The-Fly
Member
I bought one CMC shooting star when i bought the gun, and it worked just fine today. With the 8 more from CDNN, we'll see how they all work out.
Ask a guy who puts the BG down on round #8. I get tired of this "JMB chose ______" argument against modern progression. JMB also chose nearly-invisible sights, yet I don't see anyone bitching about 1911s with Trijicons. JMB chose 7 rounds because that's what will fit in a magazine seated flush with the grip frame. Nothing more scientific than that. If the 1911 frame was a half-inch longer I'd bet dollars to dimes he'd have given it an 8rd magazine. If you have a magwell or don't mind a mag sticking out of the frame a bit, there is absolutely no reason nt to have an 8rd magazine.Guys, JMB chose 7 rounds for a reason, and put a dimple on the followers for an even better reason; reliability and durability. Is an extra one or two rounds really that important?
Your post is just silly, most of the links you provide don't even address real issues. One of them talks about feedlip separation - that says "crappy magazines" to me in any capacity, not "problem unique to 8-round mags." Spring fatigue has more to do with metal selection than magazine capacity. Springs only wear out through repeat use (just as susceptible in 7rounders) or through exceeding the wire's elastic point (doesn't happen in well-designed magazines of any capacity). You act like it's impossible to make a magazine of over 7 rounds. The issue is jamming 8 rounds in a 7-round mag body by overcompressing the spring and using altered followers. But if you use an extended basepad or longer mag body to avoid overcompressing the spring (most good 8rd mags do this) then the only issue is finding a spring which will push the first round not too hard and the last round hard enough. That's easy with modern metallurgy, and doesn't require any timing changes.Wrong Conqueror [...]
If you have a magwell or don't mind a mag sticking out of the frame a bit, there is absolutely no reason nt to have an 8rd magazine.
The issue is jamming 8 rounds in a 7-round mag body by overcompressing the spring and using altered followers. But if you use an extended basepad or longer mag body to avoid overcompressing the spring (most good 8rd mags do this) then the only issue is finding a spring which will push the first round not too hard and the last round hard enough.
But if you use an extended basepad or longer mag body to avoid overcompressing the spring
There are plenty of 20, 30, and 40-round stick magazines out there for rifles; it's not hard to get a long tube to feed reliably without breaking.
It just takes more engineering than sticking a new follower in a WWII surplus mag body, which is how most crappy companies approached 8rd mags for 30 years and gave them a bad reputation.
Well, I think this misses the mark a bit. I suspect that the majority of the 8round mags are either sold to gamers who are unlikely to complain about the occasional issue, or to casual shooters who are unlikely to put enough lead downrange to really stress their equipment.Wilson, McCormick, etc. have sold tens if not hundreds of thousands of 8rd mags over the years. Their rate of dissatisfaction is low. I think you are in the small and vocal minority who think 8rd mags can't be reliable over long periods of use.