DeLane Development Group Rimfire Ventures

[RAVAGE88]

MB, I just wanted to mention that the L3i Stinger magazine has a round shaving problem in my Vudoo. It happens intermittently, and is present no matter how I adjust the height of the magazine. The way I discovered it was that I was getting random fliers I wasn’t getting with the poly mags. If you can design yours with this in mind as well, it would be greatly appreciated.

Yessir, I'm aware. When they, admittedly, copied my mag, there were some features left out that controls the departure angle on the way to the chamber. Also, many are under the impression there's a feed ramp in the front top of the magazine. There isn't, as the bullet would/will touch such a feature when it shouldn't touch anything enroute to the chamber.

MB

 

[RAVAGE88]

@RAVAGE88 great idea placing the mag blocker as far rear as possible.
I considered this but didn’t know if pressure on the DBM would have any influence on accuracy.

One other thing to consider, and likely this is accomplished by the 3 different lengths of mag blockers you’ll offer.
Lots folks are using 3d printed mag extensions which are wider all around and will interfere with mag blocker unless given enough space. I thought there was something mentioned a few posts back that your blocker will interface via ARCA. Assuming that’s the case, the 1.5” will allow for clearance of the aforementioned.

Good stuff. Love the concept!

View attachment 8726298View attachment 8726299

Yo, Dude, the Hoz & Shield +3 fits inside the Barricade Stop with room to spare.

MB

 

[Shootin25]

Yo, Dude, the Hoz & Shield +3 fits inside the Barricade Stop with room to spare.

MB
View attachment 8729059

Perfection Mike !

 

[RAVAGE88]

Perfection Mike !

MB

 

[Csafisher]

Any thoughts about having an adjustable follower?

 

[RAVAGE88]

Any thoughts about having an adjustable follower?

Adjustable in what way?

MB

 

[ma smith]

Any thoughts about having an adjustable follower?

Its a constant battle to fool proof a design (both in production + field use/operation) vs maintain flexibility in the same.

Personally, I'm a fan of less moving parts, but I also do like the geometry to be fundamentally correct.

 

[Shootin25]

For gits and shiggles…

Another trinket I get asked about often.. If you know, you know… if you don’t you will once you interface with it.
Understand not everyone shoots this way, but those who do have liked it.

It can make use of the slot in the trigger guard assuming the slot comes rear enough for adjustment. In hindsight, I should’ve keyed the stud to the slot.

Weird I know…

 

[carbonbased]

For gits and shiggles…

Another trinket I get asked about often.. If you know, you know… if you don’t you will once you interface with it.
Understand not everyone shoots this way, but those who do have liked it.

It can make use of the slot in the trigger guard assuming the slot comes rear enough for adjustment. In hindsight, I should’ve keyed the stud to the slot.

Weird I know…
View attachment 8729274View attachment 8729275

Hmmm interesting…

 

[RAVAGE88]

Its a constant battle to fool proof a design (both in production + field use/operation) vs maintain flexibility in the same.

Personally, I'm a fan of less moving parts, but I also do like the geometry to be fundamentally correct.

I’ll post overlays of numerous followers atop my original follower from 2010 that show the exact same departure angle. The aftermarket samples are marketed as “enhanced.”

All this follower hoopla started when someone at VGW pressed a follower to a belt sander by hand because someone said Eley didn’t feed and then declared it worked better.

All nonsense.

MB

 

[RAVAGE88]

Chicken dinner for the first to tell me how many followers are in this overlay; the basis of which is my original follower from 2010.

There's one that isn't in the overlay because the departure angle isn't the same and it's the one that I get reports on of shaving lead "when adjusted properly." I'm not in any way substantiating those claims, as I've not experienced it for myself, but the point is, the reports I hear of what has worked best are in the overlay above.

So why have there been feed/cycle issues? I covered this in a prior post about an extreme departure from foundational information. The belt-sander-scandal in St. George was a kneejerk reaction to a claim that wasn't properly vetted, and it's part of what blossomed into at least four rabbit holes leading to things that don't need to be adjustable.

MB

 

[JFricke]

Looks like 5. No chicken required

 

[texasmotor]

I’m continuing to execute on the creation and delivery of the Comprehensive Parts Kits for:

• Gen 1-Right and Left
• Gen 1.2-Right and Left
• Gen 2-Right and Left (includes Magnums)
• Gen 3-Right and Left (Three60 Repeater, V22S Single Shot)

Through the arduous process of standing this up as quickly as possible, I’ve been asked what’s in the kit, and to date, my quick answer has been, “anything that isn’t the receiver, bolt body and bolt nose.”

That answer at the time was designed to save me a little time, but it’s now time to post up exactly what’s in each kit. This will also give everyone some clear insight into what an enormously heavy lift this is, and it's happening in parallel to Receiver Wrenches, Range Test Fixtures, DBMs and associated accessories, Magazines and new Rimfire Bolt Action Development....and, it’s just me.

So, the parts kit contains:

1. Firing Pin
2. Cocking Piece
3(a) Cocking Piece Cross Pin (Gen 1)
3(b) CP Retainer Set Screw (x2) (Gen 1.2/2/3)
4. Firing Pin Spring Kit-All Gens (15-20, 22 lbf)
5. Extractor
6. Pusher
7. E/P Spring Kit
8. E/P Plunger Pin (x2)
9a) Bolt Shroud-Gen 1
9b) Bolt Shroud Gen 1.2
9c) Bolt Shroud Gen 2/3
10. Bolt Nose Retaining Pin (Gen 1/1.2) (x2)
11a) Ejector, Gen 1/1.2, RH
11b) Ejector, Gen 1/1.2, LH
11c) Ejector, Gen 2/3, RH
11d) Ejector, Gen 2/3, LH
12. Ejector Screw (all Gens)
13a) Side Bolt Release, Gen 1/1.2
13b) Side Bolt Release, Gen 2, RH
13c) Side Bolt Release, Gen 2, LH
13d) Side Bolt Release, Gen 3, Rev 0, RH
13e) Side Bolt Release, Gen 3, Rev 0, LH
13f) Side Bolt Release, Gen 3, Rev 1
14a) Side Bolt Release Spring, Gen 1/1.2
14b) Side Bolt Release Spring, Gen 2
14c) Side Bolt Release Spring, Gen 3
15a) Side Bolt Release Threaded Pin, Gen 1/1.2
15b) Side Bolt Release Threaded Pin, Gen 2
15c) Side Bolt Release Threaded Pin, Gen 3
16. Trigger Pins, all Gens
17. Action Bolts, all Gens
18a) Picatinny Rails (to be available at a later date)
18b) Picatinny Rail Dowel Pin (x2) (to be available at a later date)
18c) Picatinny Rail Screws, Front (to be available at a later date)
18d) Picatinny Rail Screws, Rear (to be available at a later date)

There are parts landing today that starts the building of physical inventory, and the pace is finally starting to quicken for what it means to pick, pack, and ship. Again, this is not a small undertaking, and I appreciate everyone’s patience.

Alongside what it has meant to dig through a ton of data, track revisions that occurred after I departed Vudoo, pay off past due invoices that Vudoo owed to a key vendor, source the materials to appropriately package the parts, banking, merchant services, and so forth, I’m pleased with how well and, in reality, how fast this is coming together.

And bless her heart, my Wife, on the other hand, has been incredibly supportive as I’ve taken over a considerable portion of the house to manage all this.

As is always the case, please reach out if there are questions, etc.

MB

Any updates on the parts kits?
Keep up the good work!

 

[RAVAGE88]

Any updates on the parts kits?
Keep up the good work!

Parts are still churning at two vendors. I dumped a lot of parts on them at once, so they're digging through the pile.

Thanks, Dude.

MB

 

[Csafisher]

Adjustable in what way?

MB

Feed angle.

Which would be very minimal. However I’ve noticed a couple mags I had tended to push the round high. They would stick on the edge of the chamber. Seemed to be a spring problem but have a different follower would fix that?

 

[RAVAGE88]

Feed angle.

Which would be very minimal. However I’ve noticed a couple mags I had tended to push the round high. They would stick on the edge of the chamber. Seemed to be a spring problem but have a different follower would fix that?

Proper feeding of a 22LR isn't about just one thing, or even two things. The basis of proper feeding is timing due to the need to control the round on its path to the centerline of the bore.

Properly accommodating the distance of the magazine from the breech, departure angle of the follower and the two paths associated with the movement of the round from the magazine until the two paths converge and where the extractors are at the point of convergence. The two paths are the rim of the round and the meplat.

The picture below has two sketches (I removed the dimensions as info is proprietary) that represent the two paths as the round is pushed forward by the front of the bolt. If the departure angle, distance from the breech, bolt face configuration, extractor set up, and so on, are off (any one or more) by even a little bit, feeding is a failure. It doesn't mean the round won't go in the chamber, but it does mean the bullet will sustain damage, at the very least. And of course, there's a point where it won't make it into the chamber at all.

So, to adjust feed angle without making other accommodations still leaves one chasing his tail, which is exactly what adjustable magazine releases and catches have folks doing.

So, my thoughts on an adjustable follower are, it's a sloppy way to deal with feeding issues when foundational information is available that ensures things can be done right the first time.

MB

 

[David Nissen Kahn]

Proper feeding of a 22LR isn't about just one thing, or even two things. The basis of proper feeding is timing due to the need to control the round on its path to the centerline of the bore.

Properly accommodating the distance of the magazine from the breech, departure angle of the follower and the two paths associated with the movement of the round from the magazine until the two paths converge and where the extractors are at the point of convergence. The two paths are the rim of the round and the meplat.

The picture below has two sketches (I removed the dimensions as info is proprietary) that represent the two paths as the round is pushed forward by the front of the bolt. If the departure angle, distance from the breech, bolt face configuration, extractor set up, and so on, are off (any one or more) by even a little bit, feeding is a failure. It doesn't mean the round won't go in the chamber, but it does mean the bullet will sustain damage, at the very least. And of course, there's a point where it won't make it into the chamber at all.

So, to adjust feed angle without making other accommodations still leaves one chasing his tail, which is exactly what adjustable magazine releases and catches have folks doing.

So, my thoughts on an adjustable follower are, it's a sloppy way to deal with feeding issues when foundational information is available that ensures things can be done right the first time.

MB

View attachment 8729509

This isn't a response to the above, but my membership level disallows me to post directly. I'm not aware of another way to address this group without starting another thread that may not be noticed.

I've been watching from the sidelines, intensely interested in rimfire precision but heretofore unable to play for various reasons. I bought a Terry Cross stock from Paul Parrott in 2019, talked with him about a build mimicking Mr. Cross's Sentinel S.W.S. rifle and using his bottom metal. I was poised to jump into the Vudoo pool when the pandemic and other stuff hit. Now, I'm thinking about reentering and having built what's likely to be the last rifle of my life.

Aside from the entertaining Peyton Place aspects of the thread, the mechanical design discussion has been fascinating. I'm a retired physician, so numbers don't scare me, but Mr. Bush's and others' detailed analyses are fascinating. You're covering things I've never needed to think about before--never knew such questions occur.

So...let me drop an ignoramus's thought here: I like shooting a lot. As Jeff Cooper said, trenchantly, "the purpose of shooting is hitting." That's why all this business is going on: Folks here want to hit targets that are, for their ballistical milieu, tiny and far away. That's what I want to do. What I don't want to do, and what I'm not equipped to do by situation and by inclination, is to fiddle with my rifle. Yes, of course, I clean my guns. Yes, of course, I've learned to disassemble them to a reasonable extent and do kitchen table parts exchanges. But at the bottom line, I want to set it and forget it.

What I want from an M5/M5x, is a finished package. I'm willing and happy to pay for lot testing, because unless one includes a barrel tuner in their setup (thus tuning rifle to whatever ammunition they can get into the magazine), that's the only way to find what'll work. But I don't want to jigger with the magazine catch, the follower, or anything else. Within the limits Mr. Bush sets for workable ammunition, I want everything to go, first pop out of the shipping box. I want nothing to be adjustable, because with this action mated to an approved barrel with an approved chamber and approved bottom metal, the magazines, the mag latch, nothing should need tuning. Mr. Bush hasn't said that outright, but clearly that what he thinks is proper product and production design.

Maybe I'm being impertinent. Maybe I'm butting in where I don't belong. But maybe what I said ought to be said.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

 

[RAVAGE88]

This isn't a response to the above, but my membership level disallows me to post directly. I'm not aware of another way to address this group without starting another thread that may not be noticed.

I've been watching from the sidelines, intensely interested in rimfire precision but heretofore unable to play for various reasons. I bought a Terry Cross stock from Paul Parrott in 2019, talked with him about a build mimicking Mr. Cross's Sentinel S.W.S. rifle and using his bottom metal. I was poised to jump into the Vudoo pool when the pandemic and other stuff hit. Now, I'm thinking about reentering and having built what's likely to be the last rifle of my life.

Aside from the entertaining Peyton Place aspects of the thread, the mechanical design discussion has been fascinating. I'm a retired physician, so numbers don't scare me, but Mr. Bush's and others' detailed analyses are fascinating. You're covering things I've never needed to think about before--never knew such questions occur.

So...let me drop an ignoramus's thought here: I like shooting a lot. As Jeff Cooper said, trenchantly, "the purpose of shooting is hitting." That's why all this business is going on: Folks here want to hit targets that are, for their ballistical milieu, tiny and far away. That's what I want to do. What I don't want to do, and what I'm not equipped to do by situation and by inclination, is to fiddle with my rifle. Yes, of course, I clean my guns. Yes, of course, I've learned to disassemble them to a reasonable extent and do kitchen table parts exchanges. But at the bottom line, I want to set it and forget it.

What I want from an M5/M5x, is a finished package. I'm willing and happy to pay for lot testing, because unless one includes a barrel tuner in their setup (thus tuning rifle to whatever ammunition they can get into the magazine), that's the only way to find what'll work. But I don't want to jigger with the magazine catch, the follower, or anything else. Within the limits Mr. Bush sets for workable ammunition, I want everything to go, first pop out of the shipping box. I want nothing to be adjustable, because with this action mated to an approved barrel with an approved chamber and approved bottom metal, the magazines, the mag latch, nothing should need tuning. Mr. Bush hasn't said that outright, but clearly that what he thinks is proper product and production design.

Maybe I'm being impertinent. Maybe I'm butting in where I don't belong. But maybe what I said ought to be said.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Sir, you summed it up to a "T." Thank you, and no, you're not being impertinent, and you said what ought to be said. The supposed solutions have become distractions that have led to bigger problems. You've also recognized the reasoning behind developing a system based strictly on data and foundational information. No guesswork, no conjecture, no belt sanders....

Thank you.

MB

 

[Emerson0311]

This isn't a response to the above, but my membership level disallows me to post directly. I'm not aware of another way to address this group without starting another thread that may not be noticed.

I've been watching from the sidelines, intensely interested in rimfire precision but heretofore unable to play for various reasons. I bought a Terry Cross stock from Paul Parrott in 2019, talked with him about a build mimicking Mr. Cross's Sentinel S.W.S. rifle and using his bottom metal. I was poised to jump into the Vudoo pool when the pandemic and other stuff hit. Now, I'm thinking about reentering and having built what's likely to be the last rifle of my life.

Aside from the entertaining Peyton Place aspects of the thread, the mechanical design discussion has been fascinating. I'm a retired physician, so numbers don't scare me, but Mr. Bush's and others' detailed analyses are fascinating. You're covering things I've never needed to think about before--never knew such questions occur.

So...let me drop an ignoramus's thought here: I like shooting a lot. As Jeff Cooper said, trenchantly, "the purpose of shooting is hitting." That's why all this business is going on: Folks here want to hit targets that are, for their ballistical milieu, tiny and far away. That's what I want to do. What I don't want to do, and what I'm not equipped to do by situation and by inclination, is to fiddle with my rifle. Yes, of course, I clean my guns. Yes, of course, I've learned to disassemble them to a reasonable extent and do kitchen table parts exchanges. But at the bottom line, I want to set it and forget it.

What I want from an M5/M5x, is a finished package. I'm willing and happy to pay for lot testing, because unless one includes a barrel tuner in their setup (thus tuning rifle to whatever ammunition they can get into the magazine), that's the only way to find what'll work. But I don't want to jigger with the magazine catch, the follower, or anything else. Within the limits Mr. Bush sets for workable ammunition, I want everything to go, first pop out of the shipping box. I want nothing to be adjustable, because with this action mated to an approved barrel with an approved chamber and approved bottom metal, the magazines, the mag latch, nothing should need tuning. Mr. Bush hasn't said that outright, but clearly that what he thinks is proper product and production design.

Maybe I'm being impertinent. Maybe I'm butting in where I don't belong. But maybe what I said ought to be said.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Preach it brother!!

 

[ChrisKinsman]

I guess a question for Mike is can you ever get an action in a chassis to feed as well as a stock with a dbm? Is that the choice you are ultimately making moving to a chassis? Challenges getting things to function properly?

 

[RAVAGE88]

Good progress on the Magazine portion of the system-oriented project.
Although the material can't handle the spring pressure, the purpose of the exercise depicted in pictures was to qualify the driving equations for magazine capacity, starting with the 10-round version. As luck would have it, my first sample is a perfect 10 rounds with further downward movement of the follower of half a bullet diameter. This protects our brethren that are unfortunate enough to live in states that suck.

From here, I can alter the equation to hit 12, 15 and Tony Gimmellie 17 rounder.
A shout out and THANK YOU to my long-time friend and professional colleague, Josh Kunz, for turning the 3D prints around so fast. It's guys like this that keep projects like this moving and the network of collab is growing.
Lastly, the printed version of the magazine fits beautifully in the Badger Ordnance M5, my legacy DBM (more recently branded as VGW) and the new line of DDG DBMs.

As would be expected based on my studies/findings, it's loose in other DBMs that I physically have sitting on my workbench, further validating the larger dimensions compared to foundational information from Accuracy International and hence, the adjustable things we see these days that really don't need to be adjustable.

MB

 

[RAVAGE88]

I guess a question for Mike is can you ever get an action in a chassis to feed as well as a stock with a dbm? Is that the choice you are ultimately making moving to a chassis? Challenges getting things to function properly?

Absolutely, by adhering to two, simple dimensions (as it pertains to the chassis itself) that drive the vertical positioning of the magazine. Of course there are other things to consider, but assuming those are as they should be, the rest is simple.

MB

 

[ChrisKinsman]

Absolutely, by adhering to two, simple dimensions (as it pertains to the chassis itself) that drive the vertical positioning of the magazine. Of course there are other things to consider, but assuming those are as they should be, the rest is simple.

MB

Are you willing to share those dimensions at some point so we can evaluate the chassis that conform or don't conform to them? That would be good info. I suspect it is likely a small group of them that do but don't know. Have experience personally with MDT ACC Premier Gen1/2, ACC Elite, MPA Matrix Pro 2 and XLR Element. All are a bit different as you might imagine and all seem to have gone the route of the maligned adjustable mag catch.

The ACC Elite delrin dowels never really worked for me. They seem to be trying to solve the side to side issue where as most of my fitment issues I find are vertical not side to side.

I find to get the right vertical alignment I can't run the magazine super tight with the catch. For most riles that will place the magazine too high in relation to the chamber and cause it to shave on the top of the chamber. Aligning it vertically means it is a bit loose in the mag well which then start to cause issues with either upward pressure on the mag (hitting a rooftop, table top, etc) or rearward pressure on the mag from loading into a barricade/prop which then causes the feed angle to change due the magazine rocking clockwise in the action and causing the round to nosedive into the bottom of the chamber. It is this rocking that causes many of us to run barricade stops which helps with the latter problem of the round hitting the bottom of the chamber but is useless with the issue of upward pressure on the mag.

I find the idea Kenny at DPG is working on around an adjustable mag plate that attaches to bottom of action to help with fore/aft lockup fairly interesting. Trying to sovle a similar problem to the plunger in your DBM I think?

Thanks,

Chris

 

[RAVAGE88]

Are you willing to share those dimensions at some point so we can evaluate the chassis that conform or don't conform to them? That would be good info. I suspect it is likely a small group of them that do but don't know. Have experience personally with MDT ACC Premier Gen1/2, ACC Elite, MPA Matrix Pro 2 and XLR Element. All are a bit different as you might imagine and all seem to have gone the route of the maligned adjustable mag catch.

The ACC Elite delrin dowels never really worked for me. They seem to be trying to solve the side to side issue where as most of my fitment issues I find are vertical not side to side.

I find to get the right vertical alignment I can't run the magazine super tight with the catch. For most riles that will place the magazine too high in relation to the chamber and cause it to shave on the top of the chamber. Aligning it vertically means it is a bit loose in the mag well which then start to cause issues with either upward pressure on the mag (hitting a rooftop, table top, etc) or rearward pressure on the mag from loading into a barricade/prop which then causes the feed angle to change due the magazine rocking clockwise in the action and causing the round to nosedive into the bottom of the chamber. It is this rocking that causes many of us to run barricade stops which helps with the latter problem of the round hitting the bottom of the chamber but is useless with the issue of upward pressure on the mag.

I find the idea Kenny at DPG is working on around an adjustable mag plate that attaches to bottom of action to help with fore/aft lockup fairly interesting. Trying to sovle a similar problem to the plunger in your DBM I think?

Thanks,

Chris

Very well stated, Chris, and you summed up all the symptoms of the greater problem. I've thought about sharing the dims, but the problem is, reference points to arrive at a measured dim will likely be different for everyone, which is no help at all. I'm working on how to address this.

Limiting vertical movement is the key to addressing what you've described, which is what my limiting piston was designed to do, and I originally put it out-in-the-wild in 2010. VGW never used the piston because someone thought it was a better idea to put threads in the piston bore so it was easy to hang the DBM on a rack for Cerakote.

The way Kenny is addressing the issue is exactly what the piston does, and he and I spoke specifically about this a couple weeks ago. He's doing good stuff. Also, my new actions have a provision to limit magazine movement beyond the target dim.

My first order of business has been to design with purity, not recklessness, and to discuss the basis of the poor feeding/cycling openly, because my observation has been that the community is fed up with being blown off. Other fine examples of how the community feels has unfolded in another thread about doors that closed a few months ago.

What I'll ask at this point is to be patient, which is probably unfair of me to ask given the obvious, but keep an eye on my FB group, as more will be unfolding over there.

MB

 

[David Nissen Kahn]

Absolutely, by adhering to two, simple dimensions (as it pertains to the chassis itself) that drive the vertical positioning of the magazine. Of course there are other things to consider, but assuming those are as they should be, the rest is simple.

MB

Since you all have been generous enough to read my musings, I'll chance offering another thought:

It's been mentioned at least a couple of times in this thread that the rifles we're talking about can find themselves in dusty, wet, and otherwise inclement situations. That'd be especially true in the hunting field or in competitions intending to simulate sniper's and designated marksman's activities. The one design suggestion/request I'd venture to put out (with all due deference in my naïveté) is that a snap-on magazine protector that covers the "charging window" with clearance allowing free function of the magazine follower, with the cover in place, might be worth a thought. I envision a springy synthetic clamshell sort of snap-on device wrapping the magazine from the back, that would cover the area not protected by the mag well and not interfering with magazine insertion and removal.

Of course, I recognize that the upper several centimeters would be unshielded as I describe this. Still, given Mr. Bush's laudably goal-directed thinking and executional thoroughness, a (I hope) "minor" redesign of the magazine well could allow this to be a feature of a ready-to-go DDG magazine and protect the entire cartridge stack. If it could be either clear or have a transparent window over the thumb-button cut , it would allow for the operator's round-count.

Maybe a bridge too far would be a cover for the charged feed lips? The little gizzie that Magpul provides that snaps atop the mag or onto its floorplate is what I'm thinking about. If it covered the entire top of the loaded magazine, an operator could prep and pack fully loaded and protected mags for storage or travel and be ready to romp with a thumb's flick. And it would be big enough not to lose easily, especially if it snapped to the mag's bottom as above.

I might be blowing smoke or asking for the moon. But as I said above, I really dislike fiddling with my equipment. I certainly don't like cleaning magazines, though perhaps it isn't as noisome as dealing with a full compost bucket. Sooner or later, mag servicing must be addressed...but such an arrangement would kick the can a lot farther down the dusty road.

Again, thanks for your time.

 

[David Nissen Kahn]

I think what I'm saying is that the magazine, with its moving parts, is a system in itself, and then a subsystem of the rifle. So's the bolt. So's the receiver with the appended ejector and bolt stop. Each subsystem must work in and of itself, and only then in concert with the others to make the rifle system functional. Gee whiz! It's even more complex than I had thought. But: From that viewpoint, I think that my magazine suggestions make sense.

Once again, thanks.

 

[Cowpokey]

a snap-on magazine protector that covers the "charging window" with clearance allowing free function of the magazine follower, with the cover in place, might be worth a thought.

I don't have much to add in this exact portion of the conversation, just want to throw out that this is not a new thing in the rimfire world. Tippmann Arms has a magazine with a cover that slides over the whole thing. While those magazines function fine in my experience, and the cover does what you're searching for, I think it's more of an aesthetic thing...so they look more like a "real" AR. Is that a function we "need" in the magazine(s) @RAVAGE88 is designing as we bang away at our keyboards in this thread?

 

[David Nissen Kahn]

I don't have much to add in this exact portion of the conversation, just want to throw out that this is not a new thing in the rimfire world. Tippmann Arms has a magazine with a cover that slides over the whole thing. While those magazines function fine in my experience, and the cover does what you're searching for, I think it's more of an aesthetic thing...so they look more like a "real" AR. Is that a function we "need" in the magazine(s) @RAVAGE88 is designing as we bang away at our keyboards in this thread?

I suppose that I think of it as a while-you're-at-it item. I don't care a tinker's dam's worth how the magazine looks: Svelte and pleasing is nice, agressive and AR-ish is okay, I guess, but function's the thing. Since people mentioned the downside of an open magazine, it seems to me worth a look as the striving for ever-evanescent perfection rolls along. Perfection is, truly, the enemy of plenty good enough...but morally we should try to approach the former asymptotically and as closely as feasible. That seems, to me, anyway, Mr. Bush's sensibility

Mr. Bush clearly knows what he's about and why. He's trying to meet clear needs with marketable, profitable products, all while fettling his sense of engineering truths with aesthetics. A sort of relative of Henry Clay's sometimes-quoted "I'd rather be right than President." And without going broke.

 

[Rob01]

Don’t start adding unwanted or unnecessary “features” to the mags. The mags that are out there now run and function dirty and wet. I have run them since 2017 like that. We don’t need covers and other things to add to cost and add nothing to use because they may sound like a cool idea. The only thing we need is reliable feeding.