XavierBreath wrote
I don't really care why, I just know they work.
Yep, that's the first and foremost important consideration, when it comes right down to it, isn't it?
If a good quality magazine exhibits proper functioning in a particular owner's pistol(s), in their hands, using their ammunition selection(s), in the circumstances and conditions in which they use their pistol(s) ... then it's not really something that 'needs fixing', is it?
Individual choice of equipment and maintenance practices which result in consistent good functioning tend to promote confidence, which is arguably an important consideration.
My personal decision to no longer use Wilson magazines, for example, is just that ... my personal decision. It should certainly not reflect adversely upon those folks who use prefer to use them, and have had satisfactory experiences when using them. Experiences can vary, though. I used Wilson magazines for a number of years. Remember when the magazine bodies had unequal length rails for the bases? The ball detent in the top of the follower? I've also used the newer production versions, as well, including the 7 & 8 rd Govt/Comm and the 7 rd OM magazines.
I have occasion to talk to a fair number of other LE firearms instructors, LE armorers, manufacturers, factory technicians, vendors, gunsmiths and individual owners. Lots of different experiences. It's always going to be possible to find folks who have had different experiences and have accordingly developed opposing preferences in such subjects. Normal.
I'm still waiting for someone to produce a 1911-type magazine which offers consistent performance similar to the monotonously boring feeding and functioning performance of the S&W 45XX series 8 rd .45 ACP magazines, though.
![Wink ;) ;)]()
Okay, okay, I realize the pistol has something to do with it, too.
![Fce32f95 :neener: :neener:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/fce32f95.gif)