>I'm of the opinion that aftermarket magazines for any gun are shit outside of the group of most well known manufactuers (Pmags, Lancers, etc.)

Yet you bought a bunch.

>>29755404
Well if they turn out to be not shit then i got 4 decent mags for not that much $

>>29755407
If they're bad, just wait until Hillary is elected and sell for 20-30 a pop

>>29755373
It really varies from gun to gun. I have two ARs that require decent magazines, usually Thermold or better and one AR that I can feed from dubious Asian import mags I bought for $2.50 a piece.

In short, try them. $10 is a lot for AR mags, so they are probably fine.

>>29755419
Damn that's not a bad idear.

>>29755422
I guess i have no choice.
MP15 is such a slut it should take anything i give it.

D&H magazines are fine op

>>29755477
danke,

I'm not sure how one could fuck up a 30 round USGI desu but i've never heard of D&H before in my life.

They're perfectly fine, OP. They'll make a hell of a lot of noise, but they also won't flex the feedlips like pmags will which can cause mags to not drop free or bind the top two rounds.

As per usual Lancers are the best out there but they ain't that cheap.

>>29755373
Those are good mags OP, as good as PMAGS.

I got them issued when I was in, didn't have any problems, have a good sized stack of them now, never any problems.

>>29755433
Are they from PSA? I bought some okay-tier aluminum mags from them. One of ten didn't feed in my worst AR.

The best metallic mags are probably Colt LE & M, but Brownells brands an excellent mag on par with the Colts I was issued, with a little worse finish on it.

>>29755566
>Are they from PSA?
Nah, my LGS had a basket full of them. Sort of like a clearance rack.