C-Products Announces 2 New Magazines in 7.62×39 for the AR

762x39-mag

C Products Defense has released two new 7.62×39 magazines to the market. The new 28 and 20 round magazines are designed to fit in the standard STANAG magazine pouch without issue, unlike previous in-house and competitor designs that were so large they earned the “banana mag” reputation.

The new magazines feature tested coatings that ensure reliable feeding in the magazine and a tough exterior to take the beating that heavy-use put on metal magazines. Combined with caliber-specific geometries, spring, and follower, the magazines are a huge improvement in 7.62×39 AR reliability.

*Author’s personal note – I have used these magazines extensively in our own R&D. In my experience, they do work as advertised. In fact, we use them for all our internal firearms testing in the caliber. 

Full Press Release Below:

C Products Defense Announces 2 New Magazines

Bradenton Florida – C Products Defense now offers a 30 RD, 28 RD and 20 RD in a 7.62×39 magazine. The new 20 Round magazine in 7.62×39 is an engineering marvel and fits nicely into the palm of your hand.

“This is ideal for many purposes, even bench rest shooting,” states C Products Defense Marketing Director Bill Rogers. “The 7.62×39 will give you a little more knock-down power yet it will take up a smaller amount of real estate on the profile of your gun.”

Both the 28 round and 20 round magazines are new to the lineup. With the advent of AR rifles chambered in 7.62×39 instead of the common .223/5.56, a demand was created by Law Enforcement and other types for a new magazine with a smaller footprint. For agencies faced with more serious threats that required a harder-hitting cartridge and wanting the benefits of the 7.62×39’s lower cost, that demand for this magazine has exploded.

THE CHALLENGE
A standard GI Pouch for 5.56/.223 will hold a 28 round magazine. A casing for 7.62×39 is larger in diameter, so to fit it into a magazine that would fit into the same GI pouch was thought to be impossible. C Products Defense took on the challenge and after 10 months of engineering and extensive testing, the new mags are available at retail.

As with all of C Products Defense magazines, this trio of 7.62×39 mags have gone through extensive testing both in-house and through independent means. OEM’s have conducted extensive testing of C Products Defense magazines, in fact, a major firearm manufacturer recently fired over 100,000 continuous rounds with zero failures, no other magazine even came close. The new trio of 7.62×39 magazines will give you that same confidence in our magazines and take up a smaller footprint.

Industry experts, familiar with the 7.62×39 round, are saying the C Products Defense 7.62×39 magazine is the only one that actually works every time.

“Because we have completely re engineered our magazines and because of the extensive testing we have conducted to back that up, it is without any reservation that I can tell any shooter on any AR platform that our magazines will not jam,” says C Products Defense President Adel Jamil. “We are the only magazine in the world guaranteed never to jam! In fact, a Latin major on our staff has nicknamed the magazine Nunquam Deficiat, which in Latin means Never Fail. That’s exactly how we engineer our magazines – to never fail! How can we make such a claim? There are two key differences that set our magazines apart from any other magazine.”

#1 Specially Engineered, Caliber-Specific Geometry – We threw out all of the conventional thinking pertaining to the manufacturing magazines and we have engineered all of our magazines from the ground up. Each magazine has their own caliber-specific geometry. In addition, our unique manufacturing process ensures that all of your CPD Mags are identical as engineered.

# 2. Advanced Proprietary Coatings – Our Advanced Proprietary Coatings, which attach at the molecular level, greatly decreases the coefficient of friction, providing greater performance and service life through an unparalleled lubricity. Ensuring that, even if you’re using the dirtiest ammunition on the planet – Our Magazine Will Not Jam!

C Products Defense is America’s family-owned magazine manufacturer and an ISO 9001 certified company proud to be manufacturing state-of-the-art magazines in the United States. C Products Defense uses raw materials sourced in America and our magazines are made in America by Americans. C Products Defense produces the only magazine in the world guaranteed never to jam. We provide magazines for hunters, competitive shooters, military, law enforcement in addition to OEM magazines for firearm manufacturers



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • Vitsaus

    Ugh. I hate those mags. Looks like Salvador Dali painted an AR magazine.

  • Bob Jenkins

    Well, here’s hoping they work better than the half dozen different 7.62×39 AR magazines I tried before deciding it was a fool’s errand trying to get it to work in a straight mag well.

    • spotr

      The very old “C-products” 7.62×39 magazines worked flawless. But that was a different company (now out of business) located in CT. The new “C-products Defense” located in FL changed the design and I have had over 20 new magazines that failed to work or even load correctly. Also have had failed ASC and Stoner 7.62×39 mags. It is very frustrating. I actually considered trying to build my own because the “working” ones are so rare.

  • Van The Handcannon Man

    “our magazines will never jam” This looks like a challenge for Mattv2099

  • thedonn007

    For as much as I shoot, I am going to stick with .223 and .300 BLK.

    • Dracon1201

      7.62×39 is cheaper than either. You might be able to shoot more.

      • thedonn007

        I am seeing wolf steel cased .223 and 7.62×39 both for about $0.22 a round. So I can practice with .223 and hunt with .300 BLK. All I need is to pin my upper in .300 BLK to my lower, no funky mags, or bolt to mess with. But yea, I do need to get out and shoot more.

        • Dracon1201

          I think we all need to get out and shoot more…

  • john huscio

    “Just get an ak”

    • Cal S.

      Because a WWII design is totes better, right? I gave up on the idea of a 7.62x39mm AR when I realized that .22 caliber projectiles are actually better as mid-size cartridges go. Even the Soviets realized that when they switched to the 5.45×39.

      • Esh325

        By 1947, WW2 was long over. It’s probably true that the 5.56×45 or 5.45×39 is a better combat round in most situations, but even the Russians didn’t totally drop the 7.62×39. They must see it still has value in certain situations.
        AK-104 in 7.62×39 at the bottom used by Russian SF.

        • Cal S.

          In other words, it’s essentially a WWII gun. With sucky WWII ergonomics. Seriously, the US has modernized it’s armament 3 times since then. “Well, the AK is just so timeless.” Right…

          Oh, you can use anything at close range for SOF. Even 5.7×28.

          • Esh325

            The AR10/AR15 is a really old design too. The controls on the AK are probably not the best, but certainly the rifle has a lot of other positive characteristics that make it very desirable. Newer variants such as the AK-12 and Saiga MK-107 seek to fix the ergonomic problems.

          • Cal S.

            Yes, but about 20 years younger. The fact of the matter is that the design was before its time, and has been improved upon regularly since, thanks in part to a thriving civilian market. The biggest lap forward the AK had for the longest time was the side scope mount.

            It’s high time they did something better…

          • Esh325

            That’s not correct actually. The AR15 was designed in about 1957 which would make it 10 years younger than the AK-47, not 20 years. The AK has been gradually improved upon since also. If you look at the pictures, they’ve already done something better than the side mount. Nearly all Russian SF use a flat top rail. And they are considering issuing the AK-12 to regular combat units, just upgrading existing AK-74’s.

            http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Ira2qMgDRaE.jpg

          • Cal S.

            If I’m not mistaken, the M16 (the first of the ‘AR-15s’ the US put into service) was designed in 1962, no?

            Look, I’m not saying they haven’t made some improvements, but the point still stands that it’s basically the same thing that it has been since the 40s. It’s still got a charging handle you have to release some control of the firearm to articulate. Granted, the same with an AR, but not on a fresh reload thanks to that handy bolt release button. It lacks a LRBHO, which is even a step backward from the SKS. Magazine changes are…challenging to accomplish quickly and require more practice than an AR does for the same speeds (who needs a tactical reload?). Oh, and your options for sights are these:
            1) Iron sights
            2) Scope
            3) Red dot
            Choose one. Oh, and be sure you spring for the cheek riser, too. Are you telling me they’ve fixed all those issues? Maybe with the AK-12, but not even in your picture. Hope the battery doesn’t run out, because that’s a good minute of disassembling before he can get his irons back into play. If he didn’t replace the rear post completely to get that rail on top, that is.

            I’ve owned an AK myself, so I don’t speak without having been there. Worst purchase I ever made/happiest feeling ever when I sold it to the next sucker. Even if I wanted to find good aftermarket stuff for it, I had to sort through a dizzying array of options because proper fit was dependent upon year (pattern), country of origin, and luck-o’-the-draw QC compliance. I still don’t know how mine ever got out of that goatherd’s barn where it was made with a front sight post visibly canted several degrees to the right. I didn’t need more than a plumb-line to see that (which was probably one of the tools in that freaking “plant’s” inventory, and was likely used to measure more tolerances in that gun’s parts than I’d be comfortable knowing about). Did it function? You bet, if you held your tongue just right when you put the magazine in. Yes, I bought it brand new.

            Maybe it has less to do with WHEN it was designed and more with HOW it was designed. Yeah, I’ll go with that.

          • Esh325

            The M16 is nothing but an improved military version of the AR15. If you want cherry pick dates then, then I can cherry pick dates also with the AKM being adopted in 1959. That’s only a 3 year difference then. I believe I already mentioned that the AKM and AK-74 have ergonomic issues. The AR15 is not a perfect rifle either if you look at it’s history. It’s actually extremely easy to tell the rifle I showed you in that picture still has iron sights in tact, so your statement about having to choose between one is flat out wrong. Honestly, I don’t think it’s fair to judge the AK based on limitations that come from you living in the USA. The USA market has been always catered to the AR15 because that’s their rifle and they have import restrictions like 922R that don’t exist in other countries that allow AK Rifles. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about with your last statement about the magazine. In all the Chinese,Bulgarian,Romanian, and Russian rifles I fired they all took and accepted magazines just fine, and functioned.

          • Cal S.

            No kidding. It’s abundantly clear that I saw that as well, hence my statement about “Hope the battery doesn’t run out, because that’s a good minute of disassembling before he can get his irons back into play.” Look at it. It’s got the magnifier, optic, and laser in the way. The point is the mounting options on the AK, a vast majority of the time, ensure you cannot co-witness with the irons, or even see the irons if your optic goes down. In extreme cases, scope/red dot mounting options necessitate the removal of the rear post entirely.

            I didn’t say the AR was always perfect. I’ve only argued that it’s a much more modern design from its inception and has only been made better (and more reliable) over its lifespan. Thanks to its inline bolt/recoil spring design, it was easy to improve on the sighting options when times changed. The AK? Not so much. It’s always been handicapped by a good six inches of relatively unusable real estate on the top. Yes, they’re fixing that, but the problem still remains that it only increases the sight/barrel offset.

            Imma happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but mine happened to be a Zastava. Yeah, it was 922r’d, but that had zilch to do with basic QC procedure fails at the “plant” in which it was made. Isn’t that the favorite argument of AK lovers? “Oh, they work just splendid and never fail! So long as they’re Russian made, Russian equipped, blessed by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, and never leave Russia.” We cater to the AR? Yeah, because it doesn’t shoot 7.62x39mm (generally), which brings me full-circle to my original argument…

          • Esh325

            If having cowitnessed sights was so important as you make it sound, then why do many AR users not even bother with them? An inline bolt design that prohibits a folding stock. So you’re going to say all AK’s are junk based on ONE bad sample could somebody who buys a poorly made AR15 say all AR15’s are junk then? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29a8d6a820b2d478095cd726cfbef21681bfb619941d2cb78bd00982a52f69e7.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae2e4945567c0456227433225f5d3c768f0c0723a9af16d612b595fbd48a5676.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d43fe6f89f2a888e5589c2a67c01e3cce44ca519c78cfd7f45f438500ec994d7.jpg
            http://filurn.tumblr.com/image/85597997394

          • Cal S.

            FYI, the third guy down has irons on top of his optic. So yeah. Dude, if they don’t have them, then that’s on them. No one’s saying you have to. You missed my point. With an AR you CAN co-witness irons and optics if you WANT to. You really, really ought to, though.

            Wow. You know how many do that already with ARs? You know how many people actually believe AKs cannot fail because the grizzled gun store clerk told them so? You know the saying “Don’t knock it till you try it”? Well, I tried it. So now I can knock it. I found that the AK’s ergonomics don’t match up with what I wanted, I found the mounting solutions didn’t line up with my desires (for reasons I’ve gone into in previous comments), and I examined the reasons why (engineers tend to do that). At no time have I said that the AK is not a functional weapon, nor that it isn’t a good one. It is, however, inferior to dozens of other types in the ergonomics and modernization categories. Including the AR-15.

          • Mark

            Don’t forget the lack of accuracy. I can shoot clover-leaf sized groups at 25 yards with my AR when zeroing, but my AK (which I got rid of) was all over the place

          • Guido FL

            Yes to the above. AK’s are been upgraded and have evolved. Try a Krebs safety on a AK and be amazed as well as some of the newer stock options.

          • Esh325

            What exactly do mean you can use anything at close range for SOF?

          • Cal S.

            Not like you’d be sniping with 7.62×39…

          • Esh325

            Where did I say they use the 7.62×39 for sniping?

          • Cal S.

            I didn’t say you did. Hence, closer range. You’re getting awfully nit-picky.

          • Guido FL

            Seems the AK47 worked very well in Vietnam to our surprise ? Battle field conditions don’t related to paper punchers.

      • Dracon1201

        Finland thinks you’re dumb.

        • Cal S.

          Polandball doesn’t care… 😉

      • BrandonAKsALot

        Because Russia is still using type 1 AKs, right? The design has literally been continuously refined and altered since it’s inception. That and the ammunition has been as well. Just because our selection of 7.62×39 is pretty lackluster doesn’t mean there weren’t improvements. I have always preferred 5.45 personally and even that cartridge has gone through several alterations. The AK-74M and 100 series AKs are some damn fine firearms. They are showing their age a lot at this point, but even those are around 25 years old.

      • john huscio

        ARs + 7.62×39 = iffy proposition. I recognize the AR is the better platform for a lot of uses, but the AK (IMO) through its combination of durability, reliability and the fact it fires a largely barrier blind round reliably (unlike ARs chambered in the same) makes it a must have….sure, you can get MK318 rounds that are barrier blind (at least compared to the run of the mill xm855, m193 or ss109) but be prepared to spend a small fortune if you want enough to sock away for a rainy day……anyways I like and have both rifles, they each have their own purpose….I just think AKs do 7.62×39 better than any AR currently on the market

        • Cal S.

          Meh, not really. Yes about mixing ARs and 7.62×39. However, the 5.56 actually has relatively equal penetration versus the 7.62×39 depending on the barrier. Brick tests have shown relatively equal performance. M855 will actually out-penetrate standard 7.62×39 ball cartridges. The reason? The 5.56NATO has disproportionately higher powder behind its bullet diameter than the 7.62×39 does.

          As far as durability and reliability, that gap has closed so tight in recent years it’s almost irrelevant. I used to believe in the AK reliability myth, but my own experiences with both and the experiences I’ve seen with others has shattered that forever. I’m now convinced that argument is simply handed down from previous generations. “But muh 2007 dust tests!” Yeah, well, you can make any weapon fail, including AKs, if you put enough crud in them. Trust me, I’ve seen it happen with the latter.

      • Guido FL

        I own both AK47 & AK74 models and each was designed very well. The .30 AK47 is a real knock down round on wild pigs. The 5.45×39 out preforms the 5.56 and costs less to shoot.

  • Esh325

    To me, trying to adapt the 7.62×39 to the AR almost always involves hokey works arounds. The CMMG rifle seems to be the most impressive with regards to 7.62×39 AR’s.

  • Lance

    If you want a Soviet caliber AR get a 54.45mm 7.62×39 is too bulky and face its lower in voracity!

    • Cal S.

      I think I understood 10-14.559% of that comment.

      • BrandonAKsALot

        Duh, is lower in voracity. It’s less hungry.

    • Lance

      I meant 7.62 was far lower in vorticity than 5.45mm.

      • Cal S.

        As far as I know, that has as little effect as rotational lift on a bullet (nonexistent). Am I wrong? Both 5.56 and 5.45 have longer effective ranges and more stable flight paths.

        • Docduracoat

          I have had my Colt Sporter Lightweight in 7.62 x 39 since 1995
          I bought it so I would only need to buy one caliber for my Chinese AK’s, SKS and this AR.
          The Colt shoots 3 inch five shot groups at 100 yards with Tulammo from Walmart.
          I shoot at least a case a year through it. I use a 30 round c products mag I have had ever since they first came out. Also frankenmags made from welding a AR upper section to an AK magazine lower part. They hold 40 rounds and work great, just like the c products mag.
          After 15 years and about 15,000 rounds, I broke a bolt lug.
          Colt would not sell me a 7.62 bolt, so I replaced it with a “superbolt” from another company.
          Another 10 years and only 5,000 rounds later, it is still chugging along like a champ!
          I now have a lefty configured Steyr Aug and it is the rifle I shoot the most. I only bring an AK and an AR along for my righty son and my friends to shoot.
          Mrs Docduracoat has her own Bushmaster in .223.
          Hers is Duracoated in the Bengal Tiger orange, black and white colors.

          • Cal S.

            Substitute “Stable flight paths” for “Flatter trajectories”. Those two also stay supersonic longer.

            I digress. I completely understand choosing a firearm based on caliber continuity. However, I believe either 5.45 or 5.56 are better based on the above reasoning.

  • jay

    How stupid those army w@nkers had to be, to keep the straight mag well when they went to 30 rounds magazine.
    All you need to f@ck up a wet dream, is a chain of command.

  • KestrelBike

    I swear baby, this only happens when I shoot 7.62!

  • Meat

    Ah the AR7.62×39 love it or hate its the poor mans 300 blackout.
    A mechanic’s special of AR builds, lots of tweaking/adjustments before it runs right but worth it when dialed in.

  • Guido FL

    The 5.56 x 45 ammo is always in short supply and over priced. That’s only one reason I luv my AK’s ! Also cleaning my AR is a pain so I seldom shoot it compared to my very clean shooting AK’s piston operating system rifles. Why more companies are bringing out more DI system AR’s is beyond rational thinking ?

    • Cal S.

      I suppose you still shop brick & mortar for your ammo? Even then, in Tula brand, boxes of 20 7.62×39 and .223 are the same price at my local sports store. In other words: dirt cheap.

    • lomaxima

      Google filthy 14. Quality ARs will run fine dirty. It’s the pos AR’s that won’t. Much like the pos Century built AKs.

  • lomaxima

    I would like to see a 25 rounder.

  • Secundius

    Will it work with the Khyber 44-Bore, too…