In February of 2022, T3 Gear released its new line of laminate nylon products to include a new line of M4 Magazine and Pistol Pouches. These pouches merge together some of the market’s newest, lightweight nylon materials, with the precision of machine-laser cut designs.

Made from the same laser cut (LC) laminate nylon as the new T3 Geronimo LC Plate Carrier, the M4 and pistol magazine pouches are designed to hold between one and three full-sized magazines. They provide a secure and weight efficient pouch, with minimal cross section when empty. It also uses TEX 70 bonded nylon thread throughout to ensure all stress points maintain their durability.

On the front exterior, each rifle magazine pouch is a 5×2 laser-cut MOLLE field for attaching other accessories or pouches to. The pistol pouches themselves have a flush, minimalist exterior to prevent any accidental snagging or catching. Each pouch uses an anchored, elastic shock cord with laminate nylon pull tab to ensure positive retention of the magazine.

The rear of each M4 Magazine and Pistol LC Pouch uses laminate nylon MOLLE straps (with rigid tabs) to secure them to any compatible field.

The M4 Magazine and Pistol LC Pouches is available in Multicam (featured) and Coyote.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): With an MSRP between $26.99 and $63.99 (M4 Magazine) or $17.99 – $28.99 (Pistol) the actual cost is determined by the end-user between a single magazine pouch, or multiple pouches joined together. For T3’s M4 LC pouches a single ($26.99), double ($46.99), or triple mag pouch ($63.99) configuration is available—while pistol pouches are single ($17.99) or double ($28.99). In contrast, examples of market alternatives using similar materials would be the Triple Mag Panel – Laminate ($49) from Grey Ghost Gear or the Triple M4 Magazine Pouch ($69.05) from Blue Force Gear, or the Single ($29.95) and Double ($39.99) Gunnar Pistol Mag Pouches from Sentry. As such, these variations show that amid the market the M4 Magazine and Pistol pouches are appropriate (or of average) cost to the consumer given its materials and design currently available.
• Comfort – Average (3/5): From a comfort aspect, the new LC magazine pouches were something that was appropriately (or of average) light in weight for its material and not unbalancing for the number of pouches per shingle. With a minimalist profile, the LC magazine pouches did not have excess bulk on the exterior that otherwise obstructed the range of motion, nor impeded weapon/gear/magazine manipulations during stressor drills. The pull tabs, made of the same laminate nylon material, were somewhat hard to get purchase on as the fabric really lacked a tactile grip (as noted in rubberized pull tabs) so immediately accessing secured magazines was sometimes difficult. One area of recommendation for T3 would be to widen the pull tabs to offer better/wider surface area for grip and control.
• Durability – Excellent (5/5): The durability of laminate nylon as one of the latest fabrics puts it as a fabric with an abrasion rating often at/above 1000D and greater than many other more traditional nylons. As such, the LC magazine pouches handled the friction of repeated draw/re-holstering of magazines without any indication of fraying or compromised threading. The rear of the pouch’s interior was also layered with a rubberized material to further defrayed wear against hard-corner contact to magazines over time and continual use. Extensive bartack and double-line stitching was noted along key stress points to add reinforcement to the overall pouch.
• Functionality – Good (4/5): Functionally, the LC magazine pouches did a good job of being what they were intended for—a magazine pouch. It had a low profile, and retained the magazines (loaded and unloaded) well. The pouches themselves are unstructured so they would occasionally collapse when the magazine was drawn out of the pouch, thus making re-holstering magazines sometimes difficult to drive into the opening. Kydex inserts may resolve that issue by adding that overall structure and keep the opening clear and available. It should be noted here that the attachment system was similar to other T3 products whereby the MOLLE compatible material was secured by tucking the band back under the final loop and this gave the overall pouch a very sturdy attachment to the plate carrier.
• Weight – Average (3/5): With a variety of weight, the overall volume of fabric was directly related to the number of magazine slots per shingle. For T3’s M4 LC pouches a single (1.7 ounces), double (3.8 ounces), or triple mag pouch (5.4 ounces) configuration is available—while pistol pouches are available as a single (0.07 ounces) or double (0.15 ounces). When compared to the market alternatives; the Triple Mag Panel – Laminate (10.6 ounces) from Grey Ghost Gear, or the Triple M4 Magazine Pouch (4.6 ounces) from Blue Force Gear, or the Single (2.82 ounces) and Double (6.72 ounces) Gunnar Pistol Mag Pouches from Sentry all illustrate overall that for its material and design the T3 Gear LC Magazine Pouches are appropriately (or of average) weight amid the market and for its competitors.

Overall Rating – Above Average (18/25)

Product Link: https://www.t3gear.com/laser-cut/

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via High Ground Media, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.