Seafire,
I've owned several centerfire Ruger Americans since they appeared, and right now have three. Haven't had any problems with the magazines but may have been lucky. I do know that Ruger will replace any magazines if customers simply ask.
The early stocks were less than perfect because they weren't stiff enough, so often weren't really free-floated. But at least a couple of years ago Ruger started making them much stiffer, and all three of my present RAR's (a .223, .243 and 6.5 Creedmoor) have the stiffer stocks that were floated/bedded fine from the factory and have remained that way.
Contrary to common Campfire belief, shooters have apparently been bitching about "cheap" rifles as long as rifles have been mass-produced, and some of the formerly cheap rifles are now regarded as classics. I've owned plenty of classic cheap rifles and modern cheap rifles, with generally good results.
Have also owned and tested a bunch of far more expensive rifles that didn't work right for one reason or another, often because the maker had some ideas about "improving" on other, successful rifles. These have included some so-called custom rifles.
Have also had 17 brands of scopes (not individual scopes) fail from sheer shooting on rifles over the decades. Some of these were cheap, but others were really expensive. One of the scopes that's never failed retails for $200. Another brand where several have failed costs at least $800.
As a result of these experiences with both rifles and scopes, I'm doubtful about using price as a criteria for quality.
If you don't like Ruger Americans, why buy them?
