How many rounds should I put in my magazine?

Test it out. It depends on the magazine but more often than not, it's not a problem to load a full mag and lock it in on a closed action.

I have one exception, the M&P9c (Gen 1) where if you load the magazine to capacity it really needs a generous slap from underneath to get the mag catch to latch. I think a partial fix was some people would disassemble the mag and sand/file down the "feet" on the underside of the mag follower a bit, which made it easier to seat a mag.
 
I’ve seen plenty of people bounce a full magazine out of their weapon onto the ground, especially with AR’s. I’ve even done so myself. Just sayin.
 
When a design doesn’t take into account a common human fallibility, it is indeed an engineering error. I have no problem shorting a mag one or two rounds to ensure functionality under high stress situations. Firearm skills are a perishable attribute. I plan accordingly.
 
AR mags are a good example. On almost all my AR's, slapping in a fully loaded mag requires significantly more pressure than one that is downloaded by a single round. Pretty sure it ain't operator error. Also, mag release is steel. Mags can be poly or metal. The two will wear the poly mag catch sooner when doing the hard slaps.
 
Requiring more pressure to seat and lock a fully loaded magazine with the action closed is not operator error. Nor is it a design error or any kind of flaw.

Expecting a fully loaded mag to lock in with the same amount of pressure (feel) as a downloaded mag (or an empty one) with the action closed is operator error.

With the action open, they all feel the same, because they are the same. With the action closed, they're not the same, and they can't be. The amount of difference might be a lot, or might just barely be noticeable, but it is there.

Not understanding it and not performing the proper steps for the different conditions is operator error.
 
And designing a rifle which minimizes common situationally induced operator error is called excellent engineering, my friend. ;)
 
provided you recognize that less then excellence is not necessarily a flaw. my friend.

Sometimes, its just the best you can do with what you have or know, at the time.

I've always felt that looking at a design from 50 or 100 years ago, and deciding it is flawed because someone today figured out something better was wrong.

Though many people (some on juries) somehow think otherwise...:rolleyes:
 
44AMP, I’m willing to admit that engineering flaws are almost inevitable but not that flaws are somehow a good thing. Of course maybe you’re saying flaws build character?
 
Of course if we could only induce fear like the trainees have never before experienced in their lives so they can better learn to incorporate workarounds... maybe those little engineering flaws won’t amount to much!

Or maybe until then they can load their problem mags with one or two less rounds.
 
Of course maybe you’re saying flaws build character?
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that what you are calling flaws are not flaws.

A mechanical design that performs the intended function the expected number of times, when used as designed is not flawed.

it may not be as good as you want, you may see where improvement is possible, but that means the design is sub-optimal, or less than the best possible, it does not mean it is flawed.
 
Some genius US Congressperson said a couple yrs ago ""Dont worry when all them bullets are used up they wont be able to shoot anymore"" or some such.

My 5 round AR mag (state reg for hunting)wont allow a fully loaded mag to
be seated in the well, just wont catch so I only do 4 after loading on in chamber.

I know loading one manually might not be preferred.
 
Onward Allusion said:
AR mags are a good example. On almost all my AR's, slapping in a fully loaded mag requires significantly more pressure than one that is downloaded by a single round. Pretty sure it ain't operator error. Also, mag release is steel. Mags can be poly or metal. The two will wear the poly mag catch sooner when doing the hard slaps.
Click to expand...

If you are smacking in a fully loaded mag it should be in an open bolt on an AR for a fast reload because the bolt hold open should have the bolt back already.
 
If you are at the range, load magazines to capacity. If you have a failure, back the count off a bit and label the mag with tape or marker after you know what it can handle. However, if you are loading magazines today and probably won't be back to the range for a month or more, I'd leave space for a couple of cartridges to relieve pressure on the spring.
 
In the Army we carried them full. Until the internet said it was a bad thing I never heard of it or had a problem with it.
 
If you are smacking in a fully loaded mag it should be in an open bolt on an AR for a fast reload because the bolt hold open should have the bolt back already.
Click to expand...

7.62man, hence "lock and load," right? Well yeah such is true but life's situations often present other scenarios.

Reminds me of another defect inherent in AR platforms, the Touchy BCG Syndrome Flaw (TBCGSF is an acronym I just made up for those of you who like acronyms).

As you all have undoubtedly experienced, simply bumping the rifle can cause the AR BCG to slam home to the closed position thereby helping to induce the aforementioned magazine bounce flaw (MBF).

Oh my God (OMG), I forgot two more AR flaws. The forward assist flaw (FAF). Nobody has ever had to use that darn thing! Cutting them grooves in the carrier, (CGCF) in anticipation of it's use only assists in causing jams due to small particles of sand and grit getting caught in there.

Thank you Jesus (TYJ) the engineers at least attached a dust cover to this rifle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top