OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
This is how they all came out. Looks like the correct orientation to me. Not a great contrast in the photo though.
Loading a mag to capacity.
- Thread starter WrongHanded
- Start date
- Status
This is how they all came out. Looks like the correct orientation to me. Not a great contrast in the photo though.
What you supposed to do is load mag to full capacity insert pull back slide release and depending on design engage safety dockock or leave as is.
Gu
If1HitU
Member
If my Mag.hold 12 rounds,i put 10 +1,just like I use to load my mag's in 68/69, 18 +1 in a M-16 20 rounds Magazine.
expat_alaska
Member
18 +1 in a M-16 20 rounds Magazine.
I agree. That is standard practice with an M-16/AR-15: load 28 rounds in a 30-round mag and tap them down on your head/helmet, whichever is harder.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
+1 here.
Never had a problem.
Never had a problem.
"Standard practice" depended on what generation your immediate supervisor was and his battlefield experience. I've been told to download and then go full up. One thing was consistent, you always loaded with the bolt held back, never with it closed. The M16 has a bolt hold open on the last shot, and that is how you will load it on subsequent mag changes anyway.
Now, the real problem is using vertically wound spiral springs in the first place. They are nearly universal, but they all exhibit the same problem. They have to lift the bullet stack fast enough to present it to the moving bolt face to be chambered as the next round. When you use a spiral wound spring, each incremental depression of height getting another round in adds it's poundage to the overall total. By the time you get to the last round it's much higher than necessary - which is why the last round is hard to insert and why it feeds with more friction. It's also an issue with the amount of pressure exerted on the feed lips, and some mag designs show the feed lips spreading because of it, polymer or metal. When the feed lips start moving apart you get less control over the round and it can cause them to pop out vertically under the heavy load.
It's simply a value engineered solution. Kinda like cast zinc pistols, frankly. We get by with it. What other designs exist? Well, aside from belt feed, there are magazines which use a clockwork wound spring which is stripped off when the follower is pushed down the mag. Clockwork springs aren't "additive," they are constant rate regardless of how much the mag is loaded. Therefore the spring rate is chosen based on the speed needed for a full stack of bullets and that is all, no more. As a result, they are easy to load fully, and don't give as many issues when fully loaded with overpressuring the cartridge against the feed lips.
One recent innovation in traditional mags is to compensate for the higher pressures with feed lips which are folded under, doubling them. It forms a much stiffer lip and has no cut edges to bear on the case, scratching it less and reducing friction. Others report that lightly sanding the feed lip edge to reduce burrs also helps, "breaking it in" sooner. Others recommend making sure the follower actually slides up and down with no hangups on spot welds and that the interior of the mag is polished to help reduce friction. The newer milspec M4 mags use a dry lube coating on the interior. And, despite the resident internet engineers who claim a properly made spring will never lose tension, filling them to capacity and leaving them full tends to reduce the pressure, too. I believe the mag makers have that in mind when designing them, as a lifetime of service had better be decades in the mind of the consumer public.
As for examples of spring pressure, compare a P938 to a Kahr .380 mag to a S&W 4500 series. That SIG mag is right up there with the best in thumb busting get me a mag loader poundage. The others are comfortably normal. Why the difference? The SIG is a compact 9mm and apparently needs a fast presentation of ammo to match the slide cyclic speed. The others are known to be slower, especially my S&W as it was ramped to unlock slower for better accuracy. You see the same thing with AR's - carbines with light buffers seem to have more misfeeds than heavier ones. It's all about how fast the bolt or slide travels, and slower seems to be better for reliability. A slower cyclic speed does allow for a weaker spring to push up the column stack in time to strip the round. What constitute's a "bad mag" for an AR carbine may well be just fine for a rifle length with heavier bolt and buffer.
You can download as you like, but considering all the issues, fixing the problem by reducing your firepower has it's disadvantages.
Now, the real problem is using vertically wound spiral springs in the first place. They are nearly universal, but they all exhibit the same problem. They have to lift the bullet stack fast enough to present it to the moving bolt face to be chambered as the next round. When you use a spiral wound spring, each incremental depression of height getting another round in adds it's poundage to the overall total. By the time you get to the last round it's much higher than necessary - which is why the last round is hard to insert and why it feeds with more friction. It's also an issue with the amount of pressure exerted on the feed lips, and some mag designs show the feed lips spreading because of it, polymer or metal. When the feed lips start moving apart you get less control over the round and it can cause them to pop out vertically under the heavy load.
It's simply a value engineered solution. Kinda like cast zinc pistols, frankly. We get by with it. What other designs exist? Well, aside from belt feed, there are magazines which use a clockwork wound spring which is stripped off when the follower is pushed down the mag. Clockwork springs aren't "additive," they are constant rate regardless of how much the mag is loaded. Therefore the spring rate is chosen based on the speed needed for a full stack of bullets and that is all, no more. As a result, they are easy to load fully, and don't give as many issues when fully loaded with overpressuring the cartridge against the feed lips.
One recent innovation in traditional mags is to compensate for the higher pressures with feed lips which are folded under, doubling them. It forms a much stiffer lip and has no cut edges to bear on the case, scratching it less and reducing friction. Others report that lightly sanding the feed lip edge to reduce burrs also helps, "breaking it in" sooner. Others recommend making sure the follower actually slides up and down with no hangups on spot welds and that the interior of the mag is polished to help reduce friction. The newer milspec M4 mags use a dry lube coating on the interior. And, despite the resident internet engineers who claim a properly made spring will never lose tension, filling them to capacity and leaving them full tends to reduce the pressure, too. I believe the mag makers have that in mind when designing them, as a lifetime of service had better be decades in the mind of the consumer public.
As for examples of spring pressure, compare a P938 to a Kahr .380 mag to a S&W 4500 series. That SIG mag is right up there with the best in thumb busting get me a mag loader poundage. The others are comfortably normal. Why the difference? The SIG is a compact 9mm and apparently needs a fast presentation of ammo to match the slide cyclic speed. The others are known to be slower, especially my S&W as it was ramped to unlock slower for better accuracy. You see the same thing with AR's - carbines with light buffers seem to have more misfeeds than heavier ones. It's all about how fast the bolt or slide travels, and slower seems to be better for reliability. A slower cyclic speed does allow for a weaker spring to push up the column stack in time to strip the round. What constitute's a "bad mag" for an AR carbine may well be just fine for a rifle length with heavier bolt and buffer.
You can download as you like, but considering all the issues, fixing the problem by reducing your firepower has it's disadvantages.
- Status
Similar threads
