Pre ban or Post ban Glock mag?

Are these Pre ban or Post ban Glock Mag?

GetAttachment.aspx

No pics posted. But definitely evil.

p.s. you cannot attach any attachment on your hotmail account. You need to download the image and upload to NES or using online photo album/storage like photobucket, flickr...
 
Last edited:
They're square notch... you need a picture of the other side.

U-notch= widely excepted as Pre ban

Square notch, some regard all as post ban, others defer to the QTY of mag release cuts (1 cut=Pre ban, 2 cuts = Post ban).
 
Lots of
condor-color-page-2.gif



But no real answer.

Those mags are FML preban. Good stuff. Stay away from U notch or NFML stuff.
 
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/4944-MA-Identifying-Pre-Ban-Glock-Mags

Looks like 2nd gen FML, most likely pre-ban. Take a look at this post in particular:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...n-Glock-Mags?p=1212316&viewfull=1#post1212316

Your mags match #4, which is pre-ban. Note the square shape of the notch as opposed to the post-ban ones on the right which have a sort of "trapezoid" shape. Also, the position of the caliber marking suggest pre-ban, as the post-ban ones have the caliber markings up higher since they were moved to accomodate the ""Restricted LE/GOVT only" marking. They never moved the markings back down after the ban expired.
 
What about this magazine to the left in each photo as compared to a new magazine on the right? One ambicut. The notch is different. No shaved/tapered sides. It appears to have the same notch / feedlips / liner / high cal. marking as the LEO marked(#5 pic in attached thread on post #9) But with the earlier body of the square notch( pic #4). Could this be one of the high caliber marked prebans?
evy6y8ym.jpg
5ajyhe9e.jpg
u3udejep.jpg
4yteby6y.jpg
u3uhaden.jpg
e4e9esum.jpg
hydu4aza.jpg
ynyvydy6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Glock themselves won't comment on the age of a mag due to the constant changes they have made to the product. The supposition comes from high caliber markings typically. The other identifier is the gen mark on the follower.
 
Ignorance is bliss. Read the law.

(m) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) or (h), any person not exempted by statute who knowingly has in his possession

Don,

That statute prohibits unlicensed possession.

The applicable statute is actually MGL 140-131M...

No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994...

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter140/Section131m
 
They're square notch... you need a picture of the other side.

U-notch= widely excepted as Pre ban

Square notch, some regard all as post ban, others defer to the QTY of mag release cuts (1 cut=Pre ban, 2 cuts = Post ban).

I bought my Glock 17 in August of 1994, it came with 2 square notch mags. The mags are obviously pre ban. Also back in the days I had picked up a bunch of U notch mags, they work flawlessly in my 17, I dont understand the rap on this mags from some people.
 
I bought my Glock 17 in August of 1994, it came with 2 square notch mags. The mags are obviously pre ban. Also back in the days I had picked up a bunch of U notch mags, they work flawlessly in my 17, I dont understand the rap on this mags from some people.

The u notchers sometimes don't drop free, can be quite anoying. Plus when fully loaded they have a tendencey to "bulge" due to a partial metal lining, therefore making it difficult to slide in and remove if need be. Some Unotchers like the 10mm for example are FML and drop nicely.

The 10mm in the pic above i would consider post ban due to the upper location of the "10mm".. But i am no expert and wouldn't buy them myself.
 
Location of caliber marking is NOT an absolute indicator of status. READ the Sticky on Glock Mags.

NOBODY knows for sure and Glock USA is NOT told by Glock Austria which is what either. Pat Sweeney's book and Matt (mgr of AFS) both corroborate what I stated in the above paragraph (former in a book published during the Fed Ban and the latter due to his personal first-hand knowledge).
 
Location of caliber marking is NOT an absolute indicator of status. READ the Sticky on Glock Mags.

NOBODY knows for sure and Glock USA is NOT told by Glock Austria which is what either. Pat Sweeney's book and Matt (mgr of AFS) both corroborate what I stated in the above paragraph (former in a book published during the Fed Ban and the latter due to his personal first-hand knowledge).

Good advice here. I've done a lot of research regarding preban Glock mags and I wouldn't place much confidence in the caliber marking method.
 
One question,
I know I can not buy a Glock out of state and have it shipped to Mass.
But can I walk into a store and just buy my Mags?
 
Location of caliber marking is NOT an absolute indicator of status. READ the Sticky on Glock Mags.

NOBODY knows for sure and Glock USA is NOT told by Glock Austria which is what either. Pat Sweeney's book and Matt (mgr of AFS) both corroborate what I stated in the above paragraph (former in a book published during the Fed Ban and the latter due to his personal first-hand knowledge).
I agree with this and have read through the sticky several times. Gained a lot of knowledge from it. But I do occasionally run across a mag which makes me revisit it. Which is actually why i replied to this thread. While I have not read Pat's book, I have heard the later releases are lacking previous pics. Not sure if this is tue. I also recently came across this post in Glock talk which is news to me.

- not sure who to credit

"The only real physical difference on a 'pre-ban" Factory FML Glock magazine and those manufactured AFTER October 1994 isn't the location of the caliber markings, it's the "dimples" or two holes in the plastic on the back of the magazine between the last four witness holes (on all 9mm examples) and the same dimples on the back of the .40S&W mags (depending on model) and all .45ACP models.

These holes or dimples were left over from the earlier NFML magazine molds that Glock re-used when they introduced the "new" FML magazines in late 1992. These same dimples are on every single NFML Glock magazine regardless of model or caliber. Glock scrapped these old molds and were forced to make new molds when they were required to add the BATF-mandated "Law Enforcement/Government Only" language to the post-Sept. 1994 restricted magazines.

Glock sold many thousands of Post-Ban FML, unmarked Factory magazines overseas for a few years after October 1994 WITHOUT the "LEO-only" language until the BATF forced them to change the design. ALL of these magazines DO NOT have a "high" caliber marking and DO NOT have the dimples. Many of these magazines are sold as "pre-ban". All of the above information is common knowledge among Glock collectors but with all of the confusion, you can see why Glock, Inc. doesn't want to take an "official" position with regards to an absurd State Law. Good luck."

*If I did miss this in th sticky don't crucify me. It's still new to me [smile]
 
Last edited:
The dimple stuff is not something I ever read before.

I thought that I posted a scan of the page in Pat's book in that massive thread at least once or twice. Won't swear to it however and can't find evidence of it right now.
 
The u notchers sometimes don't drop free, can be quite anoying. Plus when fully loaded they have a tendencey to "bulge" due to a partial metal lining, therefore making it difficult to slide in and remove if need be. Some Unotchers like the 10mm for example are FML and drop nicely.

I would make the argument that for defensive use, this kind of mag is SUPERIOR to a drop free mag. Have you ever reached for your gun only to find the mag is not fully seated, usually from the release getting bumped. (directly if you are LH, or indirectly if you are RH)

When you practice reloads, you DO?? practice stripping the mag from the gun, or are you gaming it and expecting it to drop free?? We all shoot IDPA/USPSA for different reasons. I am willing to give up a few tenths to practice correctly. That means my weak hand sweeps down the grip of the gun and throws the empty mag to the ground. It also means an overhand slingshot to drop the slide. Its worth it for me. But we all have different priorities.

So back to the failure. Here is how it works. If you bump the release with a metal lined mag, it will most likely drop out of the gun. Now you are stuck with an expensive club unless you have another mag. You do carry a spare mag? Right? Be honest. Most do not.

If you don't, you are DEFINITELY better off with a U notch mag. If it becomes unseated, the standard tap/rack will solve your problem quickly. The mag will remain in the gun.

If you are LH, its not even arguable. I can not tell you how many times a mag has come unseated when the mag release brushed the base of my trigger finger under recoil. The Gen4 Glocks are better this way. The button is bigger, but does not stand as proud as earlier Glocks.

Just some food for thought.

Don
 
BTW, wrt the dimples . . .

I had lengthy discussions with both the head technician at Glock-USA (Fred) and their Chief Counsel (Carlos) and both never mentioned anything about dimples. Both made it clear that they had no way to tell pre-ban from post-ban absent the Mil/LEO labeling. Note: This discussion came before any ambi cut-outs were implemented by Glock.

So, personally I wouldn't put much stock in the dimples being an absolute indicator of anything.
 
Read this thread from the beginning, as well as others. It says one thing to me very loudly REASONABLE DOUBT. Carry on.
+1

LenS- I just ordered a 3 book package on Amazon. Pat Sweeneys "Gun Digest Book of The Glock" 2nd edition. Also preordered his new book due out in June/July 13 Glock Deconstructed". As well as " Glock: The Rise of the American Gun" by Paul Barrett. I figure I should have some reference mtrl. on hand with the size of my Glock collection. Thanks
 
I agree with this and have read through the sticky several times. Gained a lot of knowledge from it. But I do occasionally run across a mag which makes me revisit it. Which is actually why i replied to this thread. While I have not read Pat's book, I have heard the later releases are lacking previous pics. Not sure if this is tue. I also recently came across this post in Glock talk which is news to me.

- not sure who to credit

"The only real physical difference on a 'pre-ban" Factory FML Glock magazine and those manufactured AFTER October 1994 isn't the location of the caliber markings, it's the "dimples" or two holes in the plastic on the back of the magazine between the last four witness holes (on all 9mm examples) and the same dimples on the back of the .40S&W mags (depending on model) and all .45ACP models.

These holes or dimples were left over from the earlier NFML magazine molds that Glock re-used when they introduced the "new" FML magazines in late 1992. These same dimples are on every single NFML Glock magazine regardless of model or caliber. Glock scrapped these old molds and were forced to make new molds when they were required to add the BATF-mandated "Law Enforcement/Government Only" language to the post-Sept. 1994 restricted magazines.

Glock sold many thousands of Post-Ban FML, unmarked Factory magazines overseas for a few years after October 1994 WITHOUT the "LEO-only" language until the BATF forced them to change the design. ALL of these magazines DO NOT have a "high" caliber marking and DO NOT have the dimples. Many of these magazines are sold as "pre-ban". All of the above information is common knowledge among Glock collectors but with all of the confusion, you can see why Glock, Inc. doesn't want to take an "official" position with regards to an absurd State Law. Good luck."

*If I did miss this in th sticky don't crucify me. It's still new to me [smile]

The kicker here is "Not sure who to credit"

That and how did the BATF get Glock Austria to change a mag being made in other countries? Any actual documentation on this exchange?
Not bashing, just want to genuinely see it.

Anyone can say anything about the mags based upon their research but the problem is even the manufacturer cannot and will not state when a mag is from. Obvious things like the ambi cut will be easy to state as there is a date that relates to the introduction of that cut. Realistically, there will be some mags (high mark square, and now sans "dimples") that you could be prosecuted under and defend with that you cannot REASONABLY not know when they were made.
 
The kicker here is "Not sure who to credit"

That and how did the BATF get Glock Austria to change a mag being made in other countries? Any actual documentation on this exchange?
Not bashing, just want to genuinely see it.

Anyone can say anything about the mags based upon their research but the problem is even the manufacturer cannot and will not state when a mag is from. Obvious things like the ambi cut will be easy to state as there is a date that relates to the introduction of that cut. Realistically, there will be some mags (high mark square, and now sans "dimples") that you could be prosecuted under and defend with that you cannot REASONABLY not know when they were made.
Just pulled it off a thread on Glocktalk. Didn't grab the posters name. Emmetf or something like that. I can backtrack and find it again if you'd like. Just posting something I hadn't seen before. I don't have an opinion either way. Just a piece of the puzzle.
 
One question,
I know I can not buy a Glock out of state and have it shipped to Mass.
But can I walk into a store and just buy my Mags?

You can buy anything you want out of state otc. But when you bring post ban hicaps back in state its then illegal if you are caught with it.

Unless you are an ffl or law enforcement
 
Back
Top Bottom