Protonex Technology Corp

USMC Seeks P-Mag Compatible Ammo Pouches, Army Take Note


Although the Marine Corps has adopted the Magpul PMAG, they don’t fit well in the currently issued ammunition pouch. To counter this, Marines have taken to cutting their pouches in order to accommodate their magazines.

But now, the Marine Corps is doing something about it. Yesterday, Program Manager Infantry Combat Equipment (PM ICE), Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM), released a request for information to industry to identify potential sources for M4/M16 Magazine Pouches which will accept the PMAG.

In all, pouches should:
– Accommodate the 30 round MAGPUL M4/M16 magazines and standard 30 round M4/M16 Aluminum magazines.
– Be compatible with the current Pouch Attachment Ladder System for attachment to current load bearing equipment
– Provide a retention mechanism that allows for the magazine to be retained during normal combat operations
– Must allow the magazines to be smoothly drawn from the pouch with one hand.
– Must be configurable to allow for a single Marine to carry a minimum of 6 magazines on their person.
– Must be comprised of materials that meet current Near Infrared requirements.
– Must be compliant with Berry Amendment.
– Must be lighter than the current M4/M16 double/single rifle magazine pouch for a double magazine design (T= 0.27lbs) or lighter than half the weight of the current M4/M16 double/single rifle magazine pouch if a single magazine design (T=0.14lbs).
– PM ICE is planning to purchase a minimum of 60,000 with a possibility of up to the maximum quantity of 500,000 magazine pouches over the life of the contract. PM ICE expects a follow-on sustainment requirement over the life cycle of magazine pouches.

Interested parties have until Oct 31, 2018 12:00 pm Eastern. Visit www.fbo.gov for full details.

23 Responses to “USMC Seeks P-Mag Compatible Ammo Pouches, Army Take Note”

  1. Adun says:

    I am really curious to see which pouches meet the weight requirements as is, and if they do not meet the requirements, what modifications will be made to them in terms of design if not just materials. For example, making a double mag pouch that has no PALS on the front will definitely reduce the weight, but will it be enough?

  2. Dan says:

    Probably a better solution would be to ditch this magazine and select one that doesn’t have an ‘over penetration’ stop. Then at the same time you’d probably be able to get a magazine with a flush side on the base. With these two terrible features removed the magazine would just fit regular magazine pouches… you know like they have somehow done for decades… magpuls mags are the dud choice here. Switch to Lancer A5 AWM… you’ll never go back!

    • Paul says:

      I can’t tell if this is intended as a joke or not.
      It’s not like the “dud” M3 PMAG has been scientifically shown to be better than any other magazine in reliability testing, but darn that over insertion stop.

    • Lose_Game says:

      The overinsertion stop is the Corps own fault. The reason they moved it from the front (M2) to the back (M3) is because gen 2 mags were incompatible with HK magwells. If they moved it to the front, they’d have the same problem as before with their IARs which IIRC use the pre-A5 magwells.

    • Dan says:

      It was meant to be a humorous delivery, but content serious! I can’t find for the life of me the specifics of the testing that was conducted by the Marine’s to select the Magpul Magazine, for my own knowledge I’d like to know details of magazines tested, tests, results etc, because without them ‘scientifically shown’ means nothing. Is anyone able to provide a link or additional information, I am ready to eat my hat.

      As an example if a tender was to have a ‘insertion stop that completely ruins every other aspect of magazine handling’ as a requirement, then ‘scientifically’ only Magpul would have had a viable magazine to submit. *picture scientist pointing to insertion stop with a laser pointer*

      Can someone explain to me the problem with ‘over penetration’ on the M27? Is this a backlash from earlier PMags being awful to seat causing a stoppage or mag dropout? Is it a symptom with other mags on this platform or just the PMag? Is it now a bad rifle design forcing a bad magazine design forcing a new pouch design?

      • Gear Guy says:

        Dan, just stop. We get it, you don’t like P-mags, but you are one person with an opinion and we all know about opinions…

        There was a legitimate requirement for new magazines, which was released on FedBizOpps. Go do a search there for the information you are seeking to try and justify your opinion that the Lancer mag should have been selected. Meanwhile, the services don’t care and will drive on with the P-mag, like they have been doing for over a decade…

        • Dan says:

          Stop what? Requesting more information so I can understand why the pmag was selected? I have conducted several searches for the information…. no joy. The two links provided here don’t actually show which magazines were in the trial outside the army mag.

          I find it intetesting that your defence is to have a go at me… I’m doing my due diligence whereas you are appearing like you are just a sheep… government aquisitions always select the ‘best’… Again, provide the testing info, or a summary or just something outside of ‘Pmag is winner’… you launching personal attacks only proves you don’t have your own opinion and just follow rhetoric… I welcome you proving me wrong, as I have already said, I’m ready to eat my hat (If I am so wrong, it should be easy for you to prove it)

          Perhaps you could achieve this without personal attacks and just present information

          • Gear Guy says:

            Having a go at you? Don’t flatter yourself sweetheart. The information is out there and if you actually searched on FBO, you might find what you are looking for. Irregardless, you threw out a substandard magazine that has well known issues and then followed that up with saying that you posted your reply as a joke, but that it had serious undertones.

            I work in DOD acquisitions, so I fully understand how and why things get tested, selected and procured and if multiple services have selected a specific item, that is what you would call a clue. With funding being what it is, the services are being told to conduct far more due diligence than in the past and they are also working together a lot more on large scale programs/acquisitions.

            • Dan says:

              Name calling now, must be struggling… so again, no proof, no clue. Your opinion is worthless without evidence, and it seems you are unable to provide any relevant information as to ‘why’… keep trolling. In addition, are you even an end user? Granted you work for aquisitions so I’d imagine you have a grasp of specifications, do you have 1st experience using any of these magazines? Are you basing ‘your’ opinion just on what you have read? Or have you actually used these magazines? If you are umable to answer any of these questions I’ll wait for someone to come along who can actually provide something useful

    • Wake27 says:

      LOL, no.

    • Gear Guy says:

      Dud mag huh? I guess SOCOM, the Marines, the Air Force and the Army are all wrong about it and all of the testing that has been completed. Do you actually believe the things you write? The fact that you recommended a Lancer mag is all we need to know…

    • balais says:

      No

      The M3 PMAG is one of the most extensively tested magazines in US small arms history and has a proven reputation.

      The armed forces are finally starting to come to the realization that the guys on the ground did a long time ago: PMAGs work. They also work with the new M855A1 round when other magazines were problematic.

      • Dan says:

        Please provide proof, if it is so extensively tested surely the specifics can be provided? Gen1 Pmags didn’t work, they seated poorly, were prone to cracking and susceptable to poor performance in adverse environments such as dust/sand. This probably ties into being at revision 3. So your statement is unfortunately false. All anyone has provided here is opinion and hearsay wrt what was tested. Professional due diligence has not been achieved.

  3. Alex says:

    I’ll throw an idea out. FirstSpear rapid adjust in a larger size to scale up to two magazines with an insert rail system built into the sides to keep the weight down.

  4. b_rawrd says:

    Get ready for surplus CB magazine pouches in bulK!

  5. Lone Element says:

    Perfect example of why I got out of the Marine Corps and why Im an Industrial Designer. ” Mags don’t fit devil dogs?? Just soak your pouches in an ammo can and shove some ball point pens in there! OOORAH!”

    Gunner go punch yourself in the fucking face! this video is an embarrassment to Marines. You are the classic example of whats wrong with the Marine Corps.

    • Lasse says:

      What he shows in the video works, but I guess buying 60-500k new pouches is a better idea?

      I don’t get your logic, because the video shows problem solving- which is what IDs are supposed to do. This costs a Marine 10 minutes and $0 which is amazing in the world of ID.

      It’s not like the new pouch is going to be something with groundbreaking tech, it’s going to be a lighter version of their current pouch. Single layer webbing, single layer 1000D and 1″ elastic would fit the requirements.

    • balais says:

      Its a field fix, so calm your tits.

      Both ground pounder branches don’t always have the luxury of buying new pouches, so this method is actually quite useful.

  6. Luke says:

    weight reduction certainly wouldn’t be hard, eliminate the double layer of 1000d on the body and the extra layer of webbing for the lid of the current issue pouch and you’d probably see a 30% weight reduction right off the bat without even designing a better pouch. Switch to more modern laminates and laser cut construction that many brands are using now and you could blow the old weight out of the water.

  7. Ray Forest says:

    I’m amazed there was no requirement for a hydrophobic material. I get that it wasn’t as important with legacy systems so there was little they could do about it but I would think the Marines would make that a requirement with every new piece of gear when practical going forward until the legacy stuff is gone.

  8. Nate says:

    I started using PMAGs since the first month Gen 1s came out and never had this problem with the issued pouches. You know what was an issue? The old pouches, especially the LBV, early woodland MOLLE and vietnam style OD ALICE ones that held 3 in a line. So one day, (20 years ago) this devil dog named Fitzpatrick started making these rubber-loopy things to slide on to the bottom of issued aluminum mags so you could get them out of the pouches. Called them “Magpuls” or something. They sure beat the duct tape and 550 cord loops dudes would make, they were like $9.95 for a 3 pack at Extreme Outfitters and came in one color: black. The irony that Magpul mags are difficult to get out of issued pouches, considering that this is how they got their start is not lost on me. Somehow I still feel like this is all a bullshit “problem”, one identified by Marines that only go to the range once a year. If this is just an excuse to get newer, better, lighter pouches, then I’ll settle for the ruse. They are do for new ones anyway.