XCR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just got my Beta-C in the mail yesterday and I'm pleasantly surprised that it is not as large and unweildy as I thought it might be. I bought it mainly as a range toy more than for practical purposes but it really doesn't seem all that impractical as long as it proves to be reliable. Anybody else have any experience with these?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
I haven't used one with an XCR.
I have used one with a dpms M4gery and it seemed to work ok- no issues.

I do want to get one for my XCR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
FYI:

The US Army's experience with testing the C-Mag is not positive. Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan, 2,000 C-Mags were purchased and issued to selected units for testing. Since then, TACOM has issued two Ground Precautionary Messages (GPM-02-007 and GPM-02-017) recommending that the C-Mag not be used outside of training.

Separately, the Army's Test & Evaluation Command published the following in Test Record Number S-51340 (Feb. 2003): "The C-Mag is not suitable for use in training. The C-Mag demonstrated low reliability, poor durability, poor ergonomics, and resulted in a significant increase in weight for the same combat load (pg 2)."

In July 2003, Wexford Group International (on behalf of the Army's Rapid Equipping Force) conducted tests on the C-Mag with the 82nd Airborne at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. The results were once again negative.
Doesn't sound very inspiring. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It would stand to reason that actual combat conditions in a dessert environment would induce more failures on a unit with more moving parts. But if they deemed it unacceptable for combat, why would they even involve it in their training at all? You fight the way you train. Oh well, for my purposes I think it wil be alright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
The problem is we tend to be pretty hard on things in the Army, we don't own them and we aren't out any money if something breaks. Therefore we tend to not maintain things the way they should be, things sometimes get tossed around, beat up, you know.

I am sure it will provide you many fun years at the range as long as you take care of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The problem is we tend to be pretty hard on things in the Army, we don't own them and we aren't out any money if something breaks. Therefore we tend to not maintain things the way they should be, things sometimes get tossed around, beat up, you know.
Thats what I was thinking but I didn't want to be the one to say it. Glad you did. As much as those things cost, mine will definitely be treated well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,143 Posts
I've put a fair number of rounds through mine. The only time I had a problem with one it just needed a little lube. I think the orginal concept behind those was that you could store them already loaded and be quick out the door. I'm not even sure they were originally intended for long term use getting beat around in the field.

It's a good way to heat your barrel up pretty good though.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
I think the orginal concept behind those was that you could store them already loaded and be quick out the door. I'm not even sure they were originally intended for long term use getting beat around in the field.
I don't know what the original intent was, but they are currently marketed as being good for military use. Anything intended for combat duty should be "G.I.-proof."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I think the orginal concept behind those was that you could store them already loaded and be quick out the door. I'm not even sure they were originally intended for long term use getting beat around in the field.
I don't know what the original intent was, but they are currently marketed as being good for military use. Anything intended for combat duty should be "G.I.-proof."
I'm sure there will always be a niche for them somewhere in the military. It wasn't that long ago that I saw a video of a G.I. with one on his rifle walking through the streets of Bagdad. So somebody is willing to bet his life on them. As was said before I think it just comes down to how much a soldier is willing to invest in care and maintenance to have that extra capacity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
haha I personally think they just dont want to give a contract to the beta-c people.. think about how unreliable the m4/m16 is , they have no problem issuing a weapon that has inherent flaws in its design like misfire , double feed , stove pipe jam and much more considering it was designed with 1950's technology it did good but it outlived its era and no one can say that the m16/m4 is a reliable platform its just not.. in the same breathe they will speak of low reliability with equipment that actually works and was designed well they did the same thing to dragon skin. they just want to horde our tax dollars and spend it on bridges to nowhere and no bid contracts while our troops are being outgunned by superior AK-47/74/RPK weapon systems god i love our gooberment...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Wait what happen to the Dragon Skin armor? DId it not work out as well as they thought it would? Did they give it to the troops and see wat happens?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Wait what happen to the Dragon Skin armor? DId it not work out as well as they thought it would? Did they give it to the troops and see wat happens?
I don't know anyone that has even seen it in person, let alone been issued it. I do know a few units that have tried the Beta mags but the overall consensus is that they don't do well in the harsh desert conditions that we find ourselves in right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Hard to argue with that video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
Keep in mind most of the major news media loved to hate "W".MSNBC probably being the worst offender of media bias.NBC not as bad,but still very left leaning.I'm not saying that Dragon Skin doesn't work,I have no idea.My only point was that they might try to blur the issue with spin.The whole tone of the video was one of accusation,not inquiry.They made no mention of the logistical nightmare of retrofitting in the middle of combat operations.I don't mean that's an excuse not to do it,if it's the right tool for the job.If it's better who wouldn't rather use it.Testing can be rigged relatively easy.I call Bullshit about not revealing calibers too.Media all the time gives away logistical information,wether intentionally or not,but I think they care about scooping the other networks more than the harm their content might cause.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top