Joey101
Member
Are there any differences in reliability between a single stack mag vs. a double stack mag?
Double Stack Mags
- Thread starter Joey101
- Start date
- Status
wally
Member
If you are talking .45ACP 1911 style guns, in my experience there is a world of difference in reliablity between the single stacks which rarely fail and the Para Ordnance mags (used as well by Kimber BP, Springfield, and Armscor) which haver rather short spring life and are very prone to feed failures from the follower binding once a little dirt/fouling has gotten inside the mag body.
I've no experience with the STI/STV double stacks which appear to use different mag tubes.
I love my double stack .45 1911s at the range, but I doubt I'd trust any of them enough for use as CCW. I've Para P14, P13, & P10, Kimber BP in 3", 4", & 5", Springfield P12 clone, and Armscor P14 clone.
In 9mm and .40S&W I find double stacks are at least as reliable as my single stack 1911s. But would I still say this if I had experience in a place like Iraq?
--wally.
I've no experience with the STI/STV double stacks which appear to use different mag tubes.
I love my double stack .45 1911s at the range, but I doubt I'd trust any of them enough for use as CCW. I've Para P14, P13, & P10, Kimber BP in 3", 4", & 5", Springfield P12 clone, and Armscor P14 clone.
In 9mm and .40S&W I find double stacks are at least as reliable as my single stack 1911s. But would I still say this if I had experience in a place like Iraq?
--wally.
Vern Humphrey
Member
There is a problem with double-stack, single feed magazines (which is virtually all high capacity pistol magazines.) The cartridge must roll as it moves into single feed position. Under adverse conditions, friction from sand, grit, etc., can cause problems. It is more difficult, therefore to make a reliable double stack mag than a single stack.
Zak Smith
Member
There are a LOT of reliable BHPs, Glocks, SIGs, and even "1911/2011" double-stack SV/STI's. If there were an endemic problem, it ought to be obvious by now.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Zak Smith said:
It is an endemic problem and it is obvious. The US did not use double-stack, single-feed magazines in combat until Desert Storm, and there were many failures (almost all in training prior to the ground attack.) Magazine problems have plagued the M9, and great emphasis is placed on getting quality mags.
Zak Smith
Member
So prove it's a problem with double-stack mags in general. Your statement merely supports the proposition that Beretta mags are junk, not that double-stack mags are inherently unreliable.
-z
-z
Vern Humphrey
Member
Zak Smith said:
If the prime manufacturer and designer of the gun cannot produce a satisfactory magazine, it's a pretty good indicator that such magazines are difficult to produce.
Zak Smith
Member
You still haven't given any evidence that there is a problem not specific to the Beretta design.
The BHP has been around since the 30's. Is it known for having unreliable magazines?
The BHP has been around since the 30's. Is it known for having unreliable magazines?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Zak Smith said:
If you think the Beretta design is the problem, it's up to you to show the Beretta design is fundamentally different from other double-stack, single feed magazines.
The BHP has been used by a lot of countries -- but let's remember a lot of countries have used some pretty rediculous pistols. Most Armies don't take pistols as seriously as we do.
Chris Rhines
Member
This is truly silly.
No, there is no reliability difference between single and double-column magazines.
- Chris
No, there is no reliability difference between single and double-column magazines.
- Chris
Vern Humphrey
Member
Chris Rhines said:
If you cruise around, you'll find a lot of people having problems with them.
Zak Smith
Member
Zak Smith
Member
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/anon.htmVern Humphrey said:
Vern Humphrey
Member
Zak Smith said:
And all of this proves there is some fundamental difference between the design of M9 magazines and other magazines?
Zak Smith
Member
Vern Humphrey
Member
Zak Smith said:
I still don't see anything that says the M9 magazine is fundamentally different from any other double-stack, single-feed magazine.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Zak is pointing out that your arguments are all logically fallacious by any standards of serious debate.
There is no need for him to "prove" anything about the reliability of Beretta magazines because, quite frankly, your arguments are all untenable. You've already lost.
When you're standing in a hole, stop digging.
There is no need for him to "prove" anything about the reliability of Beretta magazines because, quite frankly, your arguments are all untenable. You've already lost.
When you're standing in a hole, stop digging.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Justin said:
It's funny that he hasn't stated a single fallacy -- only posted links to generalized discussions of logic.
Justin said:
No, he's showing that I've somehow impugned his religion.
Double-column, single-feed magazines are more difficult to make reliable under extereme conditions that single stack magazines.
WarMachine
Member
Well, I might not have any exhaustive scientific testing done by review boards during times of armageddon but:
In my experience, a reliable gun is a reliable gun. I have encountered single-stack 1911 that would jam and double stack guns that would jam. A reliable firearm is when the gun is working as intended. How that is accomplished iand with what type of mags? I couldn't care less.
SIG, GLOCK, Berettas (military M9 aside), Rugers etc. are all reliable firearms. There are a number of 1911 companies that crank out reliable models as well. Splitting hairs over whether a single-stack mag or double-stack mag is more reliable while using DIFFERENT GUNS are allowing for far too many variables and is asinine. With a well-designed gun, this isn't an issue.
I'd put an STI/SVI double stack against any single stack 1911 any day of the week for reliability, and vice-versa.
In my experience, a reliable gun is a reliable gun. I have encountered single-stack 1911 that would jam and double stack guns that would jam. A reliable firearm is when the gun is working as intended. How that is accomplished iand with what type of mags? I couldn't care less.
SIG, GLOCK, Berettas (military M9 aside), Rugers etc. are all reliable firearms. There are a number of 1911 companies that crank out reliable models as well. Splitting hairs over whether a single-stack mag or double-stack mag is more reliable while using DIFFERENT GUNS are allowing for far too many variables and is asinine. With a well-designed gun, this isn't an issue.
I'd put an STI/SVI double stack against any single stack 1911 any day of the week for reliability, and vice-versa.
That statement right there is flat, simple, obvious logic. There are more pieces to the equation that have to move in more complex ways in a double stack, so there is a higher probability that something won't move just right. "Extreme conditions," which I assume means sand, dirt, mud, rain and the like will affect the more complex system in more significant ways than the simpler system.
But, like any other system, keep it clean, keep it tuned, and keep the parts in spec, and it will work as well as it was designed. Btw, my Springer double-stack GI came from the factory with what is almost certainly a mec-gar mag, and all the additional mags I have purchased have been mec-gar. I clean them as carefully as I do any other gun part, so I'm not worried about sudden failure during carry.
i don't have an opinion on this one way or the other yet, but it is interesting.
the AR15/M16 uses double stack fairly reliably, yet there is always a lot of discussion regarding the "real M4 feed ramps" over on arfcom. this could support vern's argument that it's more difficult to make doublestack feed reliably. but also, once you make it right, is it less reliable than single stacks? dunno
plenty of old subguns like grease guns used a single feed ramp, but the mag flaired out so that the bullets were stacked like a double-stack. newer subguns like the HK UMP are doublestack. i'm unaware of any of these really having a reputation for feeding problems.
seems like a lot of newer guns are going to the doublestack. e.g. FNH 5.7, but then, nobody's got enough money to put more than a mag or two through one of these, so we may never know
maybe that's because the mfgs don't have any concerns about reliablity, or maybe that's because marketing highcap mags is a lot easier
the AR15/M16 uses double stack fairly reliably, yet there is always a lot of discussion regarding the "real M4 feed ramps" over on arfcom. this could support vern's argument that it's more difficult to make doublestack feed reliably. but also, once you make it right, is it less reliable than single stacks? dunno
plenty of old subguns like grease guns used a single feed ramp, but the mag flaired out so that the bullets were stacked like a double-stack. newer subguns like the HK UMP are doublestack. i'm unaware of any of these really having a reputation for feeding problems.
seems like a lot of newer guns are going to the doublestack. e.g. FNH 5.7, but then, nobody's got enough money to put more than a mag or two through one of these, so we may never know
maybe that's because the mfgs don't have any concerns about reliablity, or maybe that's because marketing highcap mags is a lot easier
Vern Humphrey
Member
Azrael256 said:
Which is my point.
Azrael256 said:
Yes, if you keep them clean, good magazines will work as designed. But when you are in extreme conditions -- when you can't keep things as clean as you would like, then some mechanisms are more likely to fail than others.
Vern Humphrey
Member
taliv said:
The M16, M14 and so on use a double-stack, double-feed magazine. There is no requirement for the cartridges to roll to transition to single feed.
taliv said:
The old Grease Gun, Thompson, Sten and so on were also double-column, double-feed
Yeah, but that's just one of the reasons. In an army fielding 1911s, I would be hard pressed to find a replacement part for anything magazine related in the supply train. There would be no magazines, no mag catches, and not even proper grips anywhere in inventory. I would end up with a very fancy single-shot pistol at best, and a poor excuse for a club at worst.
taliv, there is a difference between the M16 or AK feed system and the double stack 1911. The double stack 1911 necks up to a single stack at the top of the magazine, and thus you have a double stack, single feed. The AK mag, however, maintains the double stack right up to the feed lips, and the bolt strips left, then right, then left, then right, and so on as the action cycles. In this double stack, double feed (not to be confused with a double feed jam) system, the cartridges don't have to roll around under spring pressure to rise up the mag body. That's where the problem comes in for the double stack 1911.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Azrael256 said:
I never had a problem, and I was in that Army for more than 22 years. There were plenty of spare parts, magazines, cleaning gear, tools and so on in the system.
My first tour in Viet Nam, as an adviser to Viet Namese infantry, I carried a Colt M357 (but then I was issued that miserable excuse for a weapon, the M2 carbine.) My second tour, I carried an M1911 -- and as a company commander in a Mech unit, that gun was subjected to extreme conditions regularly -- Mech rode around in a cloud of dust.
- Status