Re: Extra High capacity magazines?

[MathesonT@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 4/30/2001 7:25:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tro@mpinet.net 
writes:


> How reliable are extra high capacity magazines? As an example: The M-16
> 100 round mag that looks like 2 small drums w/ a mag glued between them.


The Beta C-Mag is very reliable.  The SEALs ran extensive test before 
adopting it and while they use it primarily in ambushes, they seem happy.  
The German Army ran exhaustive tests before adopting as the standard loading 
for the MG36, somewhere over 100,000 rounds between malfunctions.  SAS had 
some problems with early versions in their M16s.  They are currently using 
them with their Diemaco's so it would appear they are satisfied with the 
newer versions.

My experience is limited to a few thousand rounds, but no problems.


 
If I wanted to go nuts w/ the above M-16 would
> something melt in the gun?


A good 100-round bursts would certainly heat things.  Would not want to touch 
the barrel.  Current handguards would not melt or transfer much heat after 
that many rounds.  Mechanical should not be effective or damage to the temper 
of the barrel.  Run several C-Mags in quick succession and that can change.
   
Would I be better off w/ just some standard
> 30 round mags?

Factory metal magazines are the most reliable.  Also much easier to maneuver 
with and lighter for extended carry.  If you are going to carry a C-Mag, put 
it in your pack until you set an ambush or for the final assault.

Rob