Asc magazine internal dimensions not what company states imo.

varminter .223

Active member
Received my .223 ASC magazines yesterday, and measured how long of a cartridge they will contain. You can only load out to 2.280 in these. You tell me what you think their website states....." the interior dimensions of OAL 2.316" + or - .002 are perfect for reloads." She told me that she had addressed this question before for other people and she knew exactly what their website says and started saying that no where does it say you could have your reloads that long, and it states that they were "perfect for reloads". I explained to her that it left a very bad taste in my mouth as it's probably going to leave in other people's mouths and I think that is extremely deceptive and misleading marketing to sell magazines in a supersaturated magazine market. I guess 2.280 is better than 2.260 but why can't they just put that in the website and be honest. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up that may be thinking about ordering some of these.
 
Last edited:
Just discovered I reveived the alumimum ones which still states (2.316). Very misleading. Spoke with a doxerxj who says he bent the front of his steel asc's and it allows 2.310". Do you guys find the same oal room as dozer? I guess I will try those
mad.gif
 
Last edited:
I got two of the steel ones awhile back to play with longer seating depth. Have not got around to doing that yet.

But, I'm way not impressed with the quality. One of the two can't actually accept a longer OAL because a spot weld near the top didn't stick and the two overlapping pieces of sheet metal that are supposed to be welded are sprung apart. Then interior flap impinging on magazine space by quite a bit. The other one will accept the longer OAL, but the same weld on it is a rolled up booger and I expect it to fail after not much use and it won't take the longer OAL anymore at that point either.

In short, they seem like a pretty crappy piece of gear to me so far.

- DAA
 
I have a few and the internal dimensions vary. I think on one I get 2.311 ish and the others are around 2.290. On the shorter ones, it is because the welds didn't hold or the metal it bent inward. I just haven't taken the time to bend it back.
 
It states it a bit differently....going off of memory here at the end of their description it says internal dimension of (2.316").
I knew the asc were supposed to allow the longer oal and when I saw that (2.316") I just ordered those. Frustratung part is reordering and waiting again.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: varminter .223It states it a bit differently....going off of memory here at the end of their description it says internal dimension of (2.316").
I knew the asc were supposed to allow the longer oal and when I saw that (2.316") I just ordered those. Frustratung part is reordering and waiting again.

I can see where this would become an issue. The site does state "The interior dimensions of OAL 2.316” ± .002 are perfect for reloads."

I can see the issue with using interior dimensions and OAL together in the same sentence. "Interior" dimension would seem to indicate the measurements from inside the magazine, but OAL is referenceing the cartridge dimension. I know that these are not one and the same. Sounds to me like their web designers don't know the difference and jammed them together.

In today's day and age you would think that it would be a simple matter for them to simply go in and change it.

I don't personally reload longer than 2.250 as recommended by many reloading manuals, so I can see the frustration when trying to chase the demon and running into an issue like this.

Thanks for the info.
 
I double checked and I guess it was gun mag warehouse's description that says (2.316") on the aluminum. That is where I ordered.
More confusion reared it head when she asked if I had stainless or aluminum. I told her they feel awful light for steel.....she asked me how many rounds the mag held, when I answered 20 she said oh that has to be the stainless we dont offer a 20 in aluminum......I asked if they offered one that will work at 2.136 and she said no and admitted the oal issue. On top of that a buddy got some stainless ones and said they only held 2.280 or 2.290. I guess he later was able to bend the front to get 2.310 in. When it rains it pours
tongue.gif
.
I ordered these in haste......I saw asc and 2.316 and pulled the trigger. I guess the ol saying haste makes waste is still true......
 
Last edited:
Im going to order some steel one and might try cutting down the front or at the front corner and tig spot welding the 2 butts together. Anyone tried this.
 
I bet a little plug weld right there would work pretty good. Good idea. Might try it on mine.

- DAA
 
I just stripped an aluminum one and the aluminum's will clear 2.310 I'm sure with that inner overlap gone. Just debating if it would be easier to work with the steel or aluminum.
 
Last edited:
That is pretty strange, maybe even interesting, that on GunMagWarehouse only the 20 round magazine has the longer OAL in the description.

With that, I have found that most loads over about 2.27 can see issues when the round engages the feed ramps of the barrel extension.
 
Ive never loaded any 223 parent cartridge beyond 2.260 but I have a bhw 16" 6x45 that does well with 55 varmageddons and 2200 but has some horizontal that goes away when hand fed at 2.315.
 
Given the chamber can take it in the AR I routinely load over 2.260. If I can load it longer I tend to do that. Some of the bigger bullets suck up so much space when loaded to the "standard" and I want all I can get in that case for space. Western/Accurate loads some big bullets very short but I've found that I get a bit more room to work both ways with the ASC.

Their website never mentions the 2.316 in regards to the non-SS mags. All their stuff in 6.8/6.5 is stainless and I run those exclusively but I do have some of the longer 223's that get used 95% of the time in my 223 based cases. It really helps in things like the 204 for more elbow room. I have plenty of the 2.260 mags tucked away for GP but they mostly gather dust.

Greg
 
Originally Posted By: varminter .223Ive never loaded any 223 parent cartridge beyond 2.260 but I have a bhw 16" 6x45 that does well with 55 varmageddons and 2200 but has some horizontal that goes away when hand fed at 2.315.

I haven’t seen an issue with loading near mag restraints in my 6x45s. But there’s a lot to consider. Bullet shape plays into it a lot. I am looking at the new Sierra Gamechanger, that 90 gr bullet looks like it will be well beyond 2.260 due to the long VLD-ish profile. But with the long nose, it should feed nicely.
 
Originally Posted By: pahntr760Originally Posted By: varminter .223Ive never loaded any 223 parent cartridge beyond 2.260 but I have a bhw 16" 6x45 that does well with 55 varmageddons and 2200 but has some horizontal that goes away when hand fed at 2.315.

I haven’t seen an issue with loading near mag restraints in my 6x45s. But there’s a lot to consider. Bullet shape plays into it a lot. I am looking at the new Sierra Gamechanger, that 90 gr bullet looks like it will be well beyond 2.260 due to the long VLD-ish profile. But with the long nose, it should feed nicely.

According to sierra....that bullet wont even fit in my 6x6.8. I was told bare bones minimum using the 6.8 case, i need 2.4xx"
 
I got an aluminum one cut perfectly but the tacking results were less then desirable. I have no doubts that cutting and welding a stainless one would be much easier.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top