boray
Bearcat
Can the bottom metal be replaced on the GSR to convert it to an internal magazine?
Convert GSR to internal magazine???
- Thread starter boray
- Start date
bai78
Bearcat
Get a 3 rounder & leave it in the mag well. You can top load it anyways.
dgoalie
Bearcat
May I ask why? Just because you want to ius a fine reason, but the detachable mag is one of the big draws to the GSR.
I've had my Scout since June of last year. At first I yearned for a conversion to use M14 magazines. I changed my mine after I got some of the polymer mags in all 3 sizes. The 3 round mag makes the Scout all one could want in a hunting rifle and the 5 & 10 take care of the tactical stuff. I sold my three metal 10 rd mags, since the polymer mags are readily available and about 1/2 the cost of the metal mags. I'll put my M14 mags in my M1A and be happy. Bob! 
I asked Ruger when the GSR came out if they had anything that could be swapped for the mag well, they said no.
Hard as it may be to believe, many of us do not want a large box mag sticking out the bottom of a rifle at the natural balance point for carry, could not care less about having ten rounds in the magazine, and do not want a detachable that can be lost or damaged in the field.
Denis
Hard as it may be to believe, many of us do not want a large box mag sticking out the bottom of a rifle at the natural balance point for carry, could not care less about having ten rounds in the magazine, and do not want a detachable that can be lost or damaged in the field.
Denis
mattsbox99
Hunter
Why didn't the 'many of us' buy the Frontier then?
Many of us did.
Some of us later sold them because the Scout concept was ultimately deemed to not meet our needs.
Like the GSR if you want, by all means, but grant the rest of us our right to not find some aspects of it particularly desirable if we choose.
The box mag may be something that appeals to you & that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean it has to appeal to everybody.
Ruger tells me their market research is about evenly divided on detachable magazines, with younger guys wanting one & older guys not.
I'm not one of the younger guys & Boray may not be either.
Denis
Some of us later sold them because the Scout concept was ultimately deemed to not meet our needs.
Like the GSR if you want, by all means, but grant the rest of us our right to not find some aspects of it particularly desirable if we choose.
The box mag may be something that appeals to you & that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean it has to appeal to everybody.
Ruger tells me their market research is about evenly divided on detachable magazines, with younger guys wanting one & older guys not.
I'm not one of the younger guys & Boray may not be either.
Denis
Skalkaho Slim
Blackhawk
Is the detachable mag the only thing you don't care for?
roashooter
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 124
Dpris...I am with you.....I too like everything about the GSR ..except the magazine. In a previous discussion bout this...many on this board said that Ruger could not make it to satisfy everyone. I really dont see it that way....just look at how many variations of the Blackhawk are available. As far as the GSR is concerned....how difficult would it be to assemble the GSR around the standard 77 reciever....with its internal/blind magazine?? It would just be another choice for the consumer....not unlike all the choices in other Ruger firearms.
mattsbox99
Hunter
I don't care for detachable magazines on hunting rifles.
I'm more of a competitive shooter than anything else anymore. I can shoot different types of matches with the GSR now, so I'm happy.
I'm more of a competitive shooter than anything else anymore. I can shoot different types of matches with the GSR now, so I'm happy.
Slim,
To be truthful (sorry, Roashooter), the only thing I do like about the GSR is the stock.
When it came out, I thought it was neat & peachy keen.
Not long after, I was looking for a workhorse general purpose .308 in relatively compact dimensions as an ATV gun, and the GSR was initially looking pretty good.
Then I sat down & considered it from stem to stern & feature by feature.
The forward Scout scope would be left off. Having tried the concept on three different rifles, I decided it doesn't work well enough for me to use, and it would've added bulk & weight to the trim lines I wanted.
The working rifle I was searching for would be used largely for defensive purposes if needed (animal, not combatant), capable of good shot placement out to a hundred yards or so, and didn't need glass.
The GSR would have been used with iron sights only. I find my eyes now work, surprisingly, better with a U-notch rear than an aperture, so the existing sights were no benefit, to me.
The useless mounting rail would have been removed.
I intensely dislike a protruding box magazine at the natural balance point for hand carry on foot. Seriously, hugely, majorly.
I do not need or want a 10-rounder, if it's going to get in the way.
The GSR would not have been carried or used as a combat weapon, and "tactical" just doesn't apply here. No need or desire for high capacity or quick mag changes.
Between the scope & the 10-round magazine, the gun would have required a special scabbard to accommodate the height, would not have fit in the one I have where I have it for ready access.
A shorter flush-fitting magazine would have been an immense improvement, but having had such mags improperly seat (when I thought they were locked in) before, I don't want to risk one falling out someplace along the way & rendering the rifle a single-shot. (This does not imply a bad design on Ruger's part, I just don't entirely trust the things by pretty much ANY maker. )
I wanted a fairly short rifle for use in cramped spaces.
The 16.5-inch barrel listed for the GSR, at first glance, looked good. But, that doesn't count the flash suppressor.
Since I don't see much need for a flash suppressor, and it actually adds length without sufficient return benefit to justify the trade-off (for ME), that was a minus instead of a plus.
Same general overall length as a regular barrel in a similar length in terms of transport space and handling, but with a slight loss of velocity in the 16.5-inch GSR barrel vs a regular 18-20 inch barrel, with the overall length of the GSR coming in only about 1.5 inches shorter than the rifle I ended up buying.
The bottom "metal" on the GSR is polymer, and while Ruger uses a good grade of polymer, I just don't want polymer there.
The stock, I do like.
The looks are great, it should be quite strong & resistent to temp & humidity changes that can affect zero, and the ability to adjust for length of pull is a definite plus.
After considering all that, I decided the gun wasn't practical FOR ME.
When Ruger brought out the Compact Magnum in .308, its 20-inch barrel gives me 3.5 inches more actual barrel/bore with corresponding slight velocity gain over the 16.5-inch GSR, an overall length that's 1.5 inches longer, semi-buckhorn sights that work better for my eyes, and steel bottom metal with fixed internal magazine.
The CM weighs 6.75 pounds out of the box, the GSR weighs 7 pounds out of the box. Glass would add more weight to the GSR, so would an additional five rounds on board as opposed to the five carried in the CM.
The Scout also costs a bit more than the CM, with additional features (as I've explained) that would be useless to me.
I will emphasize here that I mean NO criticism of Ruger in any of the above commentary.
The Scout is an interesting gun, well-made, and offers features that appeal sufficiently to others to sell quite well for Ruger.
Also NO criticism of anybody who likes the gun.
I get quite picky about certain guns for certain specific purposes in my hands, and the GSR just doesn't fit my needs as well as the CM.
This is also NOT an attempt to turn anybody away from the GSR, or to nudge anybody into the CM.
Fortunately, Ruger builds enough models to keep most of us happy.
And, I would not have gone into all this in addressing the original magazine question, but Slim asked.
Denis
To be truthful (sorry, Roashooter), the only thing I do like about the GSR is the stock.
When it came out, I thought it was neat & peachy keen.
Not long after, I was looking for a workhorse general purpose .308 in relatively compact dimensions as an ATV gun, and the GSR was initially looking pretty good.
Then I sat down & considered it from stem to stern & feature by feature.
The forward Scout scope would be left off. Having tried the concept on three different rifles, I decided it doesn't work well enough for me to use, and it would've added bulk & weight to the trim lines I wanted.
The working rifle I was searching for would be used largely for defensive purposes if needed (animal, not combatant), capable of good shot placement out to a hundred yards or so, and didn't need glass.
The GSR would have been used with iron sights only. I find my eyes now work, surprisingly, better with a U-notch rear than an aperture, so the existing sights were no benefit, to me.
The useless mounting rail would have been removed.
I intensely dislike a protruding box magazine at the natural balance point for hand carry on foot. Seriously, hugely, majorly.
I do not need or want a 10-rounder, if it's going to get in the way.
The GSR would not have been carried or used as a combat weapon, and "tactical" just doesn't apply here. No need or desire for high capacity or quick mag changes.
Between the scope & the 10-round magazine, the gun would have required a special scabbard to accommodate the height, would not have fit in the one I have where I have it for ready access.
A shorter flush-fitting magazine would have been an immense improvement, but having had such mags improperly seat (when I thought they were locked in) before, I don't want to risk one falling out someplace along the way & rendering the rifle a single-shot. (This does not imply a bad design on Ruger's part, I just don't entirely trust the things by pretty much ANY maker.
)I wanted a fairly short rifle for use in cramped spaces.
The 16.5-inch barrel listed for the GSR, at first glance, looked good. But, that doesn't count the flash suppressor.
Since I don't see much need for a flash suppressor, and it actually adds length without sufficient return benefit to justify the trade-off (for ME), that was a minus instead of a plus.
Same general overall length as a regular barrel in a similar length in terms of transport space and handling, but with a slight loss of velocity in the 16.5-inch GSR barrel vs a regular 18-20 inch barrel, with the overall length of the GSR coming in only about 1.5 inches shorter than the rifle I ended up buying.
The bottom "metal" on the GSR is polymer, and while Ruger uses a good grade of polymer, I just don't want polymer there.
The stock, I do like.
The looks are great, it should be quite strong & resistent to temp & humidity changes that can affect zero, and the ability to adjust for length of pull is a definite plus.
After considering all that, I decided the gun wasn't practical FOR ME.
When Ruger brought out the Compact Magnum in .308, its 20-inch barrel gives me 3.5 inches more actual barrel/bore with corresponding slight velocity gain over the 16.5-inch GSR, an overall length that's 1.5 inches longer, semi-buckhorn sights that work better for my eyes, and steel bottom metal with fixed internal magazine.
The CM weighs 6.75 pounds out of the box, the GSR weighs 7 pounds out of the box. Glass would add more weight to the GSR, so would an additional five rounds on board as opposed to the five carried in the CM.
The Scout also costs a bit more than the CM, with additional features (as I've explained) that would be useless to me.
I will emphasize here that I mean NO criticism of Ruger in any of the above commentary.
The Scout is an interesting gun, well-made, and offers features that appeal sufficiently to others to sell quite well for Ruger.
Also NO criticism of anybody who likes the gun.
I get quite picky about certain guns for certain specific purposes in my hands, and the GSR just doesn't fit my needs as well as the CM.
This is also NOT an attempt to turn anybody away from the GSR, or to nudge anybody into the CM.
Fortunately, Ruger builds enough models to keep most of us happy.
And, I would not have gone into all this in addressing the original magazine question, but Slim asked.
Denis
bai78
Bearcat
As stated above, fortunately, Ruger has a variety of models to fit many needs & preferences!
DPris, I agree with your comments on the GSR. I have one, like it for what I use it for. On the other hand I have the Compact magnum in 308, which as you observed is just slightly longer but lighter than the GSR. It just about fits the Scout criteria if one does not need or want a forward scope, has an internal magazine and come with rings if one wants optics. I mounted a 1x4 Busnell on mine. It is more than accurate for hunting and handy in tight places. People should consider it if thay don't like the GSR. Bob!
Skalkaho Slim
Blackhawk
For some reason, I thought you were the OP and was going to mention the CM in 308. Since you have one, I guess it's a moot point. I think the CM is the perfect alternative if you don't care for the GSR.DPris said:Slim,I would not have gone into all this in addressing the original magazine question, but Slim asked.
Denis
Now, if Ruger would just make the CM in 350 RemMag to go with my M700 Classic and M7 in a 673 laminated stock. I like the 350! Of course I realize the 338 RCM has about the same downrange energy. And while they are at it, how 
about a CM in 450 Marlin. Bob!
about a CM in 450 Marlin. Bob!Similar threads
