I've read around here a bit, and am curious on how well the current batch of ARC magazines are received (the single feed, double stack AICS magazines made by American Rifle Company). It seems that a lot of people have had problems with rounds nose-diving and such, but I wonder if that is still a widespread problem. Others reported that it works perfectly fine for them, so I'm curious on how the numbers look.
Consensus on ARC mags?
- Thread starter awcmon
- Start date
I dont think you see much about them on here anymore. I think most are defaulting to mdt for the high capacity mags.
Had one that I ran in a KRG X Ray with a Tikka action. For this application, it sucked. Wouldn't feed well at all.
I'm curious about this too.
The reading I've done said they work best with CRF; which would explain why the Tikka didn't like them.
Also some say they are very temperamental when dirty.
And some replace the followers and then don't have any problems.
Shooting an origin I'm still on the fence about trying them.
The reading I've done said they work best with CRF; which would explain why the Tikka didn't like them.
Also some say they are very temperamental when dirty.
And some replace the followers and then don't have any problems.
Shooting an origin I'm still on the fence about trying them.
Great idea, poor execution.
Hopefully they get updated to be more reliable. As it stands right now, it's rare to get them to work reliably.
I've gone to MDT mags. I really hope ARC fixes their mags, I'm a fan of most ARC products.
Hopefully they get updated to be more reliable. As it stands right now, it's rare to get them to work reliably.
I've gone to MDT mags. I really hope ARC fixes their mags, I'm a fan of most ARC products.
I’ve run the gambit when it comes to bolt mags. I’ve tried AICS/Accurate, MDT, and ARC multiple times. I’ve modified and polished feed lips in every which direction, stretched, compressed, and tried various springs, sanded followers, and have/had pretty much every single mag extension available. Let me just start by saying that I’ve had issues of varying degrees with every single mag I’ve tried and ultimately, mag choice comes down to you and your personal rifle.
That being said, AICS are the best set it and forget it mags available. They are not the smallest, smoothest, etc. but they work with the vast majority of rifles and generally speaking, have decent immunity to adverse conditions.
The MDTs I’ve tried multiple times, and each time have been let down. I’ve tried 10 and 12 rounders, standard .308 and BR, and have had issues with all of them. The size/capacity is awesome, but I’ve had to do more mag changes mid stage than I care to admit because of feeding issues with these mags (even when clean), and I’m done messing with them.
ARC are far and away the most finicky mags with factory followers. Get them wet/dirty/etc. and you can pretty much bank on them binding. Recently, I went against my better judgment and went back to ARC mags with LRI followers. This combination has given me, by far, the smallest and smoothest feeding mags that I’ve had. Furthermore, I’ve been unable to induce any type of binding with up to 15 round capacity and realistic combinations of dirt, water, or normal conditions that would otherwise prove fatal to a factory ARC mag. They are not for everyone and really should/need to be tuned to your specific rifle, but once they are, I have not personally found a better option.
TL;DR - AICS if you want to set it and forget it. ARC with LRI followers if you have the time/inclination to modify or tune them to your rifle.
That being said, AICS are the best set it and forget it mags available. They are not the smallest, smoothest, etc. but they work with the vast majority of rifles and generally speaking, have decent immunity to adverse conditions.
The MDTs I’ve tried multiple times, and each time have been let down. I’ve tried 10 and 12 rounders, standard .308 and BR, and have had issues with all of them. The size/capacity is awesome, but I’ve had to do more mag changes mid stage than I care to admit because of feeding issues with these mags (even when clean), and I’m done messing with them.
ARC are far and away the most finicky mags with factory followers. Get them wet/dirty/etc. and you can pretty much bank on them binding. Recently, I went against my better judgment and went back to ARC mags with LRI followers. This combination has given me, by far, the smallest and smoothest feeding mags that I’ve had. Furthermore, I’ve been unable to induce any type of binding with up to 15 round capacity and realistic combinations of dirt, water, or normal conditions that would otherwise prove fatal to a factory ARC mag. They are not for everyone and really should/need to be tuned to your specific rifle, but once they are, I have not personally found a better option.
TL;DR - AICS if you want to set it and forget it. ARC with LRI followers if you have the time/inclination to modify or tune them to your rifle.
since i"m in the market for mags in the near future as well, those with feedback if you can also state what cartridge and/or action you have been using in the mag that might help narrow the issues.
Seems that some of the 6mm/BR cartridges tend to induce more issues, as well as some types of actions (3 vs 2 lug, CRF/Push, etc).
Seems that some of the 6mm/BR cartridges tend to induce more issues, as well as some types of actions (3 vs 2 lug, CRF/Push, etc).
I ran them 2 years with my TL3 and only time I ever had an issue was in a rain storm at a prs match. Other then that I never had any issues but my regular aics gave me fits had to adjust the lips to get them to feed.
I have the LRI followers and 1st gen MKM.
Out of the two, the LRI works better. However, I haven't had the opportunity to try the most recent gen MKM's.
I find with the ARC mags that the bigger the cartridge, the less reliable the mag is. The friction of the cartridges feeding from the double stack to single stack configuration is where the issues are. Larger cartridges have a harder time overcoming that geometry reliably.
Out of the cartridges I shoot, I find 6BRA to be the most reliable, followed by 6.5 Creedmoor and then .308. Still wouldn't trust these mags in a weekend match, but fine for range use for 6BRA and 6.5 Creedmoor.
I have one with replaced LRI follower and one without and can tell no difference, shooting 6mm creed in three different rifles all run great.
I installed the latest mk machine followers in my arc mags. Run fantastic from bighorn and arc actions. I have a 6bra on a lone peak fuzion. To get this to run well, I had to get mdt br mags. Once I installed the mk followers in my arc mags, i can run 6bra flawlessly through them as long I keep the case head a bit forward of the rear plate of the mag, 1/8-1/4" or so. I had problems feeding 22 creed on a Tikka in a mdt chassis with accurate or mdt mag, arc fixed it. Run my 6gt and 22gt from arc mags, never a misfeed. My buddies 25x47, matrix chassis, arx mags with a bat action, runs like a champ.
Only issues I've had with ARC mags were if they got dirty, such as if I dropped them or if it was a particularly dusty day with lots of wind. As a result I usually toss mine in an ultrasonic cleaner whenever I get home from the range or a match, keeps them cleaned up nicely, and then if one of them gets dirty during the day (I dropped it or something) then it goes back in my pack and I use a different one.
One major benefit, IMO, of ARC mags that is rarely discussed is that their shorter feed lips allow you to feed BR-based cartridges (BRA, Dasher, etc.) without any worries about spacer kits or using different magazines for different cartridges. I've used them for the last 4 years shooting both BR and Dasher and never had any of the typical BR feeding issues, just load them up and shoot same as any other cartridge.
One thing I did also notice is that when I first experimented with graphite as a lubricant while seating bullets my ARC mags stopped being so picky about if they were dirty or not. Instead of dipping the entire case neck in graphite (very dirty) I just dip the base of each bullet into the graphite and seat. Still ends up with a little graphite on the bullets and brass, but less than dipping the case itself and I never bothered to wipe it off. Turns out that graphite that ends up on the cases from handling (I pick up the rounds out of an MTM case by grabbing the projectiles, getting graphite on my fingers, then load into the magazine getting graphite into the magazine and on the brass) makes the ARC mags feed super smooth. First time I went to the range after loading with graphite I actually thought my magazines were binding up because I couldn't feel the action picking up a round at all when I cycled the bolt. I also tested by intentionally dropping my magazine into the dirt several times while only giving it a quick wipe inside with one finger and it continued to feed without problems, but I still replace for the day any magazines I might drop just out of an abundance of caution.
I didn't notice any difference at all in my ammo (consistency or group sizes) by using the graphite, but I liked how it made my ARC mags run super smooth and more reliably so I have continued to use graphite ever since. It leaves your hands looking like a mess at the end of a day of shooting, but it's not like I don't wash them after shooting anyways to get rid of any lead/carbon that's there already.
One major benefit, IMO, of ARC mags that is rarely discussed is that their shorter feed lips allow you to feed BR-based cartridges (BRA, Dasher, etc.) without any worries about spacer kits or using different magazines for different cartridges. I've used them for the last 4 years shooting both BR and Dasher and never had any of the typical BR feeding issues, just load them up and shoot same as any other cartridge.
One thing I did also notice is that when I first experimented with graphite as a lubricant while seating bullets my ARC mags stopped being so picky about if they were dirty or not. Instead of dipping the entire case neck in graphite (very dirty) I just dip the base of each bullet into the graphite and seat. Still ends up with a little graphite on the bullets and brass, but less than dipping the case itself and I never bothered to wipe it off. Turns out that graphite that ends up on the cases from handling (I pick up the rounds out of an MTM case by grabbing the projectiles, getting graphite on my fingers, then load into the magazine getting graphite into the magazine and on the brass) makes the ARC mags feed super smooth. First time I went to the range after loading with graphite I actually thought my magazines were binding up because I couldn't feel the action picking up a round at all when I cycled the bolt. I also tested by intentionally dropping my magazine into the dirt several times while only giving it a quick wipe inside with one finger and it continued to feed without problems, but I still replace for the day any magazines I might drop just out of an abundance of caution.
I didn't notice any difference at all in my ammo (consistency or group sizes) by using the graphite, but I liked how it made my ARC mags run super smooth and more reliably so I have continued to use graphite ever since. It leaves your hands looking like a mess at the end of a day of shooting, but it's not like I don't wash them after shooting anyways to get rid of any lead/carbon that's there already.
They definitely need a little fine tuning but once you get them tuned up they run great. I didn't buy the other followers I just rounded the edges on the ARC follower with a file and they stopped binding and nose diving. I have come across a couple of chassis that they refuse to work in (Hawkins DBM and one particular rifle in a Magpie chassis). MDT is always the fallback if the ARC doesn't want to run - I share my mags across multiple platforms so I'm forced to keep a collection.
I've also found that these mags run the BR cases well with no modification. Works great with 6BRA in my Mausingfield and my wife's LP Fuzion actions.
Interesting tip about the graphite lube. I may have to try that at some point.
