Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I picked up this mag and I’m slightly confused by it. It’s a U-Notch but has LEO markings and a baseplate labeled + instead of +2. Does anyone have any information on these?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
You don't see those any more. Don't know how rare that is but its around 94 or earlier cause of the Brady law. Thats why it's got the restricted markings on it. It could be worth some money. The new ones are 40.00 approx. At least thats what i paid for a pair of them each in about February 2020. I would not give it away. If the top end where the follower goes is in good shape its got some collectability? The rest of it looks in good shape. Take more pictures. Its also got the old style baseplate too. Those are not made like that anymore either. Baseplate is very nice too. You need a gen 2.5 glock 26 for that magazine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
It’s just odd to be a u notch and have leo markings. All the other leo marked mags I have are square notch. The assumed the floorplate was a current part since it only has the + and not +2 on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
Early mags are perhaps my favorite aspect of early Glock collecting as I had to learn about them at the tender young age of 21yrs old when I first got my unrestricted non-resident carry license in Massachusetts which has maintained, in effect, the AWB.

Okay so I understand what the OP is getting at here, and here are my thoughts:

When it comes to mags, especially pre-9/14/1994 mags, we like to think of them in a linear concept, meaning mag design changes occurred at a specific point and then Glock produced no more of the previous version. Generally speaking I think this is true, i.e. when Glock ceased a mag design (usually I think of this in terms of either the metal lining or rear notch) they did not continue to produce the previous design. But I do not believe the design changes strictly occurred, and this is especially true with the early G18 mags.

I have seen post-ban marked U-notch mags before, and I have several theories as to why:

1) In the early 1990's G18 33rd mags were not as popular as they are today. I think this was the case for several reasons:

a - The G18 was new
b - Their application may have been considered by Glock to be solely within the realm of the G18 as opposed to G17/G19 (G26 didn't exist yet, at least not past it's R&D stage.)
c - Anti-gun rhetoric and talk of restrictions were already high. Glock may not have wanted to stoke the fire by widely selling G18 33rd mags for a gun that was already contentious due to it's capacity.​

So given that the 33rd G18 mags were already a low-production item, and the rear U-notch design worked well enough once it was full-metal lined (I've not heard of these mags failing at any higher rate than their successor square-notch mags), Glock may have continued to use the U-notch design on G18 mags for longer than the G17/G18 mags, thus going into post-9/14/1994 production therefore the AWB markings.

2) Although these mags were actually produced pre-9/14/1994, because of their already contentious nature Glock and not wanting to bring down any further negative legislation for the industry and gun hobby may have decided to mark them as post-9/14/1994 and as such sell them only to LEO/Mil. I'm not sure how likely this is because as I understand it Glock would re-purchase pre-ban mags during the ban years, refurbish them and resell them, so I'm not sure Glock would be concerned about selling a true pre-ban mag during the ban years. Having said that, none of us can deny the especially contentious nature of the 33rd mags 25yrs ago, so maybe Glock drew the line there.

3) The markings were applied aftermarket by distributors, wholesalers and vendors. I think this is the least likely theory as the markings on the 33rd mags look identical to those on other ban marked mags.

Note that I used the word "may" a lot above because this is all theory. But I'd welcome others thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Just checked and I also have several extended LEO U-notch magazines. I also would have thought they would have had the older 455 floor plates but no. They have either the 3206 or 7151 floor plates.

They all have 3 or 4 followers, which are correct for the time period of the AWB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Just checked and I also have several extended LEO U-notch magazines. I also would have thought they would have had the older 455 floor plates but no. They have either the 3206 or 7151 floor plates.

They all have 3 or 4 followers, which are correct for the time period of the AWB.
Strange
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top