Q for combat vets - magazine weight

Status
Not open for further replies.
They can't get a 100 round magazine to function very well, and that's pushing half the weight of ammo.
 
With the short barrel and buttstock, a M249 saw is virtually an M4 with a 200 round magazine anyway. Just the always auto version.

The AR/M16/M4 exist to make loads lighter. M14 + ammo was heavy. So if you make a lighter rifle and lighter ammo the whole thing is lighter. An M4 with a 200 round magazine eliminates that.

The weight savings from PMAG compared to a USGI mag is pretty slim. I carried a few PMAGs because they were more durable and fed rounds better. The weight savings was not a big of a concern for me.
 
Someone beat you to it:

A 200 round "magazine"*:

Like I said, it's a box holding a belt.

The other major issue, which is probably even more important than portability, is that large drums have almost always been less reliable than more traditional magazines.

John
 
Lots of good answers. Weight is an issue, but portability and reliability are also very important. How many would the normal grunt carry? What if that mag went down hard after only firing 5 rounds and could no longer be used? That leaves 195 rounds that are unusable. That's a lot of lead to throw at the bad guy that is stuck. Also, the comment about the E4 mafia is dead on!
 
The weight savings from PMAG compared to a USGI mag is pretty slim. I carried a few PMAGs because they were more durable and fed rounds better. The weight savings was not a big of a concern for me.

I haven't weighed them, but handling them back to back the aluminum mags feel slightly lighter than Pmags. Not enough to be a reason to choose one over the other.
 
In my experience, mag weight means nothing.
During dismounted patrols, carrying 450 rounds each was the norm, all of it in mags, rather than have to load mags in the field.
Somebody always had an extra barrel for the 240, and several other guys would carry a belt of 7.62 for the 240.
Out of 12 guys, one or two would have an M203 and a handful of 40mm.
Nobody EVER mentioned how much mags weighed, but we all sure complained about the 240 ammo and barrels, and when it was my turn, I hated carrying them.
 
A long time ago in a place far, far away...my service rifle was a Galil in 223. Standard magazines were 30 rounds. We did have some 50 rounders. Even these were somewhat unwieldy. Too long. Bottom mounted mags did not have too much issue with the extra weight though.
The Galil had a bipod which worked fine with 30 not with the 50.
We carried 6+1 30 round mags and some extra loose ammo.
 
Jesse H said:
I haven't weighed them, but handling them back to back the aluminum mags feel slightly lighter than Pmags. Not enough to be a reason to choose one over the other.

I believe you are correct. Aluminum mags weighing less than PMAGs. My PMAGs are of an older generation so that may play a part. In either case the weight of the magazines isn't a big deal.

steveracer said:
In my experience, mag weight means nothing.
During dismounted patrols, carrying 450 rounds each was the norm, all of it in mags, rather than have to load mags in the field.
Somebody always had an extra barrel for the 240, and several other guys would carry a belt of 7.62 for the 240.
Out of 12 guys, one or two would have an M203 and a handful of 40mm.
Nobody EVER mentioned how much mags weighed, but we all sure complained about the 240 ammo and barrels, and when it was my turn, I hated carrying them.

Not to mention carrying indirect fire weapons. A 60mm mortar base plate weighs 50 pounds if I remember correctly. And every member of the patrol who brought an assault bag was automatically volunteered to carry 4 mortars if there was room. I always traveled light. 6 extra M4 mags, MRE, 2 M9 mags, and a bottle of water in my patrol bag. Small items like extra batteries, tape, 550 rounded out the smaller pockets. Usually left that stuff in the truck. Depending on how much harry we were expecting, I either carried the standard 7 or up to 12 full mags for M4. And at least 3 mags for my M9 if my role was PSD.
 
Not to mention carrying indirect fire weapons. A 60mm mortar base plate weighs 50 pounds if I remember correctly.
The whole mortar: sight, tube, bipod, and base-plate weighs 50 pounds, at least the M224, 60mm mortar. Although, I think the base-plate is the heaviest single component.
 
Old combat vet here. I would not like the extra weight and bulk on the gun. Also I would not like an obstructed view. But I was taught the quick kill which works best with a light fast mounting rifle. Also when you are shooting one handed while hanging out of a truck window or on a running board like I have a light not bulky gun is better.
 
lysanderxiii said:
The whole mortar: sight, tube, bipod, and base-plate weighs 50 pounds, at least the M224, 60mm mortar. Although, I think the base-plate is the heaviest single component.

Alas I wasn't a mortarman. And didn't want to be. Thanks for the correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top