I have always believed that detachable magazines were rifle failures waiting to happen. Among FN-FAL, M14, SMLE No. 3 Mk. 1, and SMLE No. 4 Mk. 1 magazines which are most likely to be the most durable in use?

My first thoughts were that the semi-detachable SMLE magazines were more likely to be reliable longer than the assault rifles' magazines mostly because they were reloadable without detaching. Which of the two - they are different yet nearly the same - is better than the other, I have no idea. Having examined them, I'm not nearly as confident. Their sheet metal is thin. Since I have never examined one from an FN-FAL and I haven't handled an M14 since A.I.T. - about 45 years - I have no clue how they stand up.

I suspect many who participate in this subforum have handled these four rifle designs extensively. So what is your evaluation? I refer only to magazine durability in use, not the rifles or the cartridges.

The FAL and the M14 magazines are fine. Even M4 magazines are fine if you destroy them when the feed lips spread and get new ones.

My theory on detachable magazines is, always have a spare. Easy to lose and not always easy to replace. Sporting rifle magazines I've seen, seem to be fairly rugged and if you own an M14 or AR , you'll have a bunch anyway.

Grizz

m14 mags are quite a bit stiffer than m16 mags. but they are really throw away.

On the other hand I think I'd probably buy 3 spare sporting rifle mags. Some of those older plastic mags, like Steyr for instance, don't hold up over the years. Never had a steel mag fail in a Win 100/88, Savage 99 or the newer Savage bolt guns.

Even Sauer uses a CBP mag.

Have quite a few M14 mags and would mention they can be reloaded through the top if desired.
Stripper clip guide at rear/top of receiver to permit doing so, but quicker to have pre loaded ones on hand and simply switch out. Currently CMI magazines for the M14 are issue for users and are tough ones to beat.

The Lee Metford magazine...which is where it all began...wasn't meant to be detachable per se. That is reloading was designed to be into the rifle WITH THE MAGAZINE REMAINING IN PLACE.

As indeed you correctly note. But that's the background to it for those that didn't know.

This is evidenced in the original manuals and more obviously that the magazine was 'chain retained'.

It'd be silly therefore to 'dump' an empty magazine to then have it dangling below the rifle whilst a second full magazine was put in place. No that it is detachable was a fortunate conicedental benefit of the design. Remember the proposed SMLE replacement...the P '13 (that became the P '14) had a fixed magazine.

FWIW reloading with five round chargers (that arrive with the CLLE) as and when tactically needed is quicker than running the ten tound magazine empty, dumping it, putting a full one in place, and somewhere in that process putting the disposed of empty magazine in a secure pouch on your personal webbing.

British training is that once the squad receives the command 'Load' it is the individual soldier's responsibility to keep his rifle losded and reloaded until the command 'Unload' is given.

So usually he would reload as soon as he could after he'd fired off five rounds. Not run his magazine empty.

So it isn't designed to de dropped and replaced. Ask any WWII 'vet'. Most likely ALL will affirm that they were never issued with a spare magazine for their SMLE or No4. But they are reasonably durable. Most durable of all detachable magazines IMHO are .303 Bren Gun magazines.

M14 and FN FAL mags are very sturdy...G3 mags (alu..) are utter crap..