(05-29-2012 03:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 02:34 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Loser.

How can you say that after what you told me last night?

:tmi:

(05-29-2012 03:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 03:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  SMN, pal, you really have to stop with the whole acting like you know my stances on anything because you continually swing and miss.

Youre a liberal, that's an easy pitch to hit.

Bolded the relevant portion for you.

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

(05-29-2012 09:37 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

You have any basis for this wild assertion? Or is this just pure speculation?

(05-29-2012 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps the original poster, with his vast experience of military weaponry, would like to explain how the banning of the PMAG makes us any less safe.

Still waiting....

(05-30-2012 08:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps the original poster, with his vast experience of military weaponry, would like to explain how the banning of the PMAG makes us any less safe.

Still waiting....

As someone who has fired an M-4 type weapon more than anyone on here except maybe Rebel, the metal magazine the Army wants you to use has some design issues that cause misfeeds and jams.

Notice the directive doesn't apply to the 75th Rangers, which still uses the polymer magazine. But they operate under JSOC and not the "regular" Army.

(05-30-2012 09:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps the original poster, with his vast experience of military weaponry, would like to explain how the banning of the PMAG makes us any less safe.

Still waiting....

As someone who has fired an M-4 type weapon more than anyone on here except maybe Rebel, the metal magazine the Army wants you to use has some design issues that cause misfeeds and jams.

Notice the directive doesn't apply to the 75th Rangers, which still uses the polymer magazine. But they operate under JSOC and not the "regular" Army.

God bless the "discretionary" fund.

(05-30-2012 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:37 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

You have any basis for this wild assertion? Or is this just pure speculation?

Speculation based on the fact that logic was clearly not used, meaning the fall back reasoning for most military decisions: money.

(05-30-2012 09:22 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:37 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

You have any basis for this wild assertion? Or is this just pure speculation?

Speculation based on the fact that logic was clearly not used, meaning the fall back reasoning for most decisions: money.

FIFY.

(05-30-2012 09:11 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps the original poster, with his vast experience of military weaponry, would like to explain how the banning of the PMAG makes us any less safe.

Still waiting....

As someone who has fired an M-4 type weapon more than anyone on here except maybe Rebel, the metal magazine the Army wants you to use has some design issues that cause misfeeds and jams.

Notice the directive doesn't apply to the 75th Rangers, which still uses the polymer magazine. But they operate under JSOC and not the "regular" Army.

While I'm sure no mag is perfect, would you see more jams and misfeeds when the rounds are not emptied and the mag cleaned properly between missions?

Also, aren't the PMAG's unauthorized equipment to use in the first place...even before THIS official ban?

(05-30-2012 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:37 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

You have any basis for this wild assertion? Or is this just pure speculation?

Speculation based on 12 years of Naval service where I often had to order less reliable parts because of an existing government contract, despite newer, better parts being available and in the Navy stock system.

(05-30-2012 12:21 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:37 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

You have any basis for this wild assertion? Or is this just pure speculation?

Speculation based on 12 years of Naval service where I often had to order less reliable parts because of an existing government contract, despite newer, better parts being available and in the Navy stock system.

Fine. And thanks for your service. GO NAVY!!!

But there really is no consensus that this mag is definitely better from what I have read and from speaking with a army sargeant I work with who served two tours in Iraq. He basically said as long as you perform the proper required maintenance on the magazines, the standard issue ones should perform fine. He also made sure he had enough supply so that the issued mags could be rotated often to further assure clean mags.

(05-30-2012 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 12:21 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 08:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:37 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 07:04 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Sounds like some government contractor is not happy "their" money is going to a competitor.

That is exactly what it is. Some company with government contract is losing money on that contract because the soldiers are using another company's product. The government is probably not meeting the terms of the contract because they are not buying enough magazines. So in order to ensure they are buying enough of the contracted magazines they send out a directive requiring soldiers to use the contracted ones.

You have any basis for this wild assertion? Or is this just pure speculation?

Speculation based on 12 years of Naval service where I often had to order less reliable parts because of an existing government contract, despite newer, better parts being available and in the Navy stock system.

Fine. And thanks for your service. GO NAVY!!!

But there really is no consensus that this mag is definitely better from what I have read and from speaking with a army sargeant I work with who served two tours in Iraq. He basically said as long as you perform the proper required maintenance on the magazines, the standard issue ones should perform fine. He also made sure he had enough supply so that the issued mags could be rotated often to further assure clean mags.

Hmmm now this sounds fishy....

After years of being shown up by superior M-16 magazines from commercial firms, the U.S. Army began issuing an improved magazine of their own two years ago. By the end of 2010, over half a million of the new magazines had been issued, mostly to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those headed there. The older army issue magazines were turned and discarded, and replaced by the new model. The new magazine is mainly designed to prevent jams when the round comes up from the magazine and into the firing chamber. This is accomplished with a new follower (a tab at the top of the magazine) design, as well as a new, corrosion resistant, spring. The army was apparently upset that their new and improved design was ignored by most troops, who preferred the civilian (usually Magpul) polymer magazines. The army tried to buy the Magpul patents, but Magpul wasn't selling. The army won't explain itself and the troops accuse the army procurement bureaucrats of playing games with the lives of soldiers in combat.

Combat troops and their commanders are now contacting Congress about the polymer magazine, which the army has, so far, refused to answer questions about. If Congress demands answers, the procurement bureaucrats will have to answer, under oath. These guys can blow off the troops, but Congress is another matter.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/...20531.aspx

Clearly a well orchestrated attack on Americas defense by Obama.

(05-31-2012 03:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Clearly a well orchestrated attack on Americas defense by Obama.

We agree

I find it utterly amazing that Obama is so damned talented that with all his vacation time that he can oversee the daily equipment purchasing decisions of every aspect of our military.

That's one smart cookie IMATY. Clearly the most gifted president in our history!

(05-31-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I find it utterly amazing that Obama is so damned talented that with all his vacation time that he can oversee the daily equipment purchasing decisions of every aspect of our military.

That's one smart cookie IMATY. Clearly the most gifted president in our history!

I'm sure you (and he for that matter) think so.

(05-31-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I find it utterly amazing that Obama is so damned talented that with all his vacation time that he can oversee the daily equipment purchasing decisions of every aspect of our military.

That's one smart cookie IMATY. Clearly the most gifted president in our history!

I'm sure you (and he for that matter) think so.

You see dip ****, when you "agree" to some wild ass conspiracy like Obama is controlling something as innocuous as this, YOU are the one testfying to his greatness?

Try to keep up.

(05-31-2012 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I find it utterly amazing that Obama is so damned talented that with all his vacation time that he can oversee the daily equipment purchasing decisions of every aspect of our military.

That's one smart cookie IMATY. Clearly the most gifted president in our history!

I'm sure you (and he for that matter) think so.

You see *******, when you "agree" to some wild ass conspiracy that Obama can control something as innocuous as this, YOU are the one testfying to his greatness?

Try to keep up.

Someone's sarcasm meter is broken...and has been for a while.

(05-31-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I find it utterly amazing that Obama is so damned talented that with all his vacation time that he can oversee the daily equipment purchasing decisions of every aspect of our military.

That's one smart cookie IMATY. Clearly the most gifted president in our history!

I cant wait until that Big Eared Marxist is back smoking cigarettes and sitting on his front porch on the south side of Chicago.