Magazine Lancer L5AWM GEN 2 30RD - SMOKE

Product detailed description

A Professional Shooter's Perspective:

Lancer L5 Advanced Warfighter Magazines are essentially the only true competitor to Magpul PMAGs. Other brands may try to position themselves as competitors, but in reality they simply are not. Whether it's Daniel Defense, Hera Arms, Hexmag, Oberland Arms... let alone various Turkish or Israeli manufacturers. People who truly understand the AR platform always end up choosing between PMAGs and Lancers. Some shooters prefer the more rugged "military endurance" approach with steel feed lips that simply refuse to crack no matter what. Others prefer polymer feed lips. Both philosophies have their strengths, so let's take a closer look.

Tuff Guy Strategy: Steel Feed Lips

• Advantages: They don't crack. Even if a fully loaded magazine lands directly on its feed lips, they will usually survive the impact without breaking. No cracked or chipped feed lips. Furthermore, during the well-known Loaded Weapon Drop Test (dropping a rifle from a specified height directly onto the inserted magazine), Keith Finch reported Lancer magazines surviving approximately 9–10 drops, while Magpul PMAGs typically survived only 1–2. The real question, however, is whether this is actually an advantage... (We'll get to that in a moment.)
• Disadvantages: What is the downside of combining steel feed lips with a polymer body? Steel feed lips contact the cartridge over a relatively small surface area, resulting in slightly higher friction. More importantly, after repeated impacts they can become ever so slightly bent. At that point the magazine may start feeding unreliably. Then begins the detective work: numbering magazines, trying to remember whether magazine #1 or #3 caused the malfunction, testing them over and over until you finally throw the culprit away in frustration. This simply doesn't happen with all-polymer magazines.

Clearly Broken Strategy: Polymer Feed Lips

• Advantages: Polymer feed lips are slightly flexible and feature a rounded profile. They follow the contour of the cartridge more naturally and, despite the larger contact surface, actually provide smoother feeding than steel feed lips. To me, however, their greatest advantage is something else entirely: they don't gradually become "questionably reliable." If the feed lips are overloaded, they simply crack. You immediately see it, discard the magazine, grab a new one and keep shooting. No wasting time trying to identify which magazine occasionally malfunctions, no bending feed lips back into shape hoping they'll work again. It's simple: grab a fresh PMAG and continue shooting.
• Disadvantages: Once damaged, there's no practical repair. You can't bend the feed lips back, replace them or restore the magazine. Once it's done, it's done. Throw it away and move on.

For me, the key question is simply this: are you a "Tuff Guy", or are you someone who wants immediate and obvious failure? I've spent plenty of time shooting with both. Personally, I like each of them for different reasons. Magpul PMAGs are the magazines I actually shoot with, and I trust them completely. But whenever I'm photographing rifles, a Lancer immediately goes in the magwell. The translucent Smoke finish simply looks fantastic. They're beautiful magazines, and they work very well too. So yes, I own both. But when it's time to head to the range... I reach for my PMAGs. Your preference may differ, and that's perfectly fine.

...and one more thing: forget about the mediocre offerings from DD, Oberland, or practically any of the other brands. In my opinion, they're simply not worth it. The used market is full of them. Everyone hopes they'll save a few dollars and that maybe this particular magazine will work in their AR. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The worst case is when it works only occasionally. That kind of uncertainty simply isn't worth saving a few bucks.

Michal "AlwaysSecond" Vavrečka
Czech National Team Member in IPSC Practical Shooting
and Your New-Old Patron for Firearms & Ammunition