This might be a case of military bureaucracy overriding practical considerations. According to Military Times, the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a "safety of use message" last month, placing polymer magazines in an unauthorized list. Primarily, the Magpul PMAG M4 Magazine is affected much by this ban as it's the most widely used M4 polymer magazine in the Army.

Magpul PMAG already has a NSN, or a National Stock Number approved by the U.S. Army, which means soldiers can order them for use. Some quarters are wondering why such a ban was put into place given that the PMAG is said to have improved the reliability of the M4. Matthew Cox of Military Times, after reporting the story, follows through via the Kit Up! Blog of the same online publication, to try to put into perspective why such a ban happened.

Cox writes that the The U.S. Army has been trying to improve the M4 magazine to increase the reliability of M4 rifles already out in the field, especially with admitting in late 2007 that the green follower was a poor design and attention was now at Magpul's PMAG which might hold an answer to the problem. The Army also tried to make its own polymer magazine, but failed. The PMAG got its NSN for soldiers to be able to order via official Army supply channels with the Army asking them for the technical data rights to the PMAG which Magpul didn't seem to agree. It's also clarified in the story that the NSN for the PMAG was not really authorized. With the issuance of the "safety of use message" only two NSNs are authorized for the M4 which are the old one with the green follower and the new one with the tan follower developed by Army. Apparently the tan follower is said to have close resemblance to the PMAG.

Cox further writes that his inquiries to the U.S. Army on test results that made them claim that the new design has decreased stoppages by 50% or if it could outperform the PMAG remained unanswered

Such a ban would leave the Army awash with PMAGs that are worth millions and would not be put to use even if soldiers, especially in the special operations, have been using them in missions with no major issues with these while the new Army M4 magazine with the tan follower will work really well when new but the problems encountered with the old version will also crop up over prolonged used.

Shades of Multicam? If you remember that story of the ACUPAT (UCP) versus the Multicam pattern in 2004? The Multicam lost to the ACUPAT even if it was seen as more effective. Eventually, Multicam is authorized for use in Afghanistan, and adopted officially by the US Air Force and special operations units. Multicam is a commercial pattern made by Crye Precision, just like the PMAG of Magpul Industries. ACUPAT itself is a controversial pattern and personally I never used it as I don't see it to be effective and prefer the old 4-color US Woodland over it.

Of course, the U.S. Army has the right to authorize what can be used by the troops, but abruptly banning polymer magazines which are effectively in use by many soldiers to give way for a new in-house design that may not really be superior over the commercial magazines may not be a practical move. Such immediate ban will put to waste millions of dollars worth of purchased PMAGs and other polymer M4 magazines. It could have been better if they put into place a gradual phasing out of the commercial magazines while introducing, further testing and refining the tan follower to make it more effective in making the M4 reliable to use.

Cox wonders what's the real decision for banning polymer magazines apart from not really authorized by the U.S. Army since even if a product has an NSN, it's not usually fully authorized. Still the PMAG has proven itself to be effective in the field and the innovations introduced by Magpul into magazine development have been lauded far and wide while the new Army-issued one is still very much in question.

So far the usual suspects on such decisions are politics and bureaucracy. The story is far from over.