Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Detachable Mags

Shaman,

I would guess Ruger has sold far more Americans in the eight years since it was introduced than the total number of 742s made in the 20 years it was produced, probably several times as many.

This may seem strange, but I have owned at least 10 Americans, my first a .308 acquired in 2012, the year they appeared, and have never had to replace any of their magazines. Offhand I can remember a .223, a .22-250, two .243s, two 6mm Creedmoors, two 6.5 Creedmoors, a .308 and 30-06. Still own three of those, the .223, .22-250 and the second 6mm Creedmoor--which is the only RAR I've owned that has the AR-style magazine. Based on this experience, I would suspect Ruger did not have to replace vast numbers of the original magazines. (That's just the centerfires. Have owned a couple of .22 Long Rifles and still have an RAR .22 Magnum--the most accurate .22 Magnum I've owned, and have had quite a few.)

I did get three RARs directly from Ruger, and they may have cherry-picked them, but I doubt it, since the others were all purchased either at local stores or from the Campfire Classifieds, and have worked equally well.

I find it easy to single-load centerfire Americans, by sticking a round directly into the chamber.

I don't know why Ruger did not use a blind magazine, but I would guess there are real reasons, whether the popularity of detachable magazines among many shooters, or perhaps liability problems that might arise due to shooters feeling compelled to run every round into the chamber of blind-magazine rifles when "unloading" them. But I have talked to the head of design there, and he said there was a definite reason for every feature, including the bedding system.

In fact the vast majority of other "affordable" bolt-action rifles made in the RAR era also have detachable magazines. Or at least that's been my experience, which includes the Franchi Momentum, Mauser M18, Savage Axis, T/C Venture, Tikka T3x, and some others I've probably forgotten.

I thought the Remington mag goes back to 1960 and they're still selling rifles (auto and pump) that still utilize those mags. That's more like 60 years, but then I'm nitpicking. You're right the 742 itself stopped production in the 80's. I still say it's a crappy magazine design.

No matter how you try to bend it, detachable mags remain popular. As some people have posted, it's a choice. Choose wisely.

As I was saying several posts ago, in the military world with LE mags, they designed a rifle that featured a 10 rd detachable mag, but added a cut off. The magazine was not to be removed, or rounds fed from the magazine unless ordered. They employed a cut off. Using it made the rifle a "single shot repeater". Oxymoronic. But that was from military days when volley fire and the need to control troop fire were the order (literally) of the day.

If you like your RAR, but not the mag, glue it in. Heck, it's just the OEM stock, right? Or did you replace it?

Oh, I'd be the first to say that they're popular. In fact, I can remember a time when I was far less experienced and far more misinformed that I vowed to myself that I would never buy anything but a DM rifle. That was over 20 years ago. It made sense to me then-- sort of the way putting flip-down monitors on sunshades makes sense to some people. You just never know when you're going to get bored with driving and flip it down and watch Youtubes.

As to the specific example of the RAR, I'm currently battling through an issue with an RAR, a Boyd's stock, and an aftermarket single-shot block that replaces the mag. I've got the rifle situated in the stock (I love the stock, BTW) I can get the factory mag to work, but getting the block to fit is eluding me. Gluing is not an option with a factory mag, because it is bloody hard to single feed rounds in the 223 RAR. Herr Mule Deer says he has no trouble. but I can't seem to do it without removing the rifle from the bags and tilting the barrel towards the ground. For a rifle that is destined to work wholly from the bench, this is impractical.

The animosity I have for DM's goes far deeper and goes much farther back. This current RAR Predator thing is just another brick in the wall.

Not a fan of them on hunting rifles. The convenience factor, to me, is very minor indeed. I’ve a couple rifles with them, one of which is my Sako 85 which can be left in and loaded through the top, which is how I do it.

The best of both worlds.

I am warming to the idea of DBM's on hunting rifles. However, the two rifles I have had with them I havent been happy with at all. The first was a Ruger American 22-250 that would not feed from the magazine anywhere close to acceptable. The second was a Howa Alpine that would not feed at all until I jerry rigged/modified the magazine

Mike,

Which is yet another example of what my previous post here mentioned: European rifle manufacturers are often ahead of U.S. manufacturers in detachable magazines.

John,

That does seem strange. I have first-hand experience with at least 7 CF Americans that I can recall offhand, and 6 of the 7 either started with or eventually developed problems feeding from the factory magazine. Those 6 rifles all used the rotary mag. The 7th uses the AICS-style mag. I had Ruger send me a few replacement rotary mags, but those eventually had problems too so I stopped bothering with replacements and just started converting to some form of AICS-compatible stock setup (whether BM or chassis). Feeding is flawless in those rifles after the switch. I must have received some of the worst RAR rotary mags Ruger made, since there are lots of people who have no issues, but my experience with and opinion of that magazine design are not favourable. I’m guessing you received some of the better ones.

Jordan,

Dunno why I haven't run into problems, but as noted I've owned RARs since they first came out.

Will note that one guy I know had consistent problems with the magazines UNTIL he replaced the original factory stock with an aftermarket model, which of course was more expensive. He didn't have any problems with the same magazines after that.

One thing I did notice after using RARs for eight years now is the standard injection-molded stocks have been vastly improved over the first ones, which were made of a pretty floppy plastic, which not only often required some rasp-work on the forend channel to be truly free-floated, but didn't have the reinforcement grid inside the forend. The later stocks have been made of a noticeably stiffer polymer, which also may aid magazine function. Most are also adequately free-floated out of the box, with the forend stiff enough to remain that way.

Have known a couple people who had trouble with .22-250s feeding well, which may be due to the tapered case. I have even had some minor feeding problems with more conventional rifles chambered for the .22-250 (or the .250 Savage). My present .22-250 RAR, one of the special run of 1-8 twist rifles Whittaker Guns offered for a while, has fed very well, but again it's a later rifle with the stiffer stock. But I suspect the .22-250s that haven't fed reliably might work fine with the .22-250 AI (or .22 Creedmoor, which is basically the same thing).

Shaman

You are pretty close in thinking 1960. First year of production of the M760 was 1952. According to Eugene Myszkowski, who authored a book on Remington pumps and semiautos, there have been 9 versions of M760/7600 magazines. Unfortunately, all versions are the same design in how they are latched in the receiver though.

IME, great care needs to be paid in inserting the magazine into the magazine well in order to not get an unintentional mag release. Correct insertion is helped if the magazine is tuned and they all seem to need it now and then after some use. Although I have tuned a few magazines, it does not get easier. It is a tedious process of nudging the sides of the magazine so that it will slide into the magazine well without hanging up anywhere . This allows feeling the 'click' as the spring loaded latch drops into the locking lugs at the back of the magazine. Next, by tugging on the magazine, I can check if the lug at the front of the magazine is engaged in it's mortice. Doing this, I've reduced the events of unintentional magazine drops considerably.

Yeah, it is a crappy design.

John,

That is an interesting bit of additional info. I've noticed the same regarding the evolution of the RAR stock. The newest RAR I purchased, a RAR-P with AICS-style mag, has the newer-style stock with the reinforcement grid. That particular rifle came with the barreled-action off-center in the stock, so the forearm nearly touches on one side. I tried the heating method with a heat gun a couple of times to center the barrel in the channel, but to no avail. I think I'll break down and use a rasp to generously free-float the barrel. The rifles I mentioned in my previous post range in age from when the RAR first came out to one that was purchased about a year ago, chambered in .223, 6.5 Creedmoor, and 7-08, and sit in factory stocks, Boyd's stocks, and an MDT chassis. As mentioned, they've all had rotary mag issues regardless of stock or chambering. Most of the issues I've observed involve the cartridge binding down inside the mag, and the follower spring failing to raise the cartridge up to the top of the mag.

To add a bit more detail, I've noticed two problems with the rotary mags. The first is what seems to be inadequate spring pressure on the follower. I've tried wrapping the coil spring an additional revolution in a couple of mags, but that didn't seem to help on a long-term basis. The second problem is that the mags are made from very soft plastic, so when loading poly-tipped bullets near mag length, the recoil of even a 6.5 Creedmoor is enough to eventually cause the bullet tips to produce an indent in the front interior wall of the magazine. Tips of bullets can then get caught in the indent and the rear of the cartridge is raised up by the follower spring but the front is stuck in the indent, producing a nose-diving round.

There is no downside to a detachable magazine

I honestly DON’T understand that. ^^
I’ve been around and used Dad’s 760 since the early 1960s and since then I’ve had
760s and Model Sixes. I have 3 now.

I also have 2 Tikkas. I’ve never had a single problem with those DMs.
I choose DMs over Blind Magazines EVERY day of the week.

In ALL these years I’ve never lost ONE and I’ve never had ONE to fall out.

I DON’T understand how anyone could lose a DM. The magazine is JUST as
important as the BOLT.

Where does the bolt belong ?
Where does the magazine belong ?

Same answer.... IN the Rifle.

Not just my opinion.... My experiences.

Jerry

C'mon now, even the most ardent admirer has to admit that some aren't designed or executed very well, and the ones that stick out don't do anything for a rifle's appearance or handiness.

If you say there's no downside to a good detachable magazine, I can buy that.

My rifles with DBM outnumber my rifles with blind mag or hinged floorplate. I greatly prefer an APA RTG bottom metal and AI mags. Feeding problems have been nonexistent since I switched to that setup.