Joined
·
3,969 Posts
Many thanks to WC for shipping out their new 10 round 9mm mags to several forum members to test drive. I’ve shot a total of 450 rounds through two of the new mags and here are my observations:
PARTS:
Tube -
Adds a lateral indentation that creates a shelf to the leading edge of the tube just below the top round
Adds engraved round count numbers
Follower -
Complete redesign
Round appears to ride at a steeper angle in the tube (see post #16)
Metal as opposed to synthetic
Includes a dimple
Adds a very long trailing edge, probably to support the nose
Easier to remove and replace from the tube than the synthetic version (the older version isn't hard, it just takes getting used to. The new one doesn't).
Spring-
Adds a different bend to support the new follower
(same round wire as before)
All other parts appear unchanged
BUILD:
Tube -
Tube #1 was as expected and unremarkable
Tube #2 was moderately abraded on spots inside the right and left side leading to follower slowing and occasional near snag. Wondering if the tube was narrow I compared the ID and ED with tube #1 and found them to be identical.
All other parts were as expected and unremarkable.
SETUP:
Both mags were disassembled, inspected and wiped with a dry cloth. The tube interior was hit with a dry mop. I found no residue but noticed the rough interior surface on mag #2. The mags were reassembled and the followers actioned about s100x with a nylon toothbrush. During cycling mag #2 experienced varying degrees of slowing as the follower passed over the rough internal area. After cycling, the mags were loaded with 10 rounds and left for 24 hours. I repeated this cycle two more times (total three) over 72 hours.
RESULTS:
I put a total of 450 rounds through the two mags from a 5” CQB with 5500 rounds. In hindsight I should have used a Pro. 50 rounds each (25 through each mag) of:
115 ball - AE, PMC, Magtech, Estate
124 ball - AE, PMC, Magtech, Fiocchi, Geco,
Tube #1 - 100% reliability
Tube #2 - Four failures to feed across different ammo and in round counts that place the follower at or near the rough spots. This gun has had zero prior malfunctions sans two during very early break in. It was not the gun.
All of my previous ETM’s have been 100% flawless, so tube #1 matched the performance of the older mag and tube #2 fell behind. The more interesting findings will come from those who are going to test with TC’s, HP’s and other non ball rounds.
Thanks again to WC for providing the opportunity.
New mags (L and R). Old mag center:
Old:
New:
New (left)
New (right)
New (top), Old (botttom)
New (left), Old (right)
New components are on top, old on the bottom:
PARTS:
Tube -
Adds a lateral indentation that creates a shelf to the leading edge of the tube just below the top round
Adds engraved round count numbers
Follower -
Complete redesign
Round appears to ride at a steeper angle in the tube (see post #16)
Metal as opposed to synthetic
Includes a dimple
Adds a very long trailing edge, probably to support the nose
Easier to remove and replace from the tube than the synthetic version (the older version isn't hard, it just takes getting used to. The new one doesn't).
Spring-
Adds a different bend to support the new follower
(same round wire as before)
All other parts appear unchanged
BUILD:
Tube -
Tube #1 was as expected and unremarkable
Tube #2 was moderately abraded on spots inside the right and left side leading to follower slowing and occasional near snag. Wondering if the tube was narrow I compared the ID and ED with tube #1 and found them to be identical.
All other parts were as expected and unremarkable.
SETUP:
Both mags were disassembled, inspected and wiped with a dry cloth. The tube interior was hit with a dry mop. I found no residue but noticed the rough interior surface on mag #2. The mags were reassembled and the followers actioned about s100x with a nylon toothbrush. During cycling mag #2 experienced varying degrees of slowing as the follower passed over the rough internal area. After cycling, the mags were loaded with 10 rounds and left for 24 hours. I repeated this cycle two more times (total three) over 72 hours.
RESULTS:
I put a total of 450 rounds through the two mags from a 5” CQB with 5500 rounds. In hindsight I should have used a Pro. 50 rounds each (25 through each mag) of:
115 ball - AE, PMC, Magtech, Estate
124 ball - AE, PMC, Magtech, Fiocchi, Geco,
Tube #1 - 100% reliability
Tube #2 - Four failures to feed across different ammo and in round counts that place the follower at or near the rough spots. This gun has had zero prior malfunctions sans two during very early break in. It was not the gun.
All of my previous ETM’s have been 100% flawless, so tube #1 matched the performance of the older mag and tube #2 fell behind. The more interesting findings will come from those who are going to test with TC’s, HP’s and other non ball rounds.
Thanks again to WC for providing the opportunity.
New mags (L and R). Old mag center:


Old:

New:

New (left)

New (right)

New (top), Old (botttom)

New (left), Old (right)

New components are on top, old on the bottom:
