dannyk45
NES Member
Was represented as a pre ban on Gunbroker. The seller told me the groove in the mag towards the top means it's pre ban. A friend told me he was 100 percent sure it was post ban. Please let me know thanks in advance
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Pre ban or post ban?
- Thread starter dannyk45
- Start date
Not necessarily true!
I suggest the OP try reading the thread on Glock mags in the MA Gun Law sub-forum.
That picture isn't adequate to answer the question. And high markings are a red herring . . . plenty of pre-ban mags with high markings.
Hence "most likely."
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Show a side view...
View attachment 120842View attachment 120842
Right mag came out during the ban.
Notice the beveled 3 surfaces.
The mag on the left has more of a straight angled line 1/2 below the top.
Be be 100% sure if pre ban - seek mags with low caliber markings.
They were only made higher after the ban to make room for LEO GOVT markings.
Of course there WERE over 10,000 mags that DID have raised caliber markings which were made right before the ban according to Glock Armorers Class instructors. They were made in preparation to the ban.
View attachment 120842View attachment 120842
Right mag came out during the ban.
Notice the beveled 3 surfaces.
The mag on the left has more of a straight angled line 1/2 below the top.
Be be 100% sure if pre ban - seek mags with low caliber markings.
They were only made higher after the ban to make room for LEO GOVT markings.
Of course there WERE over 10,000 mags that DID have raised caliber markings which were made right before the ban according to Glock Armorers Class instructors. They were made in preparation to the ban.
Attachments
dannyk45
NES Member
I have some pictures that contradict the high caliber marking claims I'll try to dig them up.
I have a correction about the beveled sides.
G21 mags never had beveled sides.
Both old and new have a straight angle 1/2 inch from the top on the sides.
9mm ,40 and ,357 post ban mags have the beveled sides. Not .45 or 10mm.
You can also get date info from the number on the follower. Of course a pre ban mag could have been upgraded.
I am pretty certain that the shiny smooth strip is post ban.
G21 mags never had beveled sides.
Both old and new have a straight angle 1/2 inch from the top on the sides.
9mm ,40 and ,357 post ban mags have the beveled sides. Not .45 or 10mm.
You can also get date info from the number on the follower. Of course a pre ban mag could have been upgraded.
I am pretty certain that the shiny smooth strip is post ban.
Without testimony from someone at Glock or ATFE (assoc of toolmark and firearm examiners) all we have is "pretty good hearsay", really, unless it's LE marked. It doesn't help that every so called "pre ban mag" guide I see, whether its on NES, GT, or elsewhere, is missing a few variants. Glock made so many variants that I've never seen a picture that had -ALL- of them in one picture. Not to mention there's a bunch of aftermarket junk floating around out there too. Glock legal has always disavowed any knowledge of magazine provenance- probably wanting to keep its customers out of hot water, and possibly itself during the ban era.
(There were a shitload of manufacturers who imported mags during the ban that weren't marked as required, they blew a lot of smoke up BATFE's backside to get away with this (eg, they lied on import permit applications about the date of origin of the mags, etc) I have no idea if Glock did this at all or not, but Para certainly did.... Para had "pre ban" mags for sale during most of the ban, and there is no ****ing way in hell they had that many mags just lying around... they just knew that BATFE didn't push the issue too hard, so they blew smoke up their ass and got away with it. I would bet others did too, but it's not as easy to show it as it was with Para. )
The bottom line is all we really know is that LE marked mags will give them a slam-dunk conviction, everything else is really a crap shoot, depending on how good your lawyer is, as opposed to how good/credible their "evidence" is, if they go to that length; assuming you have enough money to fight it all the way or your lawyer can subtly convince them that taking such things all the way will result in a loss on their part during pretrial negotiations.
It doesn't help that in MA, there are very few cases revolving around mags; they're so rare that finding information on them is like finding a needle in a haystack; Compounding the problem is that, worse yet, most of these cases never go to trial (because the accused pleads out, with or without the mag charge being included) or the mag charge gets dropped before trial, or the mag charge gets dropped before someone pleas out. So it is very hard to pin down a standard of evidence that someone can work off of as a rule of thumb.
In the end, what you have to ask yourself, is how paranoid are you? The answer to this question for someone will run the gamut from "not giving a rats ass about mag provenance", to, the paranoid/ "extreme legal safety conscious" who will not even bother with so called "large capacity" mags, preban or otherwise..... Then there is going full retard paranoid; If you're of that ilk, you wouldn't bother owning guns in this state either, as MA has shown over and over again that it will screw with gun owners in the courts if it wants to; if the motivation exists depending on the circumstances. Look at what happened to the poor guy Stan in Lowell that had his guns stolen from him, or for that matter, "MTBS Guy". They threw over a dozen felonies at the guy and got 2 to stick. If they want you badly enough they will figure out how to ruin your life one way or another, even without "pweee ban" magazines being involved at all.
Every gun owner in MA faces possible legal risks simply by even owning guns, ammo, and associated hardware; It's up to himself or herself to weigh these risks and make their own decision; I will say this much though.... the cheapest way of avoiding all legal problems in MA WRT gun ownership is to keep yourself off LE radar for these things at any opportunity; identify the most probable legal pitfalls (like "unsafe storage", which is by far the biggest trap for LTC/FID holders in MA, by exponential orders of magnitude) things like 209A RO's, etc, and take steps to avoid stepping into those kinds of traps.
-Mike
(There were a shitload of manufacturers who imported mags during the ban that weren't marked as required, they blew a lot of smoke up BATFE's backside to get away with this (eg, they lied on import permit applications about the date of origin of the mags, etc) I have no idea if Glock did this at all or not, but Para certainly did.... Para had "pre ban" mags for sale during most of the ban, and there is no ****ing way in hell they had that many mags just lying around... they just knew that BATFE didn't push the issue too hard, so they blew smoke up their ass and got away with it. I would bet others did too, but it's not as easy to show it as it was with Para. )
The bottom line is all we really know is that LE marked mags will give them a slam-dunk conviction, everything else is really a crap shoot, depending on how good your lawyer is, as opposed to how good/credible their "evidence" is, if they go to that length; assuming you have enough money to fight it all the way or your lawyer can subtly convince them that taking such things all the way will result in a loss on their part during pretrial negotiations.
It doesn't help that in MA, there are very few cases revolving around mags; they're so rare that finding information on them is like finding a needle in a haystack; Compounding the problem is that, worse yet, most of these cases never go to trial (because the accused pleads out, with or without the mag charge being included) or the mag charge gets dropped before trial, or the mag charge gets dropped before someone pleas out. So it is very hard to pin down a standard of evidence that someone can work off of as a rule of thumb.
In the end, what you have to ask yourself, is how paranoid are you? The answer to this question for someone will run the gamut from "not giving a rats ass about mag provenance", to, the paranoid/ "extreme legal safety conscious" who will not even bother with so called "large capacity" mags, preban or otherwise..... Then there is going full retard paranoid; If you're of that ilk, you wouldn't bother owning guns in this state either, as MA has shown over and over again that it will screw with gun owners in the courts if it wants to; if the motivation exists depending on the circumstances. Look at what happened to the poor guy Stan in Lowell that had his guns stolen from him, or for that matter, "MTBS Guy". They threw over a dozen felonies at the guy and got 2 to stick. If they want you badly enough they will figure out how to ruin your life one way or another, even without "pweee ban" magazines being involved at all.
Every gun owner in MA faces possible legal risks simply by even owning guns, ammo, and associated hardware; It's up to himself or herself to weigh these risks and make their own decision; I will say this much though.... the cheapest way of avoiding all legal problems in MA WRT gun ownership is to keep yourself off LE radar for these things at any opportunity; identify the most probable legal pitfalls (like "unsafe storage", which is by far the biggest trap for LTC/FID holders in MA, by exponential orders of magnitude) things like 209A RO's, etc, and take steps to avoid stepping into those kinds of traps.
-Mike
Last edited:
Yeah but all that really means is that there are "even more variants". Like the LE marked mags with low caliber markings. Yet people like Pat Sweeney (and others) have stated that they had guys with high marking mags with guns they bought before the ban took effect. You can also dig up some old accounts of preban mags on rec.guns if you find a usenet archive that goes back far enough.
All more variants do is create more questions and more possibilities- Is it possible that Glock (or one of their distributors) was importing unmarked post-bans illegally and bundling them with guns they sold, because Glock USA couldn't supply enough marked (or 10 round) magazines? God only knows. It would be interesting to see a pic that has all of the variants in one picture. Ignoring all the U notch junk, there are at least a half dozen square notch magazine variants floating around. Every time I thought I'd seen them all I see another one.
Some engineer in Austria probably knows them all by heart and could tell you the lineage perfectly; but I'd bet pretty much anything they would keep their mouth shut on this. There could even be a ****ed up situation where Glock was not using "identical generation" molds for every magazine across the different calibers at the same time; or possibly using 2 different molds at once to keep up with production demand at one time or another. Another issue- let's say an injection mold ****s up (I'm guessing that's how the plastic bodies are made) dollars to doughnuts says Glock would just put an old mold in place on production temporarily until they repaired the newer one; as getting an entirely new mold made is very expensive. They may have also used "older" revision molds to maintain manufacturing pace during periods of high demand; and the period leading up to the Sep 13 1994 AWB (which, by some accounts, was almost a year between the bill being introduced and the bill being signed) would have had manufacturers going full tilt to produce mags before the bill was signed.
This period of magazine production probably made the crap that transpired post Sandy Hook look like child's play. I have no proof that they ever did things like this, but it's definitely not beyond the realm of possibility. It may be another reason why Glock doesn't want to talk about provenance on the record; as there may be inconsistent production runs in the mix- in that almost-year interval; which would make a given "account of provenance" factually inaccurate for thousands of magazines- they probably don't want to piss in the cakemix and make the situation murkier than it already is.
-Mike
Last edited:
The page from Sweeney's book (published in 2003, DURING the Fed Ban) has been posted here by me a number of times. It's in the Glock Mag thread I referred to earlier.
Mike, Pat Sweeney DURING the Fed Ban claimed that there were >80 variations of mags!!! You'd need a wall-sized picture to show all of them at once!
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Reptile, the BS about follower numbers is just that, Glock Tech Supt replaced all the followers, springs and baseplates in my Wife's G17 U-channel mags for us. Proves NOTHING!
Since I spoke with both Carlos Guevara (Glock-US Chief Counsel) and Fred (Glock-US head tech), they told me that Glock-Austria refused to tell them when changes were made, so nobody at Glock-US can ID pre vs. post-ban mags. The ONLY exception are those mags with the center cut-out showing metal or dual insets for ambi-mag releases . . . and of course those marked LE/Mil Only with the date code of 9.13.1994 on them.
ETA: During the Fed Ban, BATFE stated that any mag NOT marked LE/Mil (or with date code) were NOT post-ban and legal to own, period. So they put the onus on the mfrs to mark them. Absence of a mark meant that it was pre-ban. In MA, any DA or judge can claim whatever they like, we have no technical expertise in the "system" and we've seen judges make up laws that they pulled out of their ass, with no basis in law.
Lots of self-proclaimed ex-spurts here and elsewhere on the Internet claim to KNOW which is which. They should send their resumes to Glock-US since they obviously know more than the company itself!!!!
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
ETA2: NOTE: I do NOT claim to be an expert on Glock mags. But unlike many, I did go the extra mile to talk with the experts at the company to try to provide the best info possible on the situation, rather than pulling stuff out of my ass like many on the Internet do.
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
I'm 100% with Len, but do want to add one thing.
The only Glock mag that I know to unequivocally, unarguably be pre-ban are the U notch mags.
All the rest are debatable, which won't hold up in court.
I carry U notch mags for another reeason. I'm left handed and i do NOT want a drop free mag, since I don't carry a spare mag and about once a year, while shooting my Glocks, the mag will disengage when the slides under my trigger finger during recoil. Although this hasn't happened since I switched to Gen 4s, I'd still prefer the mag to stay in the gun.
A side benefit is that nobody could ever say its a post ban mag.
The down side is that some people have reliability issues iwth them wiht newer pistols and also they tend to split, although this doesn't affect their function.
Don
The only Glock mag that I know to unequivocally, unarguably be pre-ban are the U notch mags.
All the rest are debatable, which won't hold up in court.
I carry U notch mags for another reeason. I'm left handed and i do NOT want a drop free mag, since I don't carry a spare mag and about once a year, while shooting my Glocks, the mag will disengage when the slides under my trigger finger during recoil. Although this hasn't happened since I switched to Gen 4s, I'd still prefer the mag to stay in the gun.
A side benefit is that nobody could ever say its a post ban mag.
The down side is that some people have reliability issues iwth them wiht newer pistols and also they tend to split, although this doesn't affect their function.
Don
Pretty much.
OP keep em for SHTF and carry others. Done.
- - - Updated - - -
This whole Glock mag fiasco is ****ing asinine and worthless, unless it's LEO/GOV marked. YMMV IANAL.
The real question is, who cares? Don't be stupid with your gun and no one will ever know the pre/post ban status of your magazine. F*ck Massachusetts laws and the people who make them.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
You should always carry a spare mag!
But, yes, I am a lefty shooter, and like the non-drop free ones for the very same reason.
dcmdon
NES Member
I know I should. But the Glocks are so freaking reliable with factory ammo. Before I started reloading I could go years without a malfunction.
And even now. Its only when I'm trying new loads that a Glock ever seems to fail me. In my Gen4 G19, once I upgraded a U notch mag with a follower from a current production mag and a Wolff spring in it, the G19 has been 100% with the U Notch mags.
1903Collector
NES Member
Related,
I have seen 9 round .40 mags with LE/MIL markings....what the hell is the status of those?
I have seen 9 round .40 mags with LE/MIL markings....what the hell is the status of those?
FELONY for talking about it!!!
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
I seem to remember Fred (Glock Tech) telling me that they were different followers used in the U-notch mags vs. more modern ones. My rebuilt U-notch mag followers aren't marked the same as the newer vintage pre-ban mag followers.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
These things are reliable as hell for sure, I just carry the extra mag as insurance in case something jams up, or the mag fails somehow when I need to use it. My G17 and G20 both kick ass and are super reliable.
Glockster30
NES Member
Same with my Gen4 G19. I had to replace with an updated follower in the u-notch mag for it to work, as it would not feed. The square notch pre-ban works fine without replacing the follower.
