I don’t really understand the issue. This is how it works for me:
Is that what’s happening for you?
The main issue is that attachments on weapons should not count when weapon is stored in storage box. Only the weapon itself should count.
Example:
If you have a weapon in your inventory (not equipped in your hands), weapon itself uses 2x inventory slots. Add scope to the weapon and weapon still uses 2x inventory slots. Add ammo and weapon still takes up 2x slots. That is how weapons are in inventory and that’s how they should be in storage box as well.
Else-ways, when attachments count in storage box, then they must count in your inventory as well. Meaning that when you have weapon with ammo and scope on it, it must take 4x of your inventory slots to keep it there, not 2x like it currently is.
Did you get it now?
Yes, I got it now. You can flag your posting to ask Xezr to move it to Feedback/Feature requests.
EDIT: I would actually second this request, now that I think about it.
I support this too. This hard limit to the 100 incl. Attachements is very annoying.
Yes that change is totally annoying. Instead of changing it to a 2 slot count for a weapon with any attachments, as stated iIrc, to get rid of the Plundra count overshooting 100, all they changed is a hardcap of 100 now. Really… sad…
The only positive thing for now is, that no stored weapons were lost…
But does not help to have this thread in the bug report section as everything is working as intended. And now that I think about it, moving this thread does not really work well (it is written as a bug report/discussion).
Why not write a proper feature request over there in the fitting category?
@pegnose It’s here because it appears to be a bug. It’s reasonable to think plundra and character inventory would work to the same standards, until the devs tell us otherwise.
I could not have said it better.
It makes absolutly no sence in my opinion that a full equiped weapon takes two slots in my inventary and 6 in the plundra. And therefor I would still call it a bug.
From a player perspective, you are perfectly right. From a balancing perspective, you as a dev want to limit item possession. I think it works as intended. It might also be the more fail safe solution. It might be a mere oversight. It does not appear to be a bug to me.
In any case, I don’t like how it works.
I’ll flag this thread for Xezr. Maybe he can get a dev to look at this quickly, so that we know what we are talking about.
I would say it works as it is intended now. The earlier behavior wasn’t as intended but a bug.
Actually, no. This issue isn’t some kind of balancing feature from the devs.
I don’t know how long you’ve been playing GZ but i’ve played it since launch and in the beginning, there was no storage box whatsoever. If devs want to limit the items you can have in any point or time, why implement the storage box in the first place?
Also, this topic isn’t about a missing feature that may need to be added, to merit this topic to be called “feature request”. What this topic is about, is the issue that has been present since the Storage boxes came in the August’s Update.
As simple as possible:
In inventory: AG4 + barrel mod + mag mod + scope + vision mod + ammo = 2x inventory slots.
In storage box: AG4 + barrel mod + mag mod + scope + vision mod + ammo = 7x inventory slots.
For a fair gameplay, both inventory slot usages must be same. Either the example weapon: fully upgraded AG4, uses 7x slots in your personal inventory (which is 40x slots when you have Carry Capacity lvl2) or 2x slots in storage box.
You’re mixing up two different issues.
My issue is about weapon with attachments using more space in storage box that it should, while what you are talking about is the storage box counter surpassing 100/100. Latter is fixed, yes, but former is not.
Perfeclty sumerized and easy to understand. Now they just have to fix it 
This is not about fairness as it is the same for every player. The Plundra is a bonus with an item limitation. The fact that we can carry even more in the inventory by equipping attachments is an additional bonus. That is another way to look at it.
Let us wait for a dev to state whether this is a bug. I don’t really believe it will be changed faster by stating it is one.
That said, there have been many complaints about inventory and plundra usability. I am pretty sure this will be revamped soon. Let’s all hope they prioritize it! 
Either way, it’s reasonable to expect it to be consistent. That’s all @Aesyle is pointing out. Parity in player inventories. Not this go-go-gadget expanding weapons business.
It’s definitely not working as intended, it never has.
First problem was a weapon plus x attchments used up a sort of 2+x slots in the plundra.
“Sort of” because in some kind of way the plundra counted correctly up to 100 slots and added the number of slots for the attachements on top, e.g. 121/100 .
Now the counter is hardcapped on 100 but sadly no one thought about the 2+x problem…
And I’m pretty sure it was said in one stream after the Plundra invention, that they wanted to fix it to 2 slots per weapon, Attachements or not.
So it’s not working as intended right now and everyone who has stored a few weapons in their Plundra is pretty much f*cked right now, because of the hardcap of 100…
Hi, thanks for reporting this!
We are aware of this issue and we are working on a fix for it. The intended design is that a weapon with attachments should take as much space in the Plundra as it does in the inventory (2 slots).
Many thanks for your reply, Bjorn, and I really hope you provide us with a hotfix for that and maybe the “You are not alone”-mission problem and we don’t have to wait until late december.
Pretty please…
Thank you for the clarification!
Thank you for your acknowledgement. 
I hope to see the fix in December’s Update.
To report a different issue, make a topic of your own. It’s not nice to hijack this topic just because developer answered here. 
As of January’s Update, the Plundra bug is fixed.
patch notes: https://generationzero.com/en/blog/january-update
Thank you @Bjorn ! 