TYR Tactical

USMC Authorizes GEN M3 PMAG

Earlier today, at 191737Z, the USMC issued a message entitled, “M4/M16 SERIES/M27 MAGAZINE GUIDANCE UPDATE”, directing which magazines will be used by Marines with the M4/M16, M27 and M249.

In addition to the Army’s new Enhanced Performance Magazines (NSN 1005-01- 630-9508) which will replace the legacy magazine in the stock system, PM Individual Weapon Systems also authorizes the GEN M3 PMAG in Black (NSN 1005-01-615-5169) and the new Medium Coyote Tan (NSN 1005-01-659-7086). Of note, the Army’s EPM is authorized for training use only!

This is huge news for Magpul because this is the first service-wide adoption of their magazine. Not only that, it’s the only magazine authorized for use in combat.

Here is the meat of the message:

GENTEXT/RMKS/1. PURPOSE. THIS MESSAGE PROVIDES UPDATED GUIDANCE REGARDING THE USE OF MAGAZINES FOR THE M4/M16 SERIES AND M27 INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE (IAR). 2. BACKGROUND. MARINE CORPS UNITS WILL NO LONGER RECEIVE THE LEGACY MAGAZINE WHEN ORDERING NATIONAL STOCK NUMBER (NSN) 1005-01-561-7200; THIS NSN WILL DEFAULT TO THE U.S. ARMY ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MAGAZINE (EPM), NSN 1005-01- 630-9508. AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE EPM FOR TRAINING USE ONLY WITH THE M4, M4A1, M16A4, AND M27 REMAINS THE SAME. 3. ACTION 3.A. PM IWS AUTHORIZES UNITS TO USE THE FOLLOWING POLYMER MAGAZINES WITH THE M4, M4A1, M16A4, M27, AND M249: NSN 1005-01-615-5169 (BLACK) AND NSN 1005-01-659-7086 (COYOTE TAN). UNITS ARE AUTHORIZED TO REQUISITION THESE MAGAZINES WITH UNIT FUNDS. 3.B. PM IWS WILL UPDATE SL-3S FOR THE M4, M4A1, M16A4, AND M27 TO LIST THE ABOVE POLYMER MAGAZINE NSNS. NO OTHER POLYMER MAGAZINES ARE AUTHORIZED FOR USE. 4. IOT PROVIDE IMMEDIATE AND SUSTAINING ACCESS TO ALL USERS, A PUBLICATION CONTROL NUMBER (PCN) WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THIS MESSAGE FOR ACCESS VIA THE WEAPONS SYSTEM ID NUMBER SEARCH IN SL-1-2.// 

Tags:

23 Responses to “USMC Authorizes GEN M3 PMAG”

  1. SPQR476 says:

    If you look closely, the USGI EPM is only authorized for TRAINING. Not for Combat use. As mentioned previously, the EPM has issues, and the USMC is aware of this through the large body of testing. After all the dust settled and the testing was complete (including testing of other commercial magazines and the variants of the USGI over the last several years), the PMAG M3 will be the ONLY magazine that the USMC will go to war with. Which is pretty cool. :-)

  2. Matthew Kime says:

    Amazing. Especially having been around to see this company grow from enhanced rubber bands to help soldiers remove magazines from pouches.

    • Thomas M. says:

      I can remember buying the MagPuls not to pull the mags from pouches, but to use as a means of protecting aluminium magazines from damage when dropped during the dark days of the Assault Weapons Ban. When installed side way (ie rotated on the mag 90 degrees) the plastic strap protects the whole floor plate of the aluminum mags. Sometimes you had to use a heat gun to get them on, but it was worth it since replacing the aluminum mags during those times could be costly for civilian use.

      I can still remember watching the first videos on youtube of the test magazines being ran over by a Chevy truck.

  3. Boris Borkowski says:

    Ummmm. The British Army has been using E and P mags as it’s primary combat magazine for over four years.

    • The Dude says:

      Some numb nut pulled PMAGs (and all other polymer mags) from use, because Private Snuffy was using Tapco and other BS mags.

      Glad to see that Marine leadership has their head screwed on straight.

      • Pat Rick says:

        Who was the “numb nut” that pulled the magazines? Was that a good idea, at the time (2012), to pull everything so that USMC could begin the process of figuring out which magazine was best and then authorize only that one? If that’s the case (which appears to be what took place with this), is whoever pulled all the other magazines a “numb nut”? Or was that a good call?

    • All branches of British forces, not just the Army. No real use of PMAGs either, I’ve checked and they do fit but they’re not designed to work in the L85 so the EMAG is the one in the stock system that you’ll find in military armouries (police like the P for their ARs though).

      I’m presuming the ‘first service-wide adoption’ is supposed to imply US service, which makes sense in the context,

      Wish I has shares in Magpul…

      • Magpul says:

        The PMag M3 is based on the EMag profile and so will fit into most rifles the EMag fits so long as there is no interference with the over-travel stop.

  4. PTMcCain says:

    Wow, congrats to Magpul. Talk about an American success story and what private enterprise and entrepreneurship is all about.

    And, as a sidenote, I just found out today where the name “Magpul” comes from…duh…from the first product that made it easier to pull mags out of pouched, hence, “Magpul.”

    :)

  5. PTMcCain says:

    Question: Why does the military use ALL CAPS WHEN THEY ISSUE NOTICES LIKE THIS??

    • Lerch says:

      Joe’s production value improves when being yelled at 😉

    • Rob says:

      They are not yelling, they are just speaking in a voice so that everyone can hear.

      I believe it is a legacy format from the time or of much less sophisticated field communications.

    • SSD says:

      Teletype

    • NavyMan says:

      Teletype up until the the mid 90s was only available in uppercase letters. With the advent of new printers all branches still used all uppercase format up until very recently. The Navy converted in 2014 and the USAF followed suit in 2015.

      Keep in mind, military message traffic and teletype precede modern email/internet practices by many, many years.

  6. Joe says:

    I absolutely die laughing inside thinking about the MILLIONS of dollars that the Army spent on designing and developing a slightly tweaked USGI/STANAG Aluminum magazine that will reliably feed and function with M885A1.

  7. Ipkiss says:

    In the meantime, the Netherlands have upgraded their Colt’s with Magpul ASAP and RSA furniture, but for their magazines chose the Lancer L5. And Spec-Ops sling with mash hook attachment. Which makes sense..?

    • SPQR476 says:

      Lancers were tested.

    • NavyMan says:

      Its not just about the Magazine itself. The P Mag has several counterparts that are on par with its performance. What works for the Dutch though, is not necessarily going to work for a much larger organization. The decision to go with Magpul had many variables and benchmarks for acceptance. Including but not limited to performance of the magazine. Industrial capacity of the manufacturer, proposal cost and more had a lot to do with the decision.

  8. Jose Jemenez says:

    This is a solution to a problem of their own making.

    Most of the problem the Marines have with EPMs is they are less reliable in the M27, they work fine in the M16/M4. If you look at the chamber area of the M27, you might notice that it does not have the 120 degree chamfer prior to the radius, it just has a radius (see the images below). Picatinny did some testing and it showed rounds stripped from the EPM sometimes hit the rear of the barrel, where the chamfer would be on the M16/M4. On the M16/M4 the chamfer would guide the nose of the bullet into the chamber, Since the chamfer isn’t there on the M27, it hits the flat rear face of the barrel and fails to feed.

    FTF with the M27 with EPMs is rare, but happens enough that in combat such an occurrence was deemed unacceptable.

    The point is the Marine Corps screwed up in not specifying the geometry of the rear of the barrel should be the same as that of the M16/M4. But the M27 was essentially a COTS item, another minor screw-up. What works well in the civilian world, with H&Ks supplied magazines may not work in combat as well with a wide variety of various manufacturer’s offerings. Now they have restricted themselves to a single supplier of magazines, something that could have been avoided.

    image: http://i.imgur.com/s00vGNH.jpg
    H&K chamber, note the flat rear face of the barrel.

    image: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlSmh4ug8hp4EnwnVgSN9Y3ckQXhsAsEQjuAYQ-2CL2QbL7mS-bw
    AR15/M16/M4 chamber, note the large chamfer and generous radius leading into the chamber.

    • NavyMan says:

      Much of that may very well be true but and this is a big but, many Marines and Soldiers alike dislike the EPM. EPM addressed stoppages associated with internal fouling and normal wear. However EPM just like STANAG is very easy to literally destroy with abnormal treatment associated with normal Marine and Soldier treatment.

  9. Thomas G says:

    The EPMs would feed flawlessly, with specifically designed magpul anti-tilt followers.