Posted: 10/8/2010 7:37:45 AM EDT
|
I would really like to give you some of my money. All I ask is that you make a 6.8 Pmag. Then I would give you lots of money. The end. ETA: I can prove it. I've given you lots of money in the past.   |
|
Quoted:
Sadly, i fear your woes will fall on deaf ears... 
No deaf ears here. We've been stating the following for years: We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time, including the 6.8x43 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7.62x39. The primary reason for this is due to the limited physical space inside of the M16 magazine well. In order to accommodate the increased case diameter of these cartridges, and the subsequent widening of the staggered cartridge stack, the walls of the magazine body would have to be dramatically thinned. This is not conducive to a robust polymer magazine design. Additionally, we recommend against using these larger cartridges in the PMAG as they will generally not load or feed correctly from the PMAG. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sadly, i fear your woes will fall on deaf ears...
No deaf ears here. We've been stating the following for years: We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time, including the 6.8x43 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7.62x39. The primary reason for this is due to the limited physical space inside of the M16 magazine well. In order to accommodate the increased case diameter of these cartridges, and the subsequent widening of the staggered cartridge stack, the walls of the magazine body would have to be dramatically thinned. This is not conducive to a robust polymer magazine design. Additionally, we recommend against using these larger cartridges in the PMAG as they will generally not load or feed correctly from the PMAG. You should tac this! It would prob help in the long run to limit these posts. thanks! Rocko |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sadly, i fear your woes will fall on deaf ears...
No deaf ears here. We've been stating the following for years: We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time, including the 6.8x43 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7.62x39. The primary reason for this is due to the limited physical space inside of the M16 magazine well. In order to accommodate the increased case diameter of these cartridges, and the subsequent widening of the staggered cartridge stack, the walls of the magazine body would have to be dramatically thinned. This is not conducive to a robust polymer magazine design. Additionally, we recommend against using these larger cartridges in the PMAG as they will generally not load or feed correctly from the PMAG. fuck with the feed lips a bit and it a rev M pmag will feed nicly in a .50 beowulf :) YMMV |
|
Quoted:
... We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time... When and if the Knight's SR635 materializes, wouldn't you be supplying the magazines for that? ETA: Pmags would be nice, if it were possible... 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sadly, i fear your woes will fall on deaf ears... No deaf ears here. We've been stating the following for years: We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time, including the 6.8x43 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7.62x39. The primary reason for this is due to the limited physical space inside of the M16 magazine well. In order to accommodate the increased case diameter of these cartridges, and the subsequent widening of the staggered cartridge stack, the walls of the magazine body would have to be dramatically thinned. This is not conducive to a robust polymer magazine design. Additionally, we recommend against using these larger cartridges in the PMAG as they will generally not load or feed correctly from the PMAG. I've heard this before, and i understand what you are saying, but by squeezing the stagger down a bit, could you not make a ~22-24rd mag with a similar profile to a 30rd 5.56 Pmag? This would allow the thicker walls required, it just wouldn't be a full "Double Stack" but would be a "Staggered" stack instead... Or would the increased friction make loading and feeding more difficult? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
... We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time... When and if the Knight's SR635 materializes, wouldn't you be supplying the magazines for that? ETA: Pmags would be nice, if it were possible... Thats what was stated by KAC around shot show, but i doubt you will get anything out of magpul, OPSEC and all 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sadly, i fear your woes will fall on deaf ears...
No deaf ears here. We've been stating the following for years: We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time, including the 6.8x43 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7.62x39. The primary reason for this is due to the limited physical space inside of the M16 magazine well. In order to accommodate the increased case diameter of these cartridges, and the subsequent widening of the staggered cartridge stack, the walls of the magazine body would have to be dramatically thinned. This is not conducive to a robust polymer magazine design. Additionally, we recommend against using these larger cartridges in the PMAG as they will generally not load or feed correctly from the PMAG. I've heard this before, and i understand what you are saying, but by squeezing the stagger down a bit, could you not make a ~22-24rd mag with a similar profile to a 30rd 5.56 Pmag? This would allow the thicker walls required, it just wouldn't be a full "Double Stack" but would be a "Staggered" stack instead... Or would the increased friction make loading and feeding more difficult? This is how I envisioned it done as well. The only variable that I could see that might cause problems would be the angle of the case. Would the different staggering change the angle that the rounds were presented at the feed ramps (nosing down into the mag)? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sadly, i fear your woes will fall on deaf ears...
No deaf ears here. We've been stating the following for years: We do not have plans to offer an M16-compatible PMAG in any other calibers besides 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington) at this time, including the 6.8x43 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7.62x39. The primary reason for this is due to the limited physical space inside of the M16 magazine well. In order to accommodate the increased case diameter of these cartridges, and the subsequent widening of the staggered cartridge stack, the walls of the magazine body would have to be dramatically thinned. This is not conducive to a robust polymer magazine design. Additionally, we recommend against using these larger cartridges in the PMAG as they will generally not load or feed correctly from the PMAG. As my Dad always said, "Everything that was ever invented was impossible before". But I don't have rifles in those calibers so magpul needs to stick th the other stuff they are working on to make me happy 
|