We have the Magpul PMAG usually running about $12, sometimes a little less when there's a sale. The Lancer mags have always been more expensive, $18 - $20 or so.

Now, Magpul just came out with their own translucent mag, the TMAG, and it's running $23-$24.
https://magpul.com/tmag-30-ar-...p_global_color=17329
https://palmettostatearmory.co..._content=51655171994

Hence my question. What's the reason? Is it because the translucent mag is more difficult to manufacture?

Maybe the polymer costs more to manufacture to make them sort of clear and maintain the same strength?

I got the same email from PSA today and said, nah.

My few Lancers are working fine and I got in a bunch of windowed gen3 PMAGS.

ETS seems to make translucent polymer cheaply.

Magpul is afflicted with the same mania as most corporations; they feel they have to constantly introduce new products that aren't necessarily better than their present products.

I love windowed PMags. I think the gen2 and gen3 versions of these windowed magazines are fine just as they are.

It seems odd to me that magazine bodies which are one piece (without the separate molded windows) would be so much more expensive. Simplified construction makes these magazines more expensive? I think not. Is the translucent polymer really more expensive to produce, or are these magazines priced higher because it's a new product which Magpul hopes will be more profitable?

Yes, Lancers are priced the same way, and my skepticism about the production costs of their translucent magazines remains.

I don't know the answer, but I can tell you that I won't pay twenty-something dollars for PMags anytime soon.

I can also tell you that I am upset with Magpul for now selling their Pmags without the dust covers, which you have to pay for separately. I think that's real chickenshit. If Magpul needed to raise the price of PMags a dollar to cover the cost of those tiny pieces of molded plastic, they should have done so, without creating a pain in the ass for its loyal customers. Instead, they are trying to hold fast to a price point, but in doing so, you lose what I consider to be an integral accessory for their product, and that is chickenshit.

There's some good discussion here, but the punchline is, they've been trying to get these right for 16 years. That's a long time to R&D something, but for a company that has their magazine adopted by the Marine Corps, a translucent mag has to be just as reliable.

Am I going to run out an buy a bunch of them? No. But I'm not seeing anything all that unusual about the development cycle of this magazine, honestly.

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
ETS seems to make translucent polymer cheaply.

I've seen a lot of claims of loaded ETS mags breaking when dropped.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I can also tell you that I am upset with Magpul for now selling their Pmags without the dust covers, which you have to pay for separately. I think that's real chickenshit. If Magpul needed to raise the price of PMags a dollar to cover the cost of those tiny pieces of molded plastic, they should have done so, without creating a pain in the ass for its loyal customers. Instead, they are trying to hold fast to a price point, but in doing so, you lose what I consider to be an integral accessory for their product, and that is chickenshit.

I haven't bought new PMAGs for a while, since I already have a ton, so, haven't been paying attention, but yes, that is a shit move of them.

I always thought the Lancers were more expensive due to the steel feed lips. But I don't know specifically. I have some Lancers left used as range mags/failure drills practice.
After awhile I found the springs not as reliable.

I do like the ribs on the front and back of these new mags. Ribbed for pleasure.

I love the smoke Lancers. Steel feed lips, plus translucent bodies to quickly check ammo level. I’ve always found the windowed PMags almost useless, as I don’t need to look if a mag is empty or full (you can tell that by weight), but want to get an exact count of rounds remaining.

You can get both opaque and translucent Lancers, and the opaque have always need $2-3 cheaper, so there must be a cost differential there.

I’m assume the high price of the TMags is just an introductory thing, and they’ll probably come down in price once they’re no longer novel.

I’ll probably get a pile if they get cheaper than the translucent Lancers. But, I won’t pay more for them, as I feel the Lancers are better mags.

Clear plastics are not as strong as carbon-reinforced black plastic ones. I'd assume the material cost is a lot higher plus accounting for shrink after molding might have a higher reject rate.

Look like wannabe AUG mags. I wonder how they feel compared to the normal ones. The pricing could just be marketing hype, also.

I agree about the Magpul dust cover. I won’t keep them loaded without one.

I picked up a couple of the new translucent Magpul TMags to see what they’re like in hand (9/24 date code - fresh from the mold). My first impression is that the polymer is quite thin. The feed lips are very thin and you can “squish” the body of the mag slightly between your thumb and fingers. Seems less rigid than their polymer PMags. That said, maybe it’s a new type polymer and being a little flexible is a solution to thick translucent plastic feed lips cracking like on G36 mags or needing steel lips like on the Lancers. Have to think Magpul has done their homework and is well aware of issues seen in other translucent mags and has designed and rigorously tested their mags to ensure they don’t have the same issues.

On the plus side, the mag body seem slightly thinner than their solid polymer mags since it lacks the “ribs” on the lower part, and the body has round count marks every 5 that line up with one loop of the spring that is silver. Baseplate and follower look interchangeable with the regular M3 mags. Time will tell how they hold up.

BTW, no dust cover included. The mag body still has the ribs and notches, so it looks like one can still be used on it.

I notice my latest gen 3 PMAGS have dust covers and have looked at gen 2 PMAG in wraps at stores that don't have the dust covers.

I guess Magpul is only allowing PMAGs w/dust covers for the most expensive type?

USGI aluminum , then Lancers (love the 20rd)
then Pmags for me. All satisfactory. No need for dust covers for me. I also do not need see thru. Although nothing against it.

quote:

Originally posted by Austin228:
I notice my latest gen 3 PMAGS have dust covers and have looked at gen 2 PMAG in wraps at stores that don't have the dust covers.

I guess Magpul is only allowing PMAGs w/dust covers for the most expensive type?

On current gen3 PMag packaging it says: Impact / Dust Cover Sold Separately After Nov 1, 2023

Just ordered 3 smoke Lancers from Gunmagwarehouse to try out after this thread. Feed lips just seem to be an area where plastic isn't ideal and doesn't offer a benefit.

Sure do love the 30 or so used OKay industries I bought years ago for around $4 each. They have all worked fine but even so I swapped the mag springs and followers in a dozen or so just to keep them fresh.

Yep. Even both versions of the dumbed down 10rd Mod3 mags that we can only carry here in WA now lack the dust cover that they used to include in all M3 AR15 mags. The cost of now making plastic in Wyoming must be really kicking them in the balls...