No more polly mags for the Army

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair, that's not what the SOUM said. (And I got it direct from TACOM LCMC)

What it said was a description of the new updated mags, how to tell them apart from the older, and the interim mags that we have in the system, how to tell if the older mags are bad, and a reminder that ALL mags except for the three that are approved, are unauthorized. It's not a change, PMAGS have always been unauthorized and any units that bought them with GPC cards shouldn't have.

I know a bunch of folks have and use them, along with a ton of other accessories, but that doesn't make them authorized for use.
 
I know a bunch of folks have and use them, along with a ton of other accessories, but that doesn't make them authorized for use.
Click to expand...

Glad to see somethings have not changed; we carried whatever worked for us and could get our hands on.
 
No more PMAGS for the military? Does that mean no more for us to?

Apparently, the gov has said that our troops are not to carry PMAGS anymore because they are not authorized for use despite their extreme proven reliability! What? That is so much BS! So, I wonder what the future of PMAGS will be for us!? Don't believe me, read below.

http://m.military.com/daily-news/20...-high-performance-rifle-mags.html?ESRC=dod.nl
 
I see a lot of add-on gadgets on the M4's over here, not to mention aftermarket slings and holsters for the M9. A unit can do a bulk purchase of after market add-on's, so much more is available now. The army does allow units to buy outside of the normal supply channels, using the unit budget of course.
I scored (free) a M1907 leather sling for my rifle (A2), prefer it over the cheap strap the army issues.

Maybe I'll go see if there is gonna be a price reduction on those mags, buy a few to send home.
 
Please remember that any links to articles should at the least say something substantive, along with at least a brief summary.
 
TACOM’s message authorizes soldiers to use the Army’s improved magazine

....the same issues started to occur: double feeds, rounds not feeding correctly so on and so on. While it seems to occur about half as often, it’s still not a great solution

The (improved) magazines still get bent at the opening and are still prone to getting crushed in the middle. I haven’t seen any issues like this with the PMAG due to the polymer casing. I have seen an empty PMAG get run over by a MaxPro [vehicle] and operated flawlessly later that week when we tested it at the range. Last time I saw this happen to a standard issue magazine, it was scrap metal after that.”
”
Click to expand...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-high-performance-rifle-mags.html?ESRC=dod.nl


There is the issue. The Army's new and "improved magazine" is not better. So the Army is going to flush out all of those PMAG's out of service to avoid comparison.

Rule #1 of Government is keep the fat cats happy, Rule #2 of Government is minimize scandal.

It is scandalous that off the shelf items are working better than the “new and improved” magazines, which must have cost millions to develop and millions more to make. You have a prime contractor who has a huge financial stake in keeping their “new and improved magazine” in production and neither the Army nor the Prime want troops coming back saying there are better products.

You have got to learn, protecting the Prime Contractor is more important than protecting the troops.
 
That kind of nonsense goes in cycles. The official response to a complaint of the troops using non-official gear is, "Only use official gear." It's probably for CYA as much as anything.

The proper troop response should be, "Duly noted."
 
The Army never "authorized" anything other than issue magazines.
Restating this position do discourage purchase of polymer magazines has to do with the logistical challenges of service and support for non-issue magazines
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top