Talk:STANAG magazine

Materials

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)

Clarification

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)

List of weapons compatible with STANAG magazines

Today an unknown user added several weapons to the list that I am personally aware do not use NATO STANAG magazines. Not all assault rifles chambered for 5.56x45mm use STANAG-compatible magazines. Some magazines may look like STANAG magazines (for example, those made for the Ruger Mini-14) but attach to the rifle in a way that is not compatible with STANAG 4179.

Also, the inclusion of the Ultimax 100 and notes regarding its use of STANAG magazines is questionable at best. If a STANAG magazine must be modified to attach to the weapon properly, said weapon is not compatible with STANAG 4179 and as such should not be added to this list. I am currently unsure of the HK23 and Stoner 63. I believe the HK23 requires the installation of a magazine adapter kit to use a box magazine, though the use of said kit may make the HK23 STANAG 4179-compatible. The Stoner 63 appears to have used a "rock and lock" type magazine which, while similar in construction and appearance to the STANAG magazine, is not compatible with STANAG 4179. I am unsure as to whether a STANAG-compatible magazine well was every manufactured for the Stoner 63. Confirmation and consensus would be appreciated. Thanks, Raygun 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel I need to clarify since I added the notes regarding the Ultimax 100. I didn't add it to the list, but I do have personal experience with it and it *does* use modified M-16 30-round magazines. Should it stay in the list? --Rifleman 82 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The keyword there is "modified". If it's modified, it's not a STANAG magazine anymore. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If it is modified, but still meets all the requirements for the standard, it still meets the standard. The weapon may not be STANAG 4179 compatible, but the magazine definitely is. --Rifleman 82 06:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point. If the modification does not alter the magazine so as to prevent it from being used in a STANAG-compatible weapon, then the magazine certainly still meets the STANAG standard. But I still don't think the weapon should be included in the list. As Raygun points out, the weapon itself is not STANAG-compatible. Technically speaking, it does not use STANAG mags. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this weapon should be included either, but I just wanted to make that point. Thanks. As a side-mention, there are no purpose-built Ultimax-100 30-round magazines. --Rifleman 82 07:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rifleman 82. I understand you were just attempting to clarify the article. That's certainly good information to pass along, but perhaps it's more appropriate for the Ultimax 100 article than this one. (I see you did exactly that last month. Thanks for teaching me something! Being that the guy that was responsible for scaling the AR-10 down to 5.56mm was the very same guy that designed the Ultimax 100, it certainly makes sense that he'd put some effort into making sure that their mags were as compatible as the respective designs allowed.)

Does anyone have more info regarding a STANAG mag well for the Stoner 63? I know the Robinson M96 is based on the Stoner 63 and it does have a STANAG mag well. I'm just not sure if that was Stoner's idea or Robinson's. Raygun 09:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response to my inquiry, I have removed the Stoner 63 from the list. Raygun 02:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it requires "modification" to a magazine for it to fit, then it is NOT a STANAG 4179 compliant magazine. The entire intent of the STANAG is that a soldier be able to pick up a STANAG 4179 magazine---from an allied soldier, off the battlefield, out of a box---and immediately use it in his rifle.

The Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl|Łucznik kbs wz. 1996 Beryl does NOT use a STANAG 4179 compliant magazine. Even a cursory examination of a photo makes that clear. The wz, 1996 uses a magazine clearly based on the classic Kalashnikov design, locking at the rear rather that on the side, and that is only one of many incompatible differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.180.185 (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Weapons modified for use with STANAG magazines

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)

Unknown user editing this article: Please stop providing single pictures as citation references. They do not provide enough information to support claims in more than a superficial fashion. For example, early XM8 mock-ups used the STANAG magazine because they were derived from XM29 mock-up rifles. When the XM8 was designated independently and its development got underway, Heckler & Koch did away with the STANAG magazine and provided their own, which was derived from the G36. As such, the statement that "[a modular magazine well] was also planned to be implemented on the XM8 rifle", using the reference you've provided, is false. I can provide you with links to hundreds of pictures that show that later working examples of XM8 rifle did not include a provision for a modular magazine well or the use of STANAG magazines. Please provide better information for citation references. Raygun 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

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)

No controversy?

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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

Your theory has no basis in reality.

In many militaries, magazines are issued independently of a rifle. A soldier may sign for a basic load's worth of magazines along with his individual field equipment, or he may draw---and turn in when finished---magazines before range or field training.

During combat operations, magazines are issued as necessary---and as possible, depending on the limitations of logistics in the real world rather than the armchair theories of civilians---and sharing ammunition amongst members of a unit is a reality, not a "scenario" pooh-poohed by someone at a PC. One of my duties as a squad and section NCO was to make sure, both in training and in combat, that my soldiers had adequate ammunition. To include collecting and redistributing magazines as necessary.

I---a retired US soldier---have personally experienced "sharing" ammunition---in the form of loaded magazines---with members of another country's military (Canada) in both training and combat. And I'm an old enough soldier to have served with Viet Nam veterans who told me firsthand accounts of getting ammunition resupply via sandbags full of loaded magazines dropped from helicopters in situations where there was no time to make a nice leisurely delivery of neatly boxed ammunition to be loaded into empty magazines. Not the "disposable" magazines of your theory, but ordinary issue magazines loaded in the usual fashion by soldiers who put effectiveness and the lives of their comrades over any theoretical benefits imagined by armchair experts.

Magazines are rarely lost or destroyed? OK, that's all the proof we need that you have never spent a day in uniform, nor carried anything deadlier than an airsoft toy. In the real world of soldiering, magazines are lost constantly, even just in training, when there is minimal stress and a strong incentive (such as not pissing off the first sergeant) to keep possession of all of one's issued gear.

Your theory is trumped by reality.

STANAGs such as STANAG 4179 serve an extremely useful purpose. One learned the hard way by soldiers who had to deal---at the cost of their lives sometimes---with incompatible standards in simple things like magazines, machinegun links and artillery propelling charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.180.185 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Challenge.

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. 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'

Hint: read the first and last sentences. Kolbasz (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

The terms "STANAG MAGAZINE" or "NATO MAGAZINE" are widely used throughout the firearms industry, firearms publications and widely used on the internet. Therefore it is NOT false information. The article answers and explains what the users of these terms are referring to...Which is in fact the purpose of the Wikipedia. The argument that you put forth is like saying that "ain't, ain't a word". Or, that there is no such thing as a "Congressional Medal of Honor", it's just the "Medal of Honor. Or, that "Rhode Island" does not exist, it's the "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"

Just to name a few sources for STANAG or NATO magazine. See...

JANE'S refers to "STANAG 4179 (M16) magazines"[1]

DEFENSE REVIEW refers to "30-round 4179 STANAG magazine"[2]

MAGUL (magazine manufacturer) refers to "STANAG 4179 magazine"[3]

SUREFIRE (magazine manufacturer) refers to "STANAG 4179 magazines"[4]

Armatac Industries (magazine manufacturer) refers to "NATO 4179 STANAG"[5]

OHIO ORDNANCE WORKS (manufacturer of M249 SAW) refers to "STANAG magazine"[6]

BERETTA refers to "Rugged Magazine. Manufactured according to STANAG 4179"[7]

RUGER refers to "NATO magazine"[8]

STEYR ARMS refers to a "NATO standard AR style magazines"[9]

Brownells - World's largest supplier of gun part, gunsmithing tools & shooting accessories refers to "magazines meet NATO STANAG 4179"[10]

United States Patent number: 7441491, Filing date: Nov 14, 2005, Issue date: Oct 28, 2008 refers to "NATO standard, STANAG 4179 magazine"[11]

Military Small Arms Of The 20th Century, 7th Edition, Ian V. Hogg & John S. Weeks, Kruse Publications, 2000, Page 239 refers to "magazine interface is now to NATO STANAG 4179"

Jane's Guns Recognition Guide, Ian Hogg & Terry Gander, Harper Collins Publishers, 2005, Page 293 refers to "NATO-standard magazine interface"

The M16, Gordon L. Rottman, © Osprey Publishing, 2011, Page 35-36 refers to "STANAG magazine" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

There are three points that you seem unwilling or unable to accept.

1) Wikipedia common name policy applies here and "STANAG magazine" is clearly a common name.

2) The article clearly states that STANAG 4179 was "...proposed by NATO in October 1980." and that "...the standard was never ratified and remains a 'Draft STANAG'."

3) The article explains what the commonly used term "STANAG magazine" is referring to...Which is in fact the purpose of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Magpul Magazine Patent No20100212653A1.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Spin off list of compatible firearms to new article

This page is turning into less of an encyclopedic article about STANAG magazines, and more of an indiscriminate list of any firearm that's compatible with STANAGs -- which given that it is a widely used industry standard, and practically every possible variant within a family is being listed, is starting to turn this page into a sprawl. We should spin off a new article List of firearms compatible with STANAG magazines and move this whole thing over there, as well as insisting on proper sourcing. Unless someone objects I'll make this change in the next few days. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)