Check Mate (Checkmate) Mags - a tale of two reputations

Status
Not open for further replies.

clang

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
672
I recently went searching for info about GI surplus Beretta 92 mags and was surprised to see all the negative opinions about Check Mate Industries magazines. Lots of soldiers had trouble with them jamming in Iraq, so word is they are crap.

The reason I was surprised is because Check Mate M14 mags are highly regarded by the M1A shooters on most the forums I read. They are one of the few current production mags that have a good reputation.

My curiosity got the better of me, so I did more digging regarding the Check Mate M9 Beretta mags. It seems that the Government specified a phosphate/parkerized finish for these mags that leave a fairly rough coating on the mag body's inside surface. Good for rust protection in rainy Europe, but the fine sand in Iraq would stick to the rough surface and cause the jamming issues. There are also reports of weak springs, but that could relate to the sticking due to sand or mags that were old and well used.

So what became of this issue? The military recalled the phosphate coated mags and issued a new sand resistent version that has a smooth slick coating both inside & out (and on the follower). Reports say the jamming issue is now resolved. Lots of the phosphate coated mags are now for sale for $10 or less at gun shows and on the internet.

I decided to purchase several of these mags and try them to see for myself. The Check Mate Beretta mags look and function great. They do have a rough inside surface due to the phosphate coating, but I'm not planning on going to Iraq soon, so I think they will be OK. They can also be easily modified to be used in a Walther P88 (the original reason I was looking for info on these mags - but that is another story).

So Check Mate now has a crappy reputation with Beretta guys because the government specified a coating for their mags that was not suitable for the environment they were being used in. That works for me right now, because I can still buy them cheap.

It is also interesting to note that some of the smarter individuals in Iraq had already come up with a field expedient method for improving the reliability of the phosphate/parked mags. They scraped off the rough phosphate finish on the inside of the mag bodies with a wire brush or the end of a cleaning rod. No rough surface for the sand to collect on = no more mag jams.

So now you know the rest of the story. And when someone goes on about how XXXX is crap (or great), don't take just take their word for it, find out why.
 
Last edited:
I was unaware of any 'issues' with anything that CheckMate made.

I only have high regards and great things to say about the products that they made and I bought!

As for any possible 'roughness'. . . a small brass or steel (not coarse) 'toothbrush' should smoothe up any roughness, followed up with some CLP and a rag to remove the excess.



Any of these M9 mags that they don't like, they can send them to me.
I mean. . . I only have 25 92FS mags. That's not nearly enough.
 
It is also interesting to note that some of the smarter individuals in Iraq had already come up with a field expedient method for improving the reliability of the phosphate/parked mags. They scraped off the rough phosphate finish on the inside of the mag bodies with a wire brush or the end of a cleaning rod. No rough surface for the sand to collect on = no more mag jams.

That or a minute's work with an emory cloth.
 
Before I heard of checkmate's "reputation", I bought 2 of their 92fs mags. They've never given me any problems, but once I discovered mec-gar mags, I've never purchased any more check mates. The mec's (especially the new 18 round AFC mags) are just so much better quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top