Their main selling point is that you get more boolits for the same magazine, the constant force part is only important if you want to make a really long single or double stack magazine for some reason. And I'm quite sure that you can make the feedlips of a magazine sturdy enough so that they can bear the force of the spring, regardless of the amount of cartridges left.
Magazine Capacity vs Carry
Gavin Hall
Austin Taylor
That is because the spring needs to be strong enough to reliably feed the last few rounds. The longer the magazine the worse the issue gets.
Which isn't the issue. Whilst a conventional design adapts to the number of cartridges in the magazine, providing less force at a lower capacity and more at a higher capacity, a constant force spring magazine has to try and use a set amount of force to move a varying amount of weight. This means that it needs to be able to handle a full load which results in a retardly strong spring at a lower capacity, this creates issues with friction. The greater the capacity of the magazine, the worse this gets.
The only reason to go for a meme constant force spring is slightly greater magazine capacity for a given magazine length. Outside of that, they are less durable, less reliable and more expensive than a conventional magazine design.
Personally I think belt feeding is the way to go, that is assuming of course you don't need to align the belt in the feed tray and all the bullshit, something like the URZ machine gun…
Noah Garcia
I just thought I'd throw this out there: I'm a big believer in inspecting magazines and ammo regularly. My spare mags stashed in my closets, bags, car, etc., never go a whole year without being checked on. I rotate my ammo too… meaning that once a year, those stashed mags are getting fresh boolits.
I started doing this shortly after I first started shooting, when I only had 2 or 3 guns and 1 or 2 mags for each. I'm glad I did, because going through my dozens of mags stashed in various places would suck if I didn't already have a system in place.
Anyway, 7 years later and I've only replaced 1 questionable spring, but I'm glad I caught it during an inspection and not during a defensive shooting.
Nathan Jackson
Yet they're still here.
Wyatt Watson
I also believe in the power of belt-fed, but not necessarily for pistols firing metallic cartridges. For those space is a premium, and there are already such magazines out there for them. But now that I think about it, you could make a gas-powered copy of the infamous Dardick revolver that uses belts. The open chamber system woud be capable of driving the belt, and the only problem you'd have to solve is ejection, but I think you could do that with a proper belt design. Of course, I imagine that the ammo box would be exactly like a double-fed magazine, just without any kind of a spring.
Blake Richardson
>being so girly you can't insert a fully loaded magazine into a closed bolt
kill yourselves.
Owen Carter
False equivalence - those rifles were unissued and buried in the desert before being dragged out and pressed into service.
Sustained use brings about parts failure and an expected loss of proper headspace, which was remedied by premade replacement locking shoulders.