![]() ![]() At one point, Check-Mate offered DoD to refinish all stocke of the phosphate coated magazines with the dry-film finish, at a cost of. The dry-film magazines have performed superbly, and also have what I consider to be a advantageous hardened steel, low profile baseplate. Unfortunately, the PHOSPHATE coated magazines were not purged from the theatre-both magazine types were intermixed at the arms-room/unit level, according to my understanding. Check-Mate, upon hearing reports of magazine issues in-theatre, actually imported some sand from the theater, analyzed the proble, and provided an alternative dry-film finish, whach was approved by DoD and massively injected into the suppky chain. ![]() Obviously, that finish was a massive "fail" in Iraq and Afghanistan. DoD's original intention was that the phosphate coating, applied both externally and internally, would be ideal for corrosion prevention in temperate climates (which in fact all reports that I've come across indicates that it does). Regarding the original phosphate finish-it's essential to understand that it was a DoD CONTRACT MANDATED finish, not something Check-Mate chose willy-nilly on their own. All Check-Mate magazines have a lifetime warranty, and Check-Mate stands behind them.ĭoD magazine issues: There are two: One, the original (up to late 2004) DoD specified phosphate finish, applied internally and externally a crackle-type finish, its ridges trapped the fine talc-like sand/dust indegenous to Iraq and Afghanistan, precluding effective cartridge travel inside the magazine and Two, allegedly insufficient spring tensility. Check-Mate found it to be slightly oversize, sent it through the sizing die, and returned it to me-where it's performed without any subsequent hiccups. ![]() During this period I've had exactly one magazine issue: One of the magazines was slightly oversize towards the tube base it would easily insert and flawlessly chamber cartridges, but would not drop free from the frame without manually pulling it out. Ok.over several years, I've had some detailed discussions with Check-Mate's partners over the 92 magazines-and I've been running 8 of the dry-film ones of varying vintages (2005, 2008, 2010) interchangeably for carry and for thousands of rounds. The sponsorship was a nice gesture I genuinely appreciate and prefer their magazines for my Beretta 92D and various 1911 regardless of the sponsorship. Obligatory Disclosure: I'm one of Check-Mate Industries' sponsored shooters, which came about after agreeing to field test their 1911 and 92 magazines over a period of several years. While on topic: what is the consensus on the 30 rd high cap factory 92 mags? Are they also better served as toys? Or can they be trusted for real use? For whatever reason they don't seem as popular as high cap Glock mags. This leads me to wonder if the 18 rd mags are more of higher end range mags vs duty mags. By flush fit I take it that they are equal in length with the 15 rd mags, so the dimensions have to be tweaked somewhere else. When looking at the 18 rd mags I see in the description that they are flush fitting. Would the 20 round Mecgars be good to go equally as the 15 round Mecgar's? I see the 20 rd mags have an extended base plate. ![]() Obviously the higher the capacity the better, but I rather have 100% reliability vs +2 or 3 rounds. So which size magazine would be recommended in terms of best reliability? I was looking around at all the various Beretta 92 magazines, and I got a little overwhelmed with all the choices.įrom what I gather Mecgar is good to go preferably with their Anti-friction coating. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |