AR magazine weight difference

[improperlyaged]

I don't know if anyone actually cares at all about this but I have been interested in getting the lightest possible load out for my AR. Looking to shed as many pounds as possible I have been looking for the lightest magazines. Tonight I weighed a Magpul windowed pmag, Thermold 30 round mag, and a standard aluminum 30 rounder. I was actually surprised.

Windowed Pmag 4.90 oz


Thermold 30 round mag 4.07 oz


Standard aluminum 30 rounder 3.96 oz


Those are unloaded by the way.

 

[rcmodel]

Interesting, but something I never thought about.

Except that time a light came on when we switched from Steel M-14 mags to Aluminum M-16 mags in 1968.

So, how many mags you gonna carry that 0.94 oz per mag is gonna matter ?

PS: if you want to save even more weight then that?

Switch from 55 grain bullets to 40 grain bullets!!

450 grains, or over a full ounce weight per mag!

rc

 

[ku4hx]

I'd opine the most effective way to reduce an AR's total weight is to have fewer things hanging off of it. Glass and all the metal (even if it is Aluminum) a light's batteries and etc. add up pretty quickly. The difference in weight between the various magazines will likely get rounded right off when the various configurations are actually weighed.

 

[improperlyaged]

I'd opine the most effective way to reduce an AR's total weight is to have fewer things hanging off of it. Glass and all the metal (even if it is Aluminum) a light's batteries and etc. add up pretty quickly. The difference in weight between the various magazines will likely get rounded right off when the various configurations are actually weighed.

I have absolutely nothing on my rifle except a sling. I am not a fan of all the doo dads that people put on their rifles, but then again if they want a 15 lb rifle its their gun and they can do whatever they want with it.

 

[strambo]

Counterpoint: the difference in effectiveness (if it is a fighting rifle) of adding a good light and RDS is "night and day." A good RDS and light only has to weigh 8-9oz total. Added on to a Colt 6720 for under $800, that is a looooong way from a "15lb" rifle.

For a range gun it doesn't matter which way you go.

 

[ku4hx]

I have absolutely nothing on my rifle except a sling. I am not a fan of all the doo dads that people put on their rifles, but then again if they want a 15 lb rifle its their gun and they can do whatever they want with it.

Unless you have "princess and the pea" sensitivity, the difference in magazine weights will not be noticeable.

RC Model nailed it in post #2

 

[herrwalther]

Splitting ounces on empty magazine weights is a little much. I would much rather have the 1oz per magazine more on a PMAG than a standard GI aluminum magazine.

 

[taliv]

an ounce is an ounce

they turn into pounds pretty fast

 

[improperlyaged]

an ounce is an ounce

they turn into pounds pretty fast

+1


When you want an entire kit with 6 mags and ammo that weighs less than 30 pounds and includes things like a medical kit and water, you begin to try to cut weight everywhere.

 

[Jeff White]

Despite everything people post on the internet, there is nothing wrong with USGI aluminum magazines. They are an expendable item and when they wear out get rid of them and get another. There is a reason that we have never adopted PMAGs or any other magazine for military use. Unless you are unfortunate enough to live in a state that has restrictions on them, you can always get a new one, no reason to rebuild them.

If you are carrying everything you need for days at a time on your back every ounce counts. 7 x 4.90 oz PMAGs = 34.3 oz
7 x 4.07 oz Thermold = 28.49 oz
7 x 3.96 oz USGI aluminum = 28.49 oz

The difference between PMAGs and USGI aluminum comes out to 5.81 oz for a basic load of 7 magazines. That's over 1/4 pound difference. It all adds up. In the late 80s as a rifle platoon sergeant in a light Infantry unit I was carrying 103 pounds with ruck. And that was before we had all the body armor they wear today. Machine gunners and RTOs were carrying over 120 pounds. When you are living like that, every ounce counts.

 

[herrwalther]

There is a reason that we have never adopted PMAGs or any other magazine for military use.

Cost. Pure and simple. PMAGs are more expensive than standard aluminum magazines. The reliability between the two is not a fair comparison. Depending on the age of the magazine (black follower aged magazines were notorious) I sometimes saw 5 malfunctions per magazine. Magpul was smart and knew their magazines would never be standard issue. So they made enhanced followers that some units bought. They really improved how well the magazines worked.

When I deployed as a young private, my pay only covered replacing about half my magazines with PMAGs. I carried those as my primary magazines over the issued ones, even with the enhanced followers I mentioned. I kept the USGI magazines in a bandoleer or my assault bag. On some days, 7 PMAGs full of ammo did not last the day. Ounces may turn to pounds eventually, but I will take reliability over weight any day.

 

[Jeff White]

I used USGI aluminum magazines professionally (as an Infantryman and cop) for 40 years. When I enlisted in 74 they were 20 round mags. 30 round mags were in the system but no one had them. Never really saw my first issue 30 round aluminum mag until 77 or 78 when they started issuing the ALICE nylon ammo pouches for them. I can remember one lot made by OK (I might be wrong about the manufacturer it was a long time ago, mid 80s) that was recalled because they just plain didn't work. Other then that, if a unit replaced them when they wore out they were just as reliable as PMAGs.

Around 1991 we got some Thermolds, must have been some kind of deal with Canada, they had the maple leaf molded in them. They were crap. If you dropped a loaded one on the ground 8 times out of 10 it would unload itself, spewing live rounds all over the ground. The feed lips were that bad.

If you had bad aluminum magazines it was because your unit was too cheap to replace them before you deployed. I can't imagine going into combat with mags that were beaten up on ranges and with blanks for years but I guess some units did.

The way the military pisses money away and considering all of the non-standard stuff commanders bought off the shelf with RFI money in the early days of the war, if the aluminum magazine had been unsuitable it would have been replaced.

My middle son did tours as an Infantryman in both Iraq and Afghanistan ( he's in Korea now) and reported no problems with any magazines except for M9 mags. In fact when he got a pistol in Iraq, I sent him 5 Beretta made magazines for it because the issue mags were crap (checkmate IRRC).

 

[improperlyaged]

I have a couple of black follower magazines and they have never malfunctioned (except for one that the follower has melted and its only malfunction is not holding the bolt back on the last round). Now I have have never been in combat and never fired a round in anger, but if my mags are as reliable as they have been then I wouldn't have any problem carrying them into combat.

 

[jmr40]

I'm not at all surprised. Most people automatically think plastic is lighter than other materials. I've never weighed magazines, but have weighed a lot of rifle and shotgun stocks. In virtually every case where I could compare a factory plastic stock with a wood stock that fit the same rifle or shotgun the plastic stock was heavier by 2-4 oz. Most of the cheaper aftermarket plastic stocks are as much as 2 lbs HEAVIER than wood.

The higher quality synthetics made with fiberglass and especially those made with kevlar are lighter. Sometimes by more than a pound, but typically about 1/2 lb. But most people don't want to spend $600 for stock that is truly lighter. They are satisfied with the "look" they get without the performance.

As far as magazines go I'd have to carry a lot of them to note any difference. Less than 1 oz each wouldn't be a deal breaker to me. I like the P-mags and would choose them, but quality mags are quality mags and I've never had an issue with quality mags made of any material.

 

[jmorris]

Looking to shed as many pounds as possible

Just weighed an aluminum 20 round mag with metal follower, 2.9oz.

 

[improperlyaged]

Just weighed an aluminum 20 round mag with metal follower, 2.9oz.

I have actually been looking into 20 rounders. I figured they would be even lighter.

 

[herrwalther]

If you had bad aluminum magazines it was because your unit was too cheap to replace them before you deployed. I can't imagine going into combat with mags that were beaten up on ranges and with blanks for years but I guess some units did.

Normally I would agree with you. The unit I deployed with like to play lots of buddy buddy. That being if you were friends with the supply NCO, you got PMAGs, Surefire flashlights, ACOGs, better gloves etc. Whether you were actually going to use them on patrol or not, you got the better stuff. A couple more units I served with also had issues with black or green follower magazines. Several times in my career I did get issued still wrapped magazines of new production. Those performed well at the range and I never used blanks with the new ones. But I digress off topic.

I have actually been looking into 20 rounders. I figured they would be even lighter.

Take into account how much ammo you WANT to carry. For example if you want to carry 240 rounds, that is 8-30 round magazines. If you want to carry the same number of rounds, that is 12 magazines. Using this example the 8-30 magazines weigh 31.68oz and the 12 weigh 34.8oz.

 

[strambo]

I just got some aluminum 20 rounders, gonna use them with a lighter weight build I'm doing. NHMTG - 2.82 oz. About 3/4 oz lighter than 20 rd PMags.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Something else to consider, aluminum and steel magazines usually have a longer internal COAL. Meaning if you are doing load development you can load rounds out longer when compared to polymer.

Another way to save weight is by using dual purpose optics. Instead of having a red dot and a scope, you can run something like the March 1 - 10 SFP or March 1 - 8 FFP scopes.

But remember mass = reduced recoil.