Walther Forums banner
21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,983 Posts
Since OP is the first one in over 20 years to complain about this issue, this seems indicative of the problem not laying with Walther pistols or their mags, but elsewhere. First guess would. E the mystery ammo he’s trying to stuff into the mags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
What's the OAL measurement?
Excellent question. I had already "eye-balled" the OAL's compared between the Winchester and Olin, and It looked good. Here are the vernier caliper measurements:
Win OAL: 1.1540
Olin OAL: 1.1620-1.1645 (10 samples)
SAAMI OAL: 1.00-1.169

So, at least the 10 Olin cartidges that I measured were within the SAAMI OAL spec.
0.0045 from max OAL spec is cutting it pretty close, but the mag should provide some (?) clearance.for max OAL cartridges.

I'm really anxious to test the 3 new 15rd mags, and the 5 "old" mags that I'm expecting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Since OP is the first one in over 20 years to complain about this issue, this seems indicative of the problem not laying with Walther pistols or their mags, but elsewhere. First guess would. E the mystery ammo he’s trying to stuff into the mags.
Don't recall having questioned the pistol...just the mags. The "mystery" ammo is Olin 115gr FMJ. Thousands of rounds of it have loaded just fine into high-cap staggered-cartridge mags for a dozen SIGs, a Walther Creed, and 10rd P99 mags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
Excellent question. I had already "eye-balled" the OAL's compared between the Winchester and Olin, and It looked good. Here are the vernier caliper measurements:
Win OAL: 1.1540
Olin OAL: 1.1620-1.1645 (10 samples)
SAAMI OAL: 1.00-1.169

So, at least the 10 Olin cartidges that I measured were within the SAAMI OAL spec.
0.0045 from max OAL spec is cutting it pretty close, but the mag should provide some (?) clearance.for max OAL cartridges.

I'm really anxious to test the 3 new 15rd mags, and the 5 "old" mags that I'm expecting.
I checked 10 samples of some FMJ range ammo. Averages........

Federal 115gr, 1.15

Federal 124gr, 1.148

Speer Lawman 124gr, 1.151

SIG Elite 124gr, 1.145
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I've put some significantly under-length ammo in a Walther mag to see what it would do and they've handled them fine. Fed, chambered and ejected (by hand, not fired). So, I'm really feeling like it's something else, like the old AR bugaboo of tilting follower or something weird with the spring. I'm seen my share of that with other (non Walther) mags. Even the cheapo National 30rd extended have done a creditable job the few times I've used them with my old P99 and PPQ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 · (Edited)
Update on the "jamming" of Olin ammo in new factory mags:
I received 5 old (used) 15 rd mags with base plates marked "S&W" (for the SW99), and "Magnum Research" (for the baby desert eagle). These mags are all identical, manufactured by MecGar.
I loaded all 5 of the used mags with the Olin ammo with no issues. Since I'd had an issue with the the new factory mags with the Olin ammo jamming at about the 7th round, I had successfully loaded the new mags with 15 rounds of Winchester 115gr FMJ ammo (no jamming).
I disassembled one of the old mags and one of the new mags (after unloading the Winchester ammo) to visually compare the internal components.
The followers appeared to be identical
The springs had the same number of coils. The the springs from the new mags were about 1/4 inch longer than the springs in the used mags. I have no way of measuring the spring force quantitatively, but the springs in the new mags required more force to compress (just by "feel" during loading).
I re-assembled both mags, and re-loaded the used mag with 15 rds of the Olin ammo. Smooth, no issues.
I then decided to attempt to re-load the new mag with 15 rds of the Olin ammo.
Then I unloded the Winchester ammo from the second new mag, and re-loaded it with 15 rds of the Olin ammo.
NO JAMMING! ... WHAT?
What happened to the new mags that now allowed them to load the Olin ammo without jamming? All that had changed was the new mags had been loaded a week ago with 15 rds of Winchester ammo. Prior to that, at least 4 attempts were made to load the Olin ammo in each mag. Every attempt was unsuccessful due to the jamming.

Although I'm new to this forum, I'm not new to handling/using/maintaining firearms. Been doing it for 60+ years....including loading tens of thousands of rounds into magazines.
I have never encountered a magazine that required "break-in" or conditioning. But, it sure looks like successfully loading 15 rounds into the new mags did something to condition the mags.
Both the Olin and Winchester ammo are SAAMI-compliant. So, whatever caused the "behavior" of the new mags is a mystery to me 🤒.
But, at least I now have new mags that will accept ammo from my cache of Olin 😊
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 · (Edited)
Still another update on P99 mags for those who may be interested:

The attached pics show three mags...far left is a NEW OLD-STOCK (in the factory package) Walther 16rd; cetner is a used SW99 16rd (marked LE ONLY); far right is a Magnum Research 15rd. The NOS Walther is marked with Walther logo on the baseplate and mag wall. The S&W SW99 mag is marked with S&W logo on the baseplate and mag wall.
Sorry that I didn't photograph the Walther mag instead of the Magnum Research, but they are identical except for the logo's on the baseplate and the Walther banner on the mag body. All of the mags are manufactured by MecGar.

Note the difference in the fluting of the two on the left vs the one on the right. I'm guessing that the two mags on the left are early mags for the P99 and SW99, and the mag on the right is the latest production configuration.from MecGar. Normally, the type of addition fluting evident in the late production mags are used to stiffen flat sheet metal surfaces to prevent bending. Although the two mags on the right are marked 16rd (and have inspection hole marked "16"), the SW99 mag is marked with a "CAUTION-15RDS. ONLY" message that looks to be laser applied. Perhaps loading the early production mags with 16rds caused the sides of the flat-wall bodies to bulge, and caused fit problems in the mag well of the guns or feed problems (like cartridges jamming as a result of walls "bulging"). And, the solution by MecGar to rectify the problem and iisure no wall "bulging" (fit or feed problems) was to add stiffening flutes to the walls, which would reduce the interior space of the body available for cartridges, and therefore result in a reduction of capacity to 15rds max.

BTW, each of the mags are loaded with 15rds of OLIN 115gr FMJ ammo that loaded by hand with NO issues.

Hope you enjoyed this (maybe useless) information 😊

Rectangle Material property Gadget Gas Electric blue
Rectangle Communication Device Everyday carry Gadget Electronic device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,860 Posts
The early "LE" mags had feeding issues when loaded to full capacity. Also note that the early mags are taller in the area just below the presented rounds nose. Later mags were shortened because of the possibility of contact with the bottom of the feed ramp when vigorous mag insertions were done. Also the early mags could damage extractors on later pistols if over inserted. At least this is the common wisdom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 · (Edited)
The early "LE" mags had feeding issues when loaded to full capacity. Also note that the early mags are taller in the area just below the presented rounds nose. Later mags were shortened because of the possibility of contact with the bottom of the feed ramp when vigorous mag insertions were done. Also the early mags could damage extractors on later pistols if over inserted. At least this is the common wisdom.
Thanks. That is interesting and good info. I'm going to have to take an empty early mag and check for the possible interference with the feed ramp and extractor. Do you know if the higher lip at the nose of the presented round caused a problem?
I'm guessing that cramming 16 rounds into the early mags (without the stiffened sides) may have resulted in jamming rounds (and therefore feeding problems)...therefor the interim solution (pending mags with stiffened walls) was the caution warning to load only 15rds printed on the mag wall.

The problems caused by vigorous insertion of the mags is (for me) a show stopper. I've been taught to authoritatively slam a mag into the well to insure a secured mag.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,714 Posts
There's been many changes made to the mags over the years. Some of the early mags didn't have the relief cut in the top rear left side of the mag body to clear the ejector. Some mags also had a little longer body, or higher lip on the top front of the mag. When using some of these older mags in a later model gun, you might experience contact between the top front edge of the mag body and the lower/bottom of the feed ramp (when the slide is moved ALL the way to the rear)...as THAT is when the barrel will drop down and actually move rearward. So, insert your mag, lock the slide back and peer into the ejection port to check on the clearance between the mag and the feed ramp.

To check for ejector clearance, field strip your pistol and insert a mag.....now look to see how close the mag body is to the bottom of the ejector.....now, push the mag all the way UP to see if you still have clearance or if they're touching.

Either of these problems is an easy fix. If the feed ramp is smacking the magazine, just use your tool of choice and remove a tiny bit from the top front of the mag body....you don't need a lot of clearance, they just need to not touch when the slide is FULLY to the rear.

If you have ejector interference, once again, using your favorite tool, make a little relief cut in the top rear of the mag body....in other words...make that area of the mag look like a current mag that already has the relief cut.

Here's a couple of pictures.

This is the area you want to check.
Automotive tire Wood Bicycle part Rim Automotive lighting


Mag on the left has no ejector relief cut. The two on the right DO have the relief cut. In this case, just make the one on the left look like the ones on the right.
Brown Sports equipment Gas Wood Auto part
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
There's been many changes made to the mags over the years. Some of the early mags didn't have the relief cut in the top rear left side of the mag body to clear the ejector. Some mags also had a little longer body, or higher lip on the top front of the mag. When using some of these older mags in a later model gun, you might experience contact between the top front edge of the mag body and the lower/bottom of the feed ramp (when the slide is moved ALL the way to the rear)...as THAT is when the barrel will drop down and actually move rearward. So, insert your mag, lock the slide back and peer into the ejection port to check on the clearance between the mag and the feed ramp.

To check for ejector clearance, field strip your pistol and insert a mag.....now look to see how close the mag body is to the bottom of the ejector.....now, push the mag all the way UP to see if you still have clearance or if they're touching.

Either of these problems is an easy fix. If the feed ramp is smacking the magazine, just use your tool of choice and remove a tiny bit from the top front of the mag body....you don't need a lot of clearance, they just need to not touch when the slide is FULLY to the rear.

If you have ejector interference, once again, using your favorite tool, make a little relief cut in the top rear of the mag body....in other words...make that area of the mag look like a current mag that already has the relief cut.

Here's a couple of pictures.

This is the area you want to check.
View attachment 100593

Mag on the left has no ejector relief cut. The two on the right DO have the relief cut. In this case, just make the one on the left look like the ones on the right.
View attachment 100594
Thanks very much.
The feed ramp doesn't touch the top front edge of any of the early mags, but there's only about 0.020" clearance. The new mag has much more clearance...maybe 0.100", so I'll be removing some material from the top front of the early mag to match the new mag.
The left lips don't contact the ejector with the mag pushed all the way up, but again there's very little clearance...maybe 0.010". That relief that's cut into the new mags was sure easy to miss. Don't need to be replacing any ejectors, so I'll be carefully removing very little material from the rear of the left lips.

I think that you've just saved me from some unneeded grief down the road.
THANKS!! 😊
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,714 Posts
There doesn't need to be very much clearance between the top of the mag and the bottom of the feed ramp. I'd recommend this....inset a mag and use something to wedge between the back side of the mag and the mag well (frame of the pistol) be creative....use a popsicle stick, piece of plastic, cardboard, etc. etc. or maybe be careful and use a screw driver. Force that mag all the way forward in the magwell, THEN move the slide ALL the way to the rear and check your clearance. If you can see 'daylight' I'd say your good to go. They simply just don't need to make contact.

Same for the ejector....the mag simply doesn't need to be able to make contact with the bottom of the ejector. Daylight....or maybe if you're familiar with one of the worlds smallest measurements....just an rch. 😂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
There doesn't need to be very much clearance between the top of the mag and the bottom of the feed ramp. I'd recommend this....inset a mag and use something to wedge between the back side of the mag and the mag well (frame of the pistol) be creative....use a popsicle stick, piece of plastic, cardboard, etc. etc. or maybe be careful and use a screw driver. Force that mag all the way forward in the magwell, THEN move the slide ALL the way to the rear and check your clearance. If you can see 'daylight' I'd say your good to go. They simply just don't need to make contact.

Same for the ejector....the mag simply doesn't need to be able to make contact with the bottom of the ejector. Daylight....or maybe if you're familiar with one of the worlds smallest measurements....just an rch. 😂
HeHeHe...yeah, gotcha. I'd say that without the shim behind the mag, the clearance is 4 rch's, and the clearance between the left lip and the ejector is 2 rch's. In a former life as an engine builder, I had a compressible tape used to measure clearances. It was sort of a tape version of Plasti-Gauge. That would be handy to use as a shim behind the back of the mag, but I'm sure I don't have any of that left. Maybe cut some strips of thin vinyl sheet 'til I get a snug fit. My concern with the left lips interfering with the ejector, is that after repeated slamming of mags into the magwell, the polymer "nubs" on the top side of the baseplate edges might get compressed, eating away the 2 rch clearance, causing the lip to impact the ejector during insertion of the mag. Do you see that as a possibility?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,714 Posts
My concern with the left lips interfering with the ejector, is that after repeated slamming of mags into the magwell, the polymer "nubs" on the top side of the baseplate edges might get compressed, eating away the 2 rch clearance, causing the lip to impact the ejector during insertion of the mag. Do you see that as a possibility?
I think you'd wear a hole in your hand before any appreciable wear on those nubs. You'll have plenty of chances to eyeball the clearance over time....if you see it diminishing then whoop out the dremel. Just a 'light' touch................

I think you'll be fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
I think you'd wear a hole in your hand before any appreciable wear on those nubs. You'll have plenty of chances to eyeball the clearance over time....if you see it diminishing then whoop out the dremel. Just a 'light' touch................

I think you'll be fine.
OK. I did install a mag with an 0.023 thick full length shim behind the mag (tight), so the mag was as far forward in the frame as possible. The lower edge of the barrel ramp was still forward of the edge of the mag and a daylight gap as well.between the ramp and the mag edge.

Thanks again...
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top