OT - Complicated Ammunition Magazines

[pmulcahy11b]

In the M16 series at least, most misfires are failures to feed, followed by failure to extract. I always kept my extractor clean (it's not normally a part of the breakdown procedure), and came up with quite a stock of good, little-used magazines (make friends with the armorer and you'd surprised at what you can get).

When I got to the 82nd after Desert Storm, I had a new-to-me M16 that I didn't have the chance to go over well before use. Hence my experience during the suicide attempt. Supposedly refurbished, but not that well in case.

[swaghauler]

We had the A2's in Somalia and they worked ok. You had to clean them out about every 1000 rounds (especially the gas tube). The magazines were (and still are) the weak point in the system. I had eight mags that I knew would work in my rifle. The problem with the US GI mag (now called a STANO or STANAG) is that the magazines were built to a loose spec. One magazine will seat into the rifle's reciever like a tenth of an inch. Other's would seat in about a quarter of an inch. Some mags would allow a bolt to "ride over" the round while a deeper seating mag would create a double feed. The "anti-tilt" followers that came into being after 9/11 really do work. If you have an unreliable US GI mag; Put an anti-tilt follower and a new spring (I'm partial to Wolff gun springs). The superiority of the Magpul P-Mag was that they standardized the depth of the magazine in the magwell. This, and the general overall quality of the mag, is why they are seeing so much combat use.