Talk:STANAG magazine

message: Quote from article: 
"Magazines have been manufactured with lightweight aluminum or plastic bodies and other inexpensive materials in order to keep costs down, or to meet requirements that treat the magazine more as a disposable piece of equipment than one that is designed to stand up to repeated combat use. As such, many makes of STANAG magazine bodies can easily be bent out of shape, broken, or melted under high-volume fire (i.e., when certain makes of plastic-bodied magazines are used in M16-type rifles and carbines), followers can tilt causing misfeeds or jams, and springs can rust, bind, or lose tension within a relatively short span of time."
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that the reason plastic magazines are used (in the AK-74 family for example) is that cheaper steel magazines deform when they hit hard objects, like the ground. Also I don't think that making magazines out of aluminum is cheaper than steel, but Aluminum is used because its lighter. Could someone cite an example of a plastic magazine "melting" in a weapon, and what do rusting springs have to do with the makeup of the magazine's body?
76.110.200.142 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Materials

message: I see this article has been created with multiple changes to various rifle articles referencing this article. The changes are very ambiguous as stanag is a standard and nothing more. The changes imply that the magazine is interchangeable with other magazines using the same standard. So now instead of showing a rifle was made to shoot a with certain type of mag, in now just indicates other stanag mags. This is a false statement as some rifles are designed to shoot only one type of magazine for specific performance reasons. Other magazines have been created by after market manufacturers but the article should only indicate the mag the rifle was designed to shoot and definitly be more specific than just other STANAG magazines.  --I already forgot 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: An unknown user has edited the article to include a section concerning weapons that have been modified from their original design to become compliant with STANAG 4179. A link has been included to a picture of a Steyr AUG with a STANAG magazine attached. While this picture does show that someone has made parts that allow an AUG to comply with STANAG 4179, it does not prove that the original manufacturer had anything to do with it, or if they did, whether this was just an experiment or is an actual option for production weapons. This could easily be a one-off or small-volume run of aftermarket parts. Additionally, it doesn't appear to be an "adaptor" that provides this functionality, but rather an entirely different housing/stock assembly with a latch in the appropriate place to interface with the STANAG magazine (look at the pictures on the Steyr AUG page and compare them to the picture in question). As of yet I have not been able to locate any information beyond this unofficial article that suggests that Steyr does produce a STANAG 4179-compliant AUG. The AUG A3 does appear to differ from previous versions in that it includes an additional control to the left rear of the magazine well, though its function is not clear to me. This would seem an odd place for a magazine release button. It would appear more likely to me to be a bolt hold-open release. No mention is made concerning either in the Wikipedia article for the Steyr AUG. To make a longer story short, information beyond a single image would be appreciated.
Concerning the G36 and its modular magazine well, I have long heard about a STANAG 4179-compliant magazine well for the G36 but I  have never personally seen such a device or any information directly from Heckler & Koch regarding the manufacture of said device. I do not mean to suggest that they have not done so (it certainly makes sense that they would), only that we need more information to support these statements in this Wikipedia article. The G36 page also makes no mention of it. Thanks, Raygun 02:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons modified for use with STANAG magazines

message: It seems like the section on MagPul is an advertisement for MagPul. The references are their product brochures. It should probably be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.243.28 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: I'm surprised that there are only positive things said about the STANAG magazine concept. To me it was presented as one of those ideas which sounds like a good idea at first blush, but on closer examination doesn't actually make any sense at all.
For pretty well every military weapon in the world, a specific number of magazines are issued to each soldier as part of the accessory kit attached to his rifle. He rarely swaps them even with other squad members, so interchangeability seems to serve no purpose. Now the scenario most people seem to imagine to justify the concept is that you are hotly pressed in a fire fight, use up all your ammo with the enemy hordes still coming, and your buddy from some allied army pulls one of his loaded magazines out of his webbing and throws it to you just before the next wave attacks. This scenario is silly for several reasons. Firstly, it is extremely unusual -- practically non-existent, in fact -- for allied forces to integrate all the way down to the level of individual squads. Thus the buddy throwing the magazine is from your own side, and actually has the same weapon you do, with the exact same magazines. Secondly it is usual in high level combat operations for the squad to carry some amount of ammunition not yet loaded in mags, over and above all their loaded mags. Thus by the time you have run out, most of the squad is actually reloading empty magazines as fast as you can; if someone has a few left, rather than spreading them around so you all run dry at the same time, you want him to keep up some covering fire while the rest of you reload. In any case it is a highly contrived scenario to imagine that the entire (mixed nationality) squad goes through all of its loaded mags without any chance to reload any (something which takes about 20 s by hand, or 4 s with a speed loader), and without anyone knocked out of combat and unable to use his mags.
Improbable contrived scenarios aside, in reality having interchangeable magazines in several different allied nations can only "ease logistical concerns" under two circumstances:
#Replacement of lost or destroyed magazines by your allies' log system when your own is unable to provide them. In practice, magazines are lost or destroyed so infrequently, and available at so many levels of your lg system down to the company level, that your own log system would be unable to resupply them only if your army is practically destroyed. In this state of chaos it seems likely that the couple of guys who lost a mag each but are otherwise unhurt, will be able to pick a spare one up somewhere, and even if they don't it is the least of your army's worries.
#Issue of pre-loaded, disposable magazines as the basic unit of ammunition supply instead of boxed ammunition, so that magazine resupply is the same as ammunition resupply. Here we get to the rub. When the M16 first came out, there was talk of loading lightweight, disposable magazines at the factory and issuing ammunition solely like that, pre-loaded. Since there are good reasons for common ammunition, someone came up with the STANAG magazine concept: if everyone took the same ammunition type loaded in the same magazine, then in a crunch your allies could drop off a few hundred cases of loaded mags and resupply you. But of course, it never took off because the pre-loaded disposable magazines are unreliable, and the microscopic time savings of having them loaded at the factory instead of issuing speed loaders and doing it yourself in 4 seconds, was not worth the loss of reliability.
So the disposable mag concept was killed off, but few seem to have noticed that without it the STANAG mag concept is pointless. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The general idea of the STANAG standard came about in the era where the main fear was a massive Soviet mechanised assault aiming to seize a substantial portion of Europe before it could be stopped. In this instance troops from NATO countries would be predominantly fighting in countries like France and Germany with interdiction of supply lines from their homelands by Soviet aircraft a distinct possibility, and so the general idea was to ensure that allied forces could use local stocks of ammunition and magazines to stay in the fight; for example, a German depot would be able to supply ammunition to Canadian, British, American, French and German forces, rather than only the German troops being able to use their weapons. A similar idea was behind the concept of NATO ground vehicles using multifuel engines so they could use local fuel supplies no matter what they were. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No controversy? 

message: :I found an article which should not exist 
:I'm saying about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_magazine
:This standard does not exist, to prove it I am sending you to official NATO doc http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Arvidsson.pdf
:It should be deleted becouse informations in it are fake and the "thing" which the article is about does not exist.
:To explain it better I'will show some quotes from http://www.thefirearmblog.com
:An example of the usage of the term is in the Magpul's Masada spec document<http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf> [...]
:Multiple ammunition magazine capability is accomplished with unique lower receivers to *accept either the NATO STANAG (USGI M-16)* or the Automatic Kalashnikov (AK) magazine. Additional lowers receivers that accept other maga- zine types are also possible.
:I received an interesting email from [redacted] who explained that despite the term being commonly used, the specification does not exist. Apparently the draft STANAG 4179 was never ratified by member states and therefor it was discarded by default. If you call up the NATO Standardisation Agency (Bruxelles) and ask them for the STANAG 4179 document they will tell you that it does not exist.
Posted on behalf of Witcher55555. -- Jeandré, 2011-07-03t14:51z
:: You didn't even read the article, did you?
:: The lead of revision 433538413 (the most recent one when you made your edits):
:: A STANAG magazine is a type of detachable firearm magazine proposed by NATO in October 1980.Watters, Daniel: "The 5.56 X 45mm Timeline: A Chronology of Development", The Gun Zone, 2000-2007. Shortly after NATO's acceptance of the 5.56x45mm NATO rifle cartridge, Draft Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4179 was proposed in order to allow the military services of member nations easily to share rifle ammunition and magazines during operations, at the individual soldier level, in the interest of easing logistical concerns. The magazine chosen for this standard was originally designed for the U.S. M16 rifle. Many NATO member nations, but not all, subsequently developed or purchased rifles with the ability to accept this type of magazine. However the standard was never ratified and remains a 'Draft STANAG'"NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization", NDIA Conference 2008  Hint: read the first and last sentences. Kolbasz (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kolbasz...if you read the article. You would also know that there are dozens of assault rifle designs that are currently using M16 magazines. So, weather or not draft STANAG 4179 was "officially" ratified is irrelevent. The fact remains, that M16 magazines are being used most NATO members and by many other countries around world, making the M16 magazine a NATO standard, if not a Western World standard. I say we ignore the petty-legalisms and live in the real-world. I vote to keep the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that a "STANAG magazine" does not exist and the very title of this article is a misnomer. The article should be either renamed to the proper designation of M16/USGI or whatever magazine or deleted altogether. Within the properly titled article there can be an explanation of how M16 magazines were once proposed for standardization but rejected, and how they are often, but erroneously, called "STANAG magazines". As it is this article is spreading false information. --92.200.49.125 (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Common misconceptions are misconceptions no matter how common they are. The term has been dismissed by the ONLY authority on the subject. Is wikipedia supposed to provide accurate information, or just be part of a misnomer treadmill? --79.227.137.12 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge.

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion