/k/ - Weapons

>StG 44

A lack of proper non-wartime R&D, crap magazine catch design, hastily manufactured magazine spring. The guns themselves weren't built to last very long. That and they rarely had more than about two or three magazines with barely enough ammunition to fill them.

>M-16

Always "I heard from a guy who talked to a guy who talked to another guy that said 20 rounds made it hard to seat the magazine" that people largely ignored. It's History Channel-tier bullshit similar to the Garand's ping.

The real weakpoint of aluminum magazines are the feedlips that get bent out of shape after prolonged use since they were meant to be a disposable one-and-done deal but poor logistics forced reusing magazines.

Underloading a magazine is entirely up to you, but a PMAG, for example, will not benefit from it because it works just fine with 30.

>Do 30 round magazines for the M14/M1a and FAL's work at all?

Depends on how it's made. Field modifications that involved welding two magazines together and combining springs tend to be crap and make the concept look bad.

>With modern improvements in methods and metals, magazines should be more reliable today.

I don't think this is true at all. They're the same basic metals, same design… and any theoretical improvements would be negated by the modern lack of quality control and trying to nickel-and-dime the manufacturing process.

That being said, I usually load my double-stack pistol mags to -1 because they're a pain to load all the way up. Having only 16 rounds vs. 17 doesn't scare me, and although I'm not convinced that mag springs do/don't wear out, I'd rather play on the safe side. I think I would apply that to rifles as well (I don't currently own any high-cap semi-autos)… once it gets difficult to push a round in, I'm done.

There is one real question when it comes to magazines: why constant force springs aren't the industry standard?

>-2 to AR mag capacity

Some of my 5.56 ARs won't seat with a full 30 on a closed bolt with Pmags or USGI maga, but have no issues with 28 rounds

>>588733

Same for me with the GI mags. I usually only load 25-28 in them because it will have a hard time seating on a closed bolt. I have one magazine that has issues with 30 even with an open bolt but I think it's a bad mag and have removed it from rotation.

>>588733

>>588740

A lot of newer mags have spring overtravel built in to prevent this kind of issue. My MFT mags can actually fit 31 rounds despite being advertised as 30 because of how much overtravel they have. It's not something most companies advertise very much but if you shop around you can figure out which mags have this issue and which don't.

>>588742

I'm a poorfag so I'm working with leftovers from the surplus store. They let you return mags with problems so it isn't an issue. The mags are so cheap it's hard to pass them up.

>>588588

This is fucking stupid. Why carry less ammunition? It's so fucking stupid you made a thread about this. Springs don't wear out that fast and if your having magazine related malfunctions it's because you were too stupid to replace that shitty green follower out or can't learn to lock the bolt back before you load the mag. Just lock the bolt back for fuck sake before you load the mag. You're going to have to two steps to load the weapon anyways, so do it in the inverse order next time. You're a fucking faggot OP, ok? Now GTFO.

>>588746

>>588746

> Just lock the bolt back for fuck sake before you load the mag. You're going to have to two steps to load the weapon anyways, so do it in the inverse order next time. You're a fucking faggot OP, ok? Now GTFO.

That's a workaround but not a solution. Mags are supposed to be usable on a closed bolt, and an administratively locking the bolt open isn't always practical. You should expect your equipment to work when you need it to during normal use, if you have to treat it with kid gloves then the problem isn't with you, it's with your gear.

>>588750

Yeah, you have a pretty shit gun if it's having issues with a full magazine.

What lowers do you use? Anderson? PSA?

is it a bad idea to leave a fagpul 30rd 5.56 mag loaded to capacity 24/7? it's just chilling in the closet in case I have a burglar or something

>>588785

No. It'll probably outlast you.

>>588785

Springs wear out from repeated compression and extension, not from keeping them under load.

>>588785

You're probably fine. However, if something does give it won't be the spring but the feedlips. There's a reason magpul sends their mags with those dust covers.

>>588785

>>588805

>>588807

What of the issue of "spring set" where a long loaded magazine that has sat for months, perhaps years, maybe a decade or even more, and the theory that eventually the pressure on the rounds into the lips and the long term settling can cause potential hangups?

Myth or reality? Is there a good case to blow through your loaded magazines on a regular basis for maintenance but also to prevent this issue, if it exists?

>>588821

It's hearsay. The follower is more likely to bind on rust after such a long time than for the spring to "set".

>>588785

The only thing wrong with this is probably

>a mag

and not

>many mags

>>588651

Because they're a fucking gimmick, which you'd realize if you thought about how a magazine works. Their claim to fame is that the springs always apply the same amount of force to feed the cartridges into the weapon, which supposedly improves reliability (bullshit). The problem with this is that the overall weight of the ammunition decreases as the gun fires. ie. a full magazine at 30rds requires more force to feed reliably than when the magazine is nearly empty. Regular springs account for this as they apply less force the further the follower is from the floorplate, unlike a constant force spring which provides too much force at a low capacity, too little at a high capacity or both. It is also difficult to attach the springs to the magazine walls compared to a conventional magazine.

I used to think they were really fucking cool, but they are simply a case of the good idea fairy.

>>588857

Their main selling point is that you get more boolits for the same magazine, the constant force part is only important if you want to make a really long single or double stack magazine for some reason. And I'm quite sure that you can make the feedlips of a magazine sturdy enough so that they can bear the force of the spring, regardless of the amount of cartridges left.

>>588972

>the constant force part is only important if you want to make a really long single or double stack magazine for some reason

That is because the spring needs to be strong enough to reliably feed the last few rounds. The longer the magazine the worse the issue gets.

> And I'm quite sure that you can make the feedlips of a magazine sturdy enough so that they can bear the force of the spring

Which isn't the issue. Whilst a conventional design adapts to the number of cartridges in the magazine, providing less force at a lower capacity and more at a higher capacity, a constant force spring magazine has to try and use a set amount of force to move a varying amount of weight. This means that it needs to be able to handle a full load which results in a retardly strong spring at a lower capacity, this creates issues with friction. The greater the capacity of the magazine, the worse this gets.

The only reason to go for a meme constant force spring is slightly greater magazine capacity for a given magazine length. Outside of that, they are less durable, less reliable and more expensive than a conventional magazine design.

Personally I think belt feeding is the way to go, that is assuming of course you don't need to align the belt in the feed tray and all the bullshit, something like the URZ machine gun…

I just thought I'd throw this out there: I'm a big believer in inspecting magazines and ammo regularly. My spare mags stashed in my closets, bags, car, etc., never go a whole year without being checked on. I rotate my ammo too… meaning that once a year, those stashed mags are getting fresh boolits.

I started doing this shortly after I first started shooting, when I only had 2 or 3 guns and 1 or 2 mags for each. I'm glad I did, because going through my dozens of mags stashed in various places would suck if I didn't already have a system in place.

Anyway, 7 years later and I've only replaced 1 questionable spring, but I'm glad I caught it during an inspection and not during a defensive shooting.

>>588978

I also believe in the power of belt-fed, but not necessarily for pistols firing metallic cartridges. For those space is a premium, and there are already such magazines out there for them. But now that I think about it, you could make a gas-powered copy of the infamous Dardick revolver that uses belts. The open chamber system woud be capable of driving the belt, and the only problem you'd have to solve is ejection, but I think you could do that with a proper belt design. Of course, I imagine that the ammo box would be exactly like a double-fed magazine, just without any kind of a spring.

>>594282

False equivalence - those rifles were unissued and buried in the desert before being dragged out and pressed into service.

Sustained use brings about parts failure and an expected loss of proper headspace, which was remedied by premade replacement locking shoulders.