JorgeI,
I don�t doubt that your 416 works well, that rifle is a $1,500 semi-custom version of the M77 MkII, which was most likely hand-tuned. To see what I�m referring to you�d have to examine one of the standard $500 versions in a deer rifle caliber. Of the three such rifles I had none gripped the case nearly as well as my mil-surp Mausers or CZ-550�s.
As for the bevel, yes, I know it�s to facilitate putting a round directly into the chamber � I discussed that in my prior post. And I could be mistaken but I think even my mil-surps had bevels; however, they sure fed differently. My point regarding the bevel is that the bevel on the Ruger seems more pronounced then on other brands and, though I didn�t mention this earlier, I think the portion that holds the rim isn�t configured well for proper engagement.
On all three of the ones I had I could half-way feed a round, pause, withdraw the bolt, and the round would remain right there on the feed rails. I had to work very hard to make my Mausers or CZ�s do that.
Again though, to use a $1,500 safari rifle as the basis for comparison is to stack the deck in Ruger�s favor. A safari rifle ought to function better than a deer rifle, otherwise what was that extra $1,000 for?
I�ve never discussed this issue without folks getting upset. But I sure didn�t pay creepingdeath to bring up this topic and I�ve seen others bring it up as well. Apparently there are some of us out here who feel this way. Dismiss us if you like but I believe that where there�s smoke there�s fire. Thankfully this �fire� isn�t of any particular significance and they are still dandy rifles; but that doesn�t mean they are without flaws.
