MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just got some new S&W M&P AR's in stock and tested them with PMAG's. They worked perfectly and drop free!





C4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
If you have any time and still have a rifle in stock which doesn't take PMAGS, could you compare the two for us? Maybe even put a mic on the magwell chamfer and report the size differences here? Or post a pic of the two side by side? Also, what's the lowest serial number of the rifles that you got in which pmags now fit?



Thanks, Grant. Really appreciate all you do for us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
onebohemian said:
If you have any time and still have a rifle in stock which doesn't take PMAGS, could you compare the two for us? Maybe even put a mic on the magwell chamfer and report the size differences here? Or post a pic of the two side by side? Also, what's the lowest serial number of the rifles that you got in which pmags now fit?



Thanks, Grant. Really appreciate all you do for us.




Don't have any old M&P AR's (sorry). The serial number on these receivers is in the 6695X range.





C4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
czydj said:
Did S&W tell you what they changed or can you tell us what they changed?





Ya wanna trade lowers???


I actually think they changed about a month ago, but cannot be certain. The reason for the change would have to be that their lowers were out of spec.





C4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Here is a pic of the new & improved magwell.







C4







 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
Thanks, Grant. I see the diff in mine. Now, if I wanted to take the material off myself, would you have any recommendations on how to refinish those areas of the mag well?



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Czdjy, where exactly are you seeing the differences between yours and the pic Grant posted? The pics are a little deceiving on the depth perception component of the chamfers, etc.



Thanks,



Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
onebohemian said:
Czdjy, where exactly are you seeing the differences between yours and the pic Grant posted? The pics are a little deceiving on the depth perception component of the chamfers, etc.



Thanks,



Mark




Take a look at the inside, forward and rear bevel on the very bottom of the mag well. Mine shows almost ZERO bevel. Grant's shows plenty of bevel. FWIW, I believe that's where the pmags are hanging up...



I believe milling and polishing that edge to proper specs would be a no-brainer. I could take care of that in 10 minutes, with no dremel. BUT, the catch is finish. I don't want to have to re-anodize or recoat with something that will not stand up to heavy use. Any suggestions on what kind of coating to use from the peanut gallery?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,726 Posts
Jason, you are the master of the snap shot... :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
It's nothing.

I just rotated one picture, and posted them side by side for easy comparison.

Thanks. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
The fact that S&W let our rifles out of the factory without QC seeing that no (or little ) chamfer existed on that magwell makes me want to spit nails. Now that we in essence have the proof via S&W's remedial measures to new products, what are we going to do about it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
onebohemian wrote:"Now that we in essence have the proof via S&W's remedial measures to new products, what are we going to do about it?"



Well, I for one, am going to use my DH, and Cprod mags like crazy and enjoy my fine rifle.

What did you think we should do about it? :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
I'm just surprised no one has dogged me yet on the light rust film on my bolt carrier...






Does anyone have any refinishing tips???
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top