of cartridges..."

Even for SAWs and M240Bs, the soft 100 rd pouches are most popuar. I could see a SF 60 or 2 30s linked at most. I felt fine with a 30 in the M4 and a go-to mag in a Fast mag pouch.

Yes, an M4 with PAQ15, light, and CCO is heavy, but it is equally effective day or night, something that can't be said about an M16 A1 or A2 musket.

Undoubtedly, a very poor idea for several reasons, most of them already mentioned.

Most M4's aren't loaded up with a bunch of dead weight for soldiers to lug around. If it's daylight the night accessories are in the pouches on the gear. Even the BUIS is left home as unnecessary. Every ounce of dead weight gets questioned when it adds up, including large combat knives, multipliers, etc. A team sorts out who wants to carry it and then that's the one on hand - not five or ten. Most who bother go with a 3 1/2" liner lock with polymer grip - cheap and light.

Travel light freeze at night.

Smaller mags are so much preferred on the marketplace that AR lowers are now available that automatically eject them when empty - when the bolt locks back it also releases the mag catch dropping it. Speeds up reloads for competition, altho some questions arise for tactical use.

For the binary trigger crowd a 200 round mag might be the bee's knees. Lots of competition out there with relatively less expensive 60 round mags now commonly available.

It does go to tactics for the duty and mil user to keep a 20 round in the mag well for first contact - easier to handle, lower profile in prone. All sorts of considerations.

I was a SAW gunner for a period in the late 90s, and carried a 200rd box of ammo attached to the gun. It was used for sustained covering fire and blanket suppression. I would never consider using a semi-auto rifle for those purposes, nor would I carry that much ammo attached to a rifle of similar weight.

That being said, it sounds like you plan to sell such an item. I expect it to be very popular among fools, wanna-be's, and apartment complex commandos.

rcmodel said:

Heavy wouldn't be the biggest problem.

The biggest problem would be where to put it so you could go dirt diving and not stick up like a flag saying 'Shoot Me First!!'

When you start talking 200 rounds, you are talking belt fed.

Much smaller footprint, much less weight, and much better reliability.

rc

Click to expand...

Agreed x10!!!
I'm a big fan of the 20rnd mags for a rifle. You can still get pretty low without having to shoot with the rifle turned 90° and guessing about POI from looking down a stock...and don't have ejected brass bouncing off your nose and noggin.

A couple extra inches in a get low situation is a BUNCH!

But for standing vertical and blasting at paper target at 25 yards, the 30's 100's, and 200 round mags are great (I assume).
I prefer 20's...or 30's loaded w/28.

Just my 2¢...

Tirod said:

It does go to tactics for the duty and mil user to keep a 20 round in the mag well for first contact - easier to handle, lower profile in prone. All sorts of considerations.

Click to expand...

This. On my last tour I kept a 20-round PMAG in the gun. More for the "lower profile while prone" aspect than for the weight, but ounces mattered to me too. I mounted a plastic SureFire in a plastic Vickers mount for white light, and declined a PEQ-15 (I'd have never used it anyway).

I'm sure there are people who will appreciate a 200-rd AR magazine, but probably not many professionals among them. The SAW does a fine job on its own.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I prefer the 20 round version over the 30 for handling reasons. I can't imagine how much a 200 would suck...