Surefire introduces 60 and 100-round quad-stack magazines for the AR15

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Surefire introduces 60 and 100-round quad-stack magazines for the AR15 (Page 1 of 7)

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:43:49 PM EDT

Surefire just broke cover on their high capacity magazine project this weekend. They plan to show the magazines at SHOT Show, 2011. Their entry into the magazine market comes in two flavors, 60 and 100 rounds. The MAG5-100, $179, above, looks a bit unwieldy but the MAG5-60, $129, below looks a lot less intimidating.

I spoke with Derek McDonald, Surefire’s VP of Marketing, who called them “anti-ambush mags” because of the uninterrupted firepower they can provide during the critical, first 30 seconds of an ambush. He said, and later wrote in a press release, that “it takes the average soldier about 4 seconds to reload their weapon and reacquire a target. So, based on the rate of fire of a full-auto rifle, using 30-round magazines means a soldier can fire 150 rounds max in 30 seconds. But, with our 60-round mag he can fire 240 rounds in 30 seconds. And, 100-round magazine means about 300 rounds in the same time.”

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2010/12/06/surefire-introduces-the-john-holmes-of-rifle-magazines/

In case you've ever wondered how quad-stack mags work...

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:45:32 PM EDT

[#1]

The 60 rounder looks alright but ill pass on the 100

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:45:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Mother of Ctuhulu.

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:46:49 PM EDT

[#3]

wee the Spectre lives LOL
meh if they work well and are not completely retarded expensive Ill buy a couple

EDIT yeah saw the price might buy a 60 if they can street price under $100

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:48:44 PM EDT

[#4]

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.

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:49:57 PM EDT

[#5]

If there was ever a time for a DO WANT pic, this is it. Travesty that I'll have to wait until I move out of this benighted state.

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:50:09 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Mother of Ctuhulu.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu.

The 100 rounder looks like it might be a fun range toy at best, but the 60 looks promising if a bit unwieldly.

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:52:48 PM EDT

[#7]

Humm..

I'll hold off for a while, and wait for future reliability reports.

If they're GTG I will order a few.

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:55:16 PM EDT

[#8]

quickly, someone contact magpul, we need a polymer version with window and dust cover!!!!!

Posted: 12/5/2010 11:55:46 PM EDT

[#9]

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.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:00:23 AM EDT

[#10]

60rd FTW.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:02:06 AM EDT

[#11]

Looks like just the thing to piss off my liberal in-laws.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:02:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Wish they would develop those kind of mags for RPK-74.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:04:11 AM EDT

[#13]

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.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:04:40 AM EDT

[#14]

Kind of glad these are going to see the light of day since the patent drawings were only released what, six months ago or so?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:07:58 AM EDT

[#15]

I gotta say I really dont see these being a big hit.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:08:00 AM EDT

[#16]

The russkies beat us!

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:08:25 AM EDT

[#17]

The 60 rounders look pretty nice.

Its pretty much the same as having a mag clamp on 2 30 rounders, just without the reload in between.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:09:32 AM EDT

[#18]

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.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:10:22 AM EDT

[#19]

300 rounds. Thirty seconds.

Hope you've got some well-insulated gloves for the support hand!

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:14:09 AM EDT

[#20]

Make it $70 and I'll buy the 60 rounder for sure. I like it.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:15:07 AM EDT

[#21]

129.00 dollars for their mag? No thank you

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:15:29 AM EDT

[#22]

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

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:17:34 AM EDT

[#23]

Interesting...

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:19:34 AM EDT

[#24]

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.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:19:45 AM EDT

[#25]

Cool idea. I'll pass. I agree with the previous poster, if I can't get by with 30 rounds in a semi-auto rifle, then I'm probably going to die either way.

That said, for a machine gun, that would be pretty cool.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:21:15 AM EDT

[#26]

I'll take two please.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:22:37 AM EDT

[#27]

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.

Since you put it that way, I'll take two.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:23:24 AM EDT

[#28]

In on one. Like everyone else I'll wait til the prices drop (or buy the Korean knock off).

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:24:17 AM EDT

[#29]

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.

Since you put it that way, I'll take two.

Shockingly, I am not surprised

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:26:27 AM EDT

[#30]

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

Seems to me that you don't know much about patrolling with an M16/M4. That is a lot of weight to lug around in your arms. There are tools for fire suppression; they are the SAW and M240B. The M16/M4 is not that tool.

If you want to talk about IARs, then yes, this might be a good mag. However, a more compact drum mag might be better suited for the job.

A 9000 round magazine will do you no good if you can't accurately aim the rifle after carrying it for hours on end.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:27:48 AM EDT

[#31]

I'm waiting for the 800 round ocho-stack.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:28:46 AM EDT

[#32]

I like the 60's. But agree with above posters, gotta be around $70

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:36:48 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

...snip...

Seems to me that you don't know much about patrolling with an M16/M4. That is a lot of weight to lug around in your arms. There are tools for fire suppression; they are the SAW and M240B. The M16/M4 is not that tool.

If you want to talk about IARs, then yes, this might be a good mag. However, a more compact drum mag might be better suited for the job.

A 9000 round magazine will do you no good if you can't accurately aim the rifle after carrying it for hours on end.

So the dude lugging around the SAW with the 200rd drum can aim his weapon accurately, but the guy with the lighter m4 and 100 (or 60) round mag can't?

If the IAR is adopted, it'll be used much like a SAW ("tool for fire suppression").

I'd bet you don't believe in redi-mags or mag couplers either. I'd imagine the 60 round mag wouldn't weigh much more than those. I've never been downrange, but I'd assume more ammo readily available is better than less.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:43:35 AM EDT

[#34]

60 round might be somewhat practical, might have to get the 100 round just because of how ridiculous it is.

Can't wait to see the mag pouches for that either.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:48:08 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
So the dude lugging around the SAW with the 200rd drum can aim his weapon accurately, but the guy with the lighter m4 and 100 (or 60) round mag can't? If the IAR is adopted, it'll be used much like a SAW ("tool for fire suppression").

I'd bet you don't believe in redi-mags or mag couplers either. I'd imagine the 60 round mag wouldn't weigh much more than those. I've never been downrange, but I'd assume more ammo readily available is better than less.

I don't use them, but if someone wants to use them I don't fault them. I am sure there are exceptions, but I have never seen a case were 4 seconds (as stated by Military Times) means the difference between victory and defeat.

Fire suppression is not meant to be accurate fire; it is meant to be volume of fire the scares or prevents the enemy from maneuvering or firing back. That is not the roll of the M16/M4/ar15. The IAR is another matter.

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:48:12 AM EDT

[#36]

I really want the 60s but for $129

Until these drop to under $50, I'll stick with the 40-round Cproducts I got on sale for $10. When the pmag-40s come out I'll buy some of those for $20

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:52:49 AM EDT

[#37]

babana clip em ftw

Posted: 12/6/2010 12:54:48 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I'm waiting for the 800 round ocho-stack.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3954/sfhcm100m4.jpg

There's something delightfully preverse about loading up 30 lbs of 5.56 into a single mag

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:04:21 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
quickly, someone contact magpul, we need a polymer version with window and dust cover!!!!!

They filed a patent... as with most things magpul don't expect to ever see it in this lifetime, but do expect a "Unfortunately I am unable to disclose any other info at this time on the product in question."

Oh and fuck the MBUS shit for sights.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:05:10 AM EDT

[#40]

The liberal media is going to have orgasms.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:13:57 AM EDT

[#41]

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.

So I guess you don't think a weapon that could be used like a M249 but is much lighter is worth a shit then eh? I just noticed your name 13B, so I guess you probably don't have the SOCOM M4a1 anyway.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:19:00 AM EDT

[#42]

Smartest accessory I've seen all year. Contrary to some of the thread fail, the 60 rounders are a good idea for the reasons noted.

Everyone trains for super-speed reloads, but nobody sees the advantage of 60 round magazines? Embarrassing bullshit. You dance with the one who brung ya, not wait for Captain M240 to save the team.

Next big thing should be man-portable shot locators. Mixed with the xm25, you're looking at absolutely unbelievable changes to infantry engagement.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:19:29 AM EDT

[#43]

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.

So I guess you don't think the M249 is worth a shit then eh?

The M249 does not perform the same role as the M16/M4

I carried an M249 for a few months, and I know what they are and are not good for.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:20:28 AM EDT

[#44]

would be nice for guard duty. 100 rounds of suppressing fire while waiting for back up.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:30:11 AM EDT

[#45]

I love Ohio, but I hate the 30-round limit on magazines.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:34:15 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
I like the 60's. But agree with above posters, gotta be around $70

Well,you have been brainwashed.Looks to me that either one should be worth 25$ or less.Any more than 25$ and you are paying for ''the new thing'' not the mag.

Posted: 12/6/2010 1:34:50 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Seems to me that you don't know much about patrolling with an M16/M4. That is a lot of weight to lug around in your arms. There are tools for fire suppression; they are the SAW and M240B. The M16/M4 is not that tool.

If you want to talk about IARs, then yes, this might be a good mag. However, a more compact drum mag might be better suited for the job.

A 9000 round magazine will do you no good if you can't accurately aim the rifle after carrying it for hours on end.

I've spent my share of time patrolling with a loaded rifle and I would carry the 60 in a heartbeat.

I would only put 58 rounds in it though.