![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted:
That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. You just failed Zombie 101, hard. |
|
Quoted:
129.00 dollars for their mag? No thank you that price is freaking retard. yay capitalism... i guess it's true... sucker born every min. ![]() |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. Didn't Bill Ruger say something like that when he supported the AWB during Clinton's administration? I have never been in an ambush, but I'm not going to tell a soldier who is that he shouldn't have more than 30 rds. in a mag cuz he needs to learn how to shoot better Holy fuckballs! Unleash the dogs of ARFCOM!!!!! If this mag works for someone, by all means, use it. I am not saying that this mag has no use. Redimags, mag couplers, and 9000 round mags all have a use. However, fireteams work in teams. When working in teams, reload speed is far less important than many people will emphasize. Also, reloading should be done from cover; this also reduces the emphasis for speed. If you are not in a team (or as I like to say, alone) and you get ambushed, you are dead. It does not matter how may rounds you have in your mag, they will shoot you before you have the chance to fire off a single round. This is why I have put more weight on traditional roles of suppressive fire, and less on the rifleman. The SAW (or other suppressive fire tool (even the IAR))can keep the enemies head down (hopefully) while the riflemen reload. Teamwork. Quoted: I guess it is a good thing our soldiers were never issued a 9.5 lb rifle. They weren't carrying nearly as much supplementary gear as current soldiers do. ![]() In closing, I see 9000 round mags to have limited use. I do not claim that they are bad; only that they may not have many advantages over a 30 round mag. Sometimes less is more. Case in point: http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/tacticoolAR15.jpg I see through your clever ruse. The flashhider on that rifle is not .mil issue. Actually that muzzle brake is .mil issue. |
|
Quoted:
waiting to see someone prone out with one of those. I think the 60s would work fine. The 100? Not so much. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. Didn't Bill Ruger say something like that when he supported the AWB during Clinton's administration? I have never been in an ambush, but I'm not going to tell a soldier who is that he shouldn't have more than 30 rds. in a mag cuz he needs to learn how to shoot better Holy fuckballs! Unleash the dogs of ARFCOM!!!!! If this mag works for someone, by all means, use it. I am not saying that this mag has no use. Redimags, mag couplers, and 9000 round mags all have a use. However, fireteams work in teams. When working in teams, reload speed is far less important than many people will emphasize. Also, reloading should be done from cover; this also reduces the emphasis for speed. If you are not in a team (or as I like to say, alone) and you get ambushed, you are dead. It does not matter how may rounds you have in your mag, they will shoot you before you have the chance to fire off a single round. This is why I have put more weight on traditional roles of suppressive fire, and less on the rifleman. The SAW (or other suppressive fire tool (even the IAR))can keep the enemies head down (hopefully) while the riflemen reload. Teamwork. Quoted: I guess it is a good thing our soldiers were never issued a 9.5 lb rifle. They weren't carrying nearly as much supplementary gear as current soldiers do. ![]() In closing, I see 9000 round mags to have limited use. I do not claim that they are bad; only that they may not have many advantages over a 30 round mag. Sometimes less is more. Case in point: http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/tacticoolAR15.jpg I see through your clever ruse. The flashhider on that rifle is not .mil issue. Actually that muzzle brake is .mil issue. Japan doesn't count. ![]() |
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Seems like they might be aiming at the IAR. I can't really see myself buying a 100 round magazine. A 60 rounder, maybe....but not a 100 rounder. If they are meant for the civilian market then SF is smoking some really good shit. In the days of cheap .223 it might have worked...but I don't think people are going to be lining up to do 100 round mag dumps again anytime soon. The 100 rounders are clearly a little fringe, but the 60 rounders seem very useful. 60 rounders are for offense. 100 rounders are for defense. ![]() |
|
Quoted: While we're all being extra retarded, let's remember that an extra 30 rounds of 5.56 weighs about 0.8 pounds. OMG ALL THAT WEIGHT YOU'LL FALL OVER. I can handle a dual mag setup very easily, and I'm built like an African chicken. And if my calculations are correct, Surefire's solution won't even weigh as much as a dual mag setup. You act like that is unusual. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. /thread, IMHO. So you guys don't carry any extra magazines? Dang, now THAT is impressive! |
|
Quoted: I don't quite understand, I can get 40rds mags for $10 why would I spend $120 more for 20 extra rounds. the math is: $10/40rds= .25 per rd $130/60rds= $2.17 per rd Because someone in a firefight would gladly pay $120 to have 20 more rounds on tap before a reload, I certainly would. Does everyone think they are Surefire's only customer? Do you really think they are marketing $600 flashlights to people who's average use of a firearm is blasting away at a shooting range? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't quite understand, I can get 40rds mags for $10 why would I spend $120 more for 20 extra rounds. the math is: $10/40rds= .25 per rd $130/60rds= $2.17 per rd Because someone in a firefight would gladly pay $120 to have 20 more rounds on tap before a reload, I certainly would. Does everyone think they are Surefire's only customer? Do you really think they are marketing $600 flashlights to people who's average use of a firearm is blasting away at a shooting range? yes |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
waiting to see someone prone out with one of those. Don't lie down during the zombie apocalypse. |
|
Quoted:
I don't quite understand, I can get 40rds mags for $10 why would I spend $120 more for 20 extra rounds. the math is: $10/40rds= .25 per rd $130/60rds= $2.17 per rd Simple. The Surefire mags come with the valuable " ![]() |
|
no digital countdown timer?
3 of the 100's taped together more ammo–– on the rifle than the base load the soldier would carry normally ––- this will kill the ammo pouch market ! and If surefire wants to sell a metric shit ton they should start a rumor about a new high cap ban. Remember when USGI 30's went $30-$50 ? Seriously tho I think it has its applications as long as its not a jam-o-matic, having 60-100 rounds on tap right away would be great as long as it works. As alot of people have said I see the three gunners testing it first and if it becomes a hit so be it. |
|
Quoted:
I love Ohio, but I hate the 30-round limit on magazines. ![]() Pansy. Just don't load more than 30rds in the mag. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
Why don't they just make a replacement top for an ammo can so you can just bolt one up. ![]() Someone fire up AUTOCAD |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. Didn't Bill Ruger say something like that when he supported the AWB during Clinton's administration? I have never been in an ambush, but I'm not going to tell a soldier who is that he shouldn't have more than 30 rds. in a mag cuz he needs to learn how to shoot better Holy fuckballs! Unleash the dogs of ARFCOM!!!!! If this mag works for someone, by all means, use it. I am not saying that this mag has no use. Redimags, mag couplers, and 9000 round mags all have a use. However, fireteams work in teams. When working in teams, reload speed is far less important than many people will emphasize. Also, reloading should be done from cover; this also reduces the emphasis for speed. If you are not in a team (or as I like to say, alone) and you get ambushed, you are dead. It does not matter how may rounds you have in your mag, they will shoot you before you have the chance to fire off a single round. This is why I have put more weight on traditional roles of suppressive fire, and less on the rifleman. The SAW (or other suppressive fire tool (even the IAR))can keep the enemies head down (hopefully) while the riflemen reload. Teamwork. Quoted:
I guess it is a good thing our soldiers were never issued a 9.5 lb rifle. They weren't carrying nearly as much supplementary gear as current soldiers do. ![]() In closing, I see 9000 round mags to have limited use. I do not claim that they are bad; only that they may not have many advantages over a 30 round mag. Sometimes less is more. Case in point: http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/tacticoolAR15.jpg Supplementary gear is irrelevant - one 60-round magazine doesn't weigh any more than two 30-round magazines. As for the weight of the rifle - I bet the M4 with 60-round magazine doesn't weigh any more than an M16A2 with 30-round magazine (& I bet it's still a hell of a lot lighter than an A2 with a PVS4 on top). |
|
I'll buy a few of the 60 rounders when the price comes down to something reasonable.
|
|
That's reeeeeally expensive. How much are the Magpul 40 rounders going for? Or are they not out yet?
|
|
Quoted:
Supplementary gear is irrelevant - one 60-round magazine doesn't weigh any more than two 30-round magazines. As for the weight of the rifle - I bet the M4 with 60-round magazine doesn't weigh any more than an M16A2 with 30-round magazine (& I bet it's still a hell of a lot lighter than an A2 with a PVS4 on top). Would it make sense to have a 30rd mag in the gun to keep the weight down and hold the 60rd mags in reserve? |
|
I like the 60. I'm interested to see when they hit the market if they are as GTG feeding as the tried and true USGI/PMAGS.
That's really the main downside I see. Case in point: Lets say you are carrying 300 rounds in 2 scenarios. 10 30 rounders or 3 100 rounders. You have 1 mag crap out in either scenario but in one you limit your loss to 10% while in the other you've just dropped 33% of your available ammo while you scramble to tinker with feed lips etc. to diagnose the problem. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
Wish they would develop those kind of mags for RPK-74. where do you think they got the idea? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wish they would develop those kind of mags for RPK-74. where do you think they got the idea? Quad stacks have been around since the '30s. They are not a mystery, it's a judgement call as to their ultimate value considering the weight, cost, and reliability versus a standard mag or drum. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't quite understand, I can get 40rds mags for $10 why would I spend $120 more for 20 extra rounds. the math is: $10/40rds= .25 per rd $130/60rds= $2.17 per rd Because someone in a firefight would gladly pay $120 to have 20 more rounds on tap before a reload, I certainly would. Does everyone think they are Surefire's only customer? Do you really think they are marketing $600 flashlights to people who's average use of a firearm is blasting away at a shooting range? Actually, yes they are. Tactical ninjas are where the money is at. Any gun shop owner will tell you so. |
|
i am all for more ammo but also have another concern for the door kickers....
failure drills, misfeed, etx.... drop magazine just loast 1/3rd of your ammo load generally. don't generally want to put a potentially bad mag back into the fight. these would be fun range toys etc... but for the guys actually needing more firepower i just don't see them as the end all solution. i don't see combat troops screaming for larger mags. More bullk means fewer useable magazines, thick gear on an already insanly thick chest rig with armor and pouches. off balance for weight distrobution etc.... i like option they are always a good thing, i just don't see a great deal of untility for the cost here. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. Don't know much about near ambush or break contact procedures, do you? To me this seems like a natural fit for the IAR concept and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they developed the mags with that system in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile +1 ![]() Nail - Head |
|
Quoted:
i am all for more ammo but also have another concern for the door kickers.... failure drills, misfeed, etx.... drop magazine just loast 1/3rd of your ammo load generally. don't generally want to put a potentially bad mag back into the fight. these would be fun range toys etc... but for the guys actually needing more firepower i just don't see them as the end all solution. i don't see combat troops screaming for larger mags. More bullk means fewer useable magazines, thick gear on an already insanly thick chest rig with armor and pouches. off balance for weight distrobution etc.... i like option they are always a good thing, i just don't see a great deal of untility for the cost here. There are downsides to any equipment. If there werent everyone would use the same loadout. |
|
Meh, I'd buy the 100 just to annoy a fudd and piss off a libtard
![]() |
|
Quoted:
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1228/82529pj4.jpg Looking at the diagram, I want to know what happens to #8 in the righthand picture that allows the follower assembly #20/21 to get to the position at the feedlips as shown on the lefthand picture. And how do the shoulders at the shaded section at 'g' in the righthand picture fold up as shown in the left hand picture which allows the follower spring to end up at the top of the wide section of the mag (#3) lefthand picture. It is a puzzlement to me. I would imagine that #8 is shorter ( front to back) than the two followers , and the followers have a hollow space in the middle ( just not big enough for the cartridge to fall into ) that would 'wrap around' that #8 divider as the rounds rise up. Kinda laughs in the face of the whole KISS theory . I'd want to see alot of testing in the field before Id trust it in battle . But could be fun as a range toy . |
|
Let's see. Adds about 5 more pounds to the rifle.
Barrel doesn't get to cool at all during mag changes that would be normal with 20 and 30 round mags. Not a good idea. |
|
Quoted:
That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. Unless your role is suppressive fire. |
|
Quoted:
I'm waiting for the 800 round ocho-stack. http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3954/sfhcm100m4.jpg I predict a droopy barrel on your future. ![]() |
|
I for one am looking forward to using the 100 rounder on my PSD.
![]() |
|
Quoted:
Let's see. Adds about 5 more pounds to the rifle. Barrel doesn't get to cool at all during mag changes that would be normal with 20 and 30 round mags. Not a good idea. Wow, five pounds? You're saying that the magazine body weighs 4 pounds more than a standard 30-rounder's? I didn't see that, I agree it changes my opinion of the thing. I thought it would only be double the weight of a 30-round body, so maybe it'd add a pound total, when fully loaded. And you're right, barrel coolling during reloads is essential. I believe that's why the SEALs have transitioned to 5 round magazines. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i am all for more ammo but also have another concern for the door kickers.... failure drills, misfeed, etx.... drop magazine just loast 1/3rd of your ammo load generally. don't generally want to put a potentially bad mag back into the fight. these would be fun range toys etc... but for the guys actually needing more firepower i just don't see them as the end all solution. i don't see combat troops screaming for larger mags. More bullk means fewer useable magazines, thick gear on an already insanly thick chest rig with armor and pouches. off balance for weight distrobution etc.... i like option they are always a good thing, i just don't see a great deal of untility for the cost here. There are downsides to any equipment. If there werent everyone would use the same loadout. There are also upsides. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 60 rounder looks alright but ill pass on the 100 That hundred rounder looks like a giant curved erection on the bottom of the AR. (Kinda like the one it gave me) I think I will be seriously looking into this |
|
I really like the look of the 60 round magazine. The 100 round one looks like it might be fun for FA toys at a special FA shoot.
|
|
I won't comment on military usefulness because that's a circle jerk argument, but no one has mentioned that a 60 round magazine could get you through 90% of 3 Gun rifle stages without a reload, and I would expect Surefire to release a quality product that works, as opposed to the craptacular 40 round magazines currently on the market.
|
|
Quoted: I don't quite understand, I can get 40rds mags for $10 why would I spend $120 more for 20 extra rounds. the math is: $10/40rds= .25 per rd $130/60rds= $2.17 per rd 'Cause! Being uber tacticool is priceless! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That is too much weight to add to the rifle. 30 rounds is enough; if you can't get the job done with thirty, you need to work on your marksmanship skills. Don't know much about near ambush or break contact procedures, do you? To me this seems like a natural fit for the IAR concept and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they developed the mags with that system in mind. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I am not a soldier. But I agree with "Duke"; if this thing is reliable, it could be a useful tool to our fighting men overseas. Apparently, some of our remote bases are only manned by a few soldiers & the enemy sometimes tries to over run these bases with supperior numbers. Besides, for road-block or base defense duty, weight would not be a concern. Same for in-vehicle use & the 60 is short enough to manuever in a larger vehicle (like we are using now). If these mags give our boys an edge in that situation, then I am 100% for them! Besides, they could also come in useful for 3gun. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
I won't comment on military usefulness because that's a circle jerk argument, but no one has mentioned that a 60 round magazine could get you through 90% of 3 Gun rifle stages without a reload, and I would expect Surefire to release a quality product that works, as opposed to the craptacular 40 round magazines currently on the market. FuyYun seems to think differently. Apparently NO ONE will buy this for a range toy, it's strictly for "Operators". Like $600 flashlights. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 60 rounder looks alright but ill pass on the 100 That hundred rounder looks like a giant curved erection on the bottom of the AR. So instead of the John Holmes of AR magazines, it should be the Ron Jeremy of AR mags? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.