Am I the only one who hates rotary magazines?

[WarpathEngineering]

O'l Freak....

Thanks for the response and the detailed explanation. If any condition exists it appears that the forward magazine index, where the head of the hex screw positions the magazine in the well, may be too large. While the magazine locks in securely and sits freely in the magazine well with no interference from the wood stock, the forward portion of the magazine while locked up has an excess amount of vertical play. This vertical play is such that I believe it is allowing the magazine to droop far enough below it's designed level, thereby increasing the chambering angle of the round. When mag fit is checked against a friends 60-70s era 10/22, mag lock up is tight with very little play once again leading me to believe that the forward magazine index of my rifle may be to large. As for the aft plunger, with the exception of an aftermarket extended mag release it remains stock and functions freely, however I intend to re-install the stock mag release to rule out the possibility of reduced spring pressure or plunger travel. While I have the action removed from the stock, I will investigate the theory of an oversized forward index hole.

As to the magazines jamming, your suggestion of snugging up the hex screw and then backing off 1/16 turn proved to be the winning solution for the one stuck mag that I still had partially loaded. A slight loosening of the hex screw freed up the rotary and allowed the rounds to advance. Thanks again.

 

[Ol'Freak]

I owned a 77/22 Magnum for a while awhile back and the mechanical makeup of its magazine release vibes is long forgotten. But on a 10/22, the mag release resides at the front of a box like trigger housing retained within the receiver sidewalls by two full width receiver pins, a slip fit from either side. If there's enough slop in the receiver pins' fit combined with a stock that's bearing down too heavily on the trigger housing's backside, as the back end of the trigger housing is pressured downwards the trigger housing will pivot on the rear receiver pin levering the front end upwards, taking the magazine release plunger with it, and so also the rear of the magazine giving the magazine a nose down attitude.

So, assuming the fit of the screw head is good at the front end and provided that your 77/22's magazine release lever and arm are allowing the release plunger fully forward so it's stopped only by the magazine's backside when its front side ends up butted to the receiver wall, then ya might wanna look into if there's something acting on the backside of whatever contains the release plunger, causing it jack the plunger's nose end up so also the rear of the magazine and so giving the magazine its nose down attitude.

 

[WarpathEngineering]

UPDATE:

I took some time this afternoon to take a closer look at the magazine issues I've been having. After removing the action from the stock, I reinstalled the trigger guard assembly and snapped in a 10 rd magazine. The mag locked up tight, had little to no vertical play, and with the upper edges of the magazine made good contact against the sides of the action. With the mag still in lock up, I attempted to position the mag well liner into place and this is where I noticed a potential problem. As the liner pushes down and contacts the beveled end of the forward magazine index bulkhead, it had a tendency to force the mag rearward. Since it is impossible to position the liner permanently and correctly without the stock in place, I remounted the action in the stock only utilizing the trigger guard screw. With the mag in place and in full lock up, I placed the mag well liner into place when I noticed that the screw hole in the stock did not align properly with the mag well liner as it sat in its mortice. With the rifle upside down, as the screw is tightened, it forced the mag well liner down and rearward. This in turn caused the magazine to move rearward against the spring pressure of the magazine release button and to pivot upward at the front until the forward edge of the magazine had moved sightly up and out of the magazine well. It also appeared that the magazine's front hex screw had moved far enough out of the index that it was resting on the ridge created between the index bulkhead and the mag well liner. Once the mag well liner was removed, the magazine dropped back into lock up.

I repeated the same evolution with the new Ruger BX-15 single stack mag that I had so much problems with at the range. A quick size comparison of the BX-15's head and the size of a 10 rd magazine showed that there is a considerable difference in dimension, the 10 rd mag being larger. With the action out of the stock and upside down on the bench, the BX-15 was snapped into place. With little to no effort, the BX-15 mag can be pushed rearward causing the magazine to pivot on the magazine release button and almost fall out of the action. The limited travel distance and spring pressure of the magazine release button was not enough to combat the smaller fore and aft dimension of the BX-15 and the introduction of the mag well liner only exacerbated the issue by pushing the magazine's front indexing pin even further out of the index hole.

At it's base function, the mag liner appears to be nothing more than a washer to hold the front part of the stock to the action and a convenient ramp that aids in inserting the magazine. Since the mag liner position relies partly on its mortice in the stock and partly by it's centering around the oval head screw that attaches the front of the action to the stock I wonder, if the two front wing edges were eased back at say a 10 deg angle away from the magazine, would it no longer interfere with the magazine as it is locked into the index?

 

[WarpathEngineering]

Ol Freak

As to the possibility of the trigger guard assembly being tightened down too far and causing the magazine release button to pivot in such a way as to produce a downward angle on the magazine, the trigger guard assembly in this rifle has the two pins you speak of but also a set of pins that act as stops to prevent a condition like this from happening. No amount of excess pressure placed on the rear action screw will increase the angle of the rear magazine well bulkhead that mounts the magazine release button because of the presence of these two stop pins.

 

[Ol'Freak]

Ol Freak

As to the possibility of the trigger guard assembly being tightened down too far and causing the magazine release button to pivot in such a way as to produce a downward angle on the magazine, the trigger guard assembly in this rifle has the two pins you speak of but also a set of pins that act as stops to prevent a condition like this from happening. No amount of excess pressure placed on the rear action screw will increase the angle of the rear magazine well bulkhead that mounts the magazine release button because of the presence of these two stop pins.

Cool, it's been so long since I had my Magnum I've forgotten how those things are put together. Mine was a good lookin' rifle, stainless and laminate, from amongst the first batch to come out. It didn't want to group consistently and well enough to suit me so it and my stash of .22 Magnum soon belonged to a friend of mine content with its clusters and wanting another play pretty. Many months pass before I see him and that used to be mine rifle. For him it's consistently shooting the same ammo into ~ 1" from very near 100 yards. The only difference was I doubt it had been cleaned since last I did, which was often, and evidently too often… ???

 

[dakota1911]

I must be lucky. I have only 10/22s dating back to the early 80s through a couple years ago when I bought one of the takedown ones. So far no problems and the old 80s rifle has been shot a LOT. As a matter of fact I have a picture of my oldest one and my newest one.

 

[Ol'Freak]

UPDATE:

I took some time this afternoon to take a closer look at the magazine issues I've been having. After removing the action from the stock, I reinstalled the trigger guard assembly and snapped in a 10 rd magazine. The mag locked up tight, had little to no vertical play, and with the upper edges of the magazine made good contact against the sides of the action. With the mag still in lock up, I attempted to position the mag well liner into place and this is where I noticed a potential problem. As the liner pushes down and contacts the beveled end of the forward magazine index bulkhead, it had a tendency to force the mag rearward. Since it is impossible to position the liner permanently and correctly without the stock in place, I remounted the action in the stock only utilizing the trigger guard screw. With the mag in place and in full lock up, I placed the mag well liner into place when I noticed that the screw hole in the stock did not align properly with the mag well liner as it sat in its mortice. With the rifle upside down, as the screw is tightened, it forced the mag well liner down and rearward. This in turn caused the magazine to move rearward against the spring pressure of the magazine release button and to pivot upward at the front until the forward edge of the magazine had moved sightly up and out of the magazine well. It also appeared that the magazine's front hex screw had moved far enough out of the index that it was resting on the ridge created between the index bulkhead and the mag well liner. Once the mag well liner was removed, the magazine dropped back into lock up.

I repeated the same evolution with the new Ruger BX-15 single stack mag that I had so much problems with at the range. A quick size comparison of the BX-15's head and the size of a 10 rd magazine showed that there is a considerable difference in dimension, the 10 rd mag being larger. With the action out of the stock and upside down on the bench, the BX-15 was snapped into place. With little to no effort, the BX-15 mag can be pushed rearward causing the magazine to pivot on the magazine release button and almost fall out of the action. The limited travel distance and spring pressure of the magazine release button was not enough to combat the smaller fore and aft dimension of the BX-15 and the introduction of the mag well liner only exacerbated the issue by pushing the magazine's front indexing pin even further out of the index hole.

At it's base function, the mag liner appears to be nothing more than a washer to hold the front part of the stock to the action and a convenient ramp that aids in inserting the magazine. Since the mag liner position relies partly on its mortice in the stock and partly by it's centering around the oval head screw that attaches the front of the action to the stock I wonder, if the two front wing edges were eased back at say a 10 deg angle away from the magazine, would it no longer interfere with the magazine as it is locked into the index?

No doubt the mag well liner interfering with the magazine's positioning is the source of your magazine issues. Do what you must to eliminate the liner's interference and so allowing the magazines to be positioned proper.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Unless the design has changed, the impact of old versus newer would most likely be modern manufacturing process.

Perhaps the 'finish it' recommendation is the best way to go. Open it up, inspect it, finish it, and re-assemble.

Hi,

As reported earlier in the thread, my early-80s mags have been ok, but you guys made me curious enough to buy two new ones for comparison and a little bit of experimenting.

I've taken one apart, and will leave the other alone until after it's been shot. So far, the main thing I've noticed is the new ones have zero fit and finish compared to my older ones. The plastic bodies look like somebody couldn't quite figure the right temperature to put the resin into the mold. There are shiny areas (I assume the whole body should be shiny) and "frosted" areas you guys who do your own casting would recognize as excessive heat (at least if we were talking about lead.) It's pretty ugly, but as far as I can tell, that's just a cosmetic issue. Though, for the price of new mags, I'm one of those who thinks plastic molding technologies are good enough to produce perfect parts, time after time. We see it in other products all days long... Ruger, you can do better.

The metal feed lips would appear to me to be the source of a lot of potential grief. The seller (auction site) sells these magazines as bulk items (no packaging) and advertised them as having a little bit of rust. Turns out there was just the tiniest bit of rust, but where it was is the disconcerting thing. My old feed lips look to be cast, with some machined finishing done to an already fairly smooth surface. Removed from the body, there's no place for moisture to accumulate on them, in comparison to the new ones, be they cast or MIM, which have a very rough surface, and zero finish. Everything about them is rough at best, and the tiny bit of rust was down in nooks and crannies of the metal that I don't think should be there.

So I loaded 1 round in each of them to test spring tension, and they both passed the Brownell's video test of popping right back up when pushed down. Then I loaded 10 rounds and tried to strip them out. Uh, oh... every third or fourth one is jamming. I can see this ain't gonna work reliably, so I took one mag apart. Inside, the plastic drum looked good. No rough edges, no flashing. The bottom edge of the feed lip part had a bit of a burr that could possibly hold things up. I knocked that down just a touch with some 400 wet/dry sandpaper, enough to see a smooth shiny line the whole length of that contact point.

There was a drop of oil on each "nubby" of the feed lips, which bled onto the plastic end caps, but none anywhere else on the spring or bolt inside. I wiped them down, and put a tiny bit of graphite grease on the bolt surface where it contacts the spring, and started reassembly. It was hard to figure the exact amount of spring tension on the original assembly, though it exceeded the one full turn Brownell's suggests. I put 1 1/2 turns on and locked things down.

Reassembled, the mag still passed the one round test. When I put 10 rounds in, I was pleasantly surprised. They went in easier than before, and all 10 stripped easily and smoothly. My experience with any of these mags is they will smooth up in time and work better. For now, I was just concerned with getting this one to work. Period.

So... there's one new mag marked that it's been taken apart and played with, and one that's still the way it left Ruger. Next time I go to the range, I'll shoot 'em to see how they work... and post a range report. Fingers are crossed for now!

Rick C

 

[altajava]

Many of us still buy Rugers, thinking how great they used to be. This QC problem that Ruger inflicts upon themselves will catch up to them some day, and the old-time Ruger fanboys will not be around to keep them afloat.

WAYNO.

This. I have 15 Rugers, one I bought brand new in 2000, the rest I bought used. I picked up a "used" brand new in box unfired SBH in .480, gray six shot, a couple years ago. Fired one cylinder through it then had to send it back to Ruger. Got it back two months later and it's been flawless so far, about 50 rounds.

 

[David Bradshaw]

WarpathEngineering, aka, "Am I the only one who hates rotary magazines?"....

Bill Ruger's rotary magazine for his 10/22, from which his carbine gets its name, stands the best removable magazine ever put on a rim fire rifle. Ruger, inspired by the extreme smoothness of Mannlicher-Schoenauer and Savage Model 99, adapted the concept in designing his 10/22, which robust and handsome quality turned the world of .22s on its head.

I haven't seen manufacturing of late, my experience with Ruger rotary mags for the 10/22 and 10/77 gratifying indeed, although not so recent as yours. Encountered, some years ago, a wave of 10/22 mags which followers stuck; these were restored to function by slightly backing off the assembly screw. This is the first thing I would try on a new mag which fails to lift a cartridge.

Obviously, quality must serve function.
David Bradshaw