- Thread starter RAVAGE88
- Start date
There is nothing that requires you to use AICS pattern magazines. Yes, it's convenient for tapping the stock / chassis availability but you can beat that by designing either new bottom metal (stocks) or an adapter that fits the AICS magazine opening (chassis). If you could figure out a way to use Ruger magazines then the 10 / 15 /25 round capacities are taken care of.
Not sure where you are in OK (I'm at Sill) but if he sends me a couple of LBRP repeaters, I'm willing to part with some MB time Vudoo's including a LBRP V-22S. It might help if you were left handed
Is this in any way related to the L3I Stinger? Exciting if so, maybe even more exciting if not (because twice as many new guns).
Using Ruger 10/15/25 round mags is an idea...not a good one in my opinion. I'd rather shell out for good mags specific to the new rifle.
I agree - up to a point. Consider the RimX system. Mine is built in an MDT ACC Premier chassis. It cycles more smoothly than any other rifle I have or have ever had.
But [begin lengthy rant] it really galls me to pay $125 EACH for RimX 10-round magazines - and 10 rounds is all it will hold. UNLESS you pay another $55 for a five-round extension (or MK offers one for $45). Then guess what? The loading button on the side pushes down to facilitate loading... yep. Ten rounds. Then you have to push the last however many rounds you want into the mag, or pinch the sides of the column to pull it down to load without having to push the new rounds as much.
And I've found that using the extension seems to increase the chance of misfeeds - cartridge strips out of the mag and into the chamber before its rim is captured under the extractor. In a RimX, that's a hard stop. The cartridge has to be pried out of the chamber with a sharp tool or a fingernail stronger than mine. Do that on a 120-second par time... let alone 90 seconds. Yippee. Slam the bolt into the round hard enough; congrats, you just broke the extractor.
For 125-180 dollars? NO. Those magazines are gorgeous aluminum works of art, but TO ME they are not worth that much coin for what you get functionally.
I have two of the discontinued 15-round Vudoo mags. If I take the extra half a minute to insure they're loaded properly, they feed flawlessly in my gen-1 Vudoo in an MPA chassis. I have three polymer 10-rounders. Hmmm... let's see, do I want to spend $125 for one RimX 10-rounder, or $99 for a 3-pack of Vudoo plastic ones (or $99 for the aluminum 15-rounder when it was available)? Spend $45-55 for a RimX extension, or nearly half that for a MK Vudoo extension?
Bottom line is, if Mike designs a magazine that improves functionality of his new platform, great. But my experience with my RimX and my Vudoo has taught me that expensive, beautiful magazines are NO BETTER than properly-functioning, far cheaper polymer ones.
End rant.
I'll definitely stay with the AICS form factor, as I started it for true-to-scale rimfire back in 2010 with the 40X conversion. The magazine has to be part of the "system" that ensures functionality, reliability and keeping the bullet from being damaged on the way to the chamber. To date, it has been done well, but can be done a lot better.
MB
I don't know yet, but leaning towards "no" unless there's a compelling enough reason to do another single shot.
MB
The Ruger rotary magazine would be the worst possible choice a person could make when designing an accurate 22lr. It is notorious for miss alignment and lead shaving. Basically held in the receiver by two pivot points, it just kind of wabbles around in the receiver. It has always been a major problem when trying to build an accurate rifle on the 10/22 platform.
Ironically, its the success of the AICS patterned 22LRs that have led us to this place of people caring so much about 22LRs....
Only now, are we thinking about their limitations. Consider for a moment, the the AICS magazine acts as an obstruction any balancing point to support the rifle forward of the trigger. This has signficant implications for CoG, and the neutral balance (parameters) of a rifle.
If this is something you haven't looked into yet, I would encourage you to explore it.
see> https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/center-of-gravity/.
Agreed. Another big downside is that the BX-1 is a right-handed mag. Yeah, a left-handed version exists, but that's not an ideal solution.
Sure, but that's an issue (and an insurmountable one) for centerfires as well. If you want to really optimize CG, you're gonna have to get wacky with something like a tubular magazine or a side-mounted mag, and no one wants that.
First step in fixing a problem is identifying it, in particular, in engineering terms.
There's zero point in making a magazine with 2 inches of dead-space....
Every inch of CoG error, is very costly to fix in terms dollars and kilograms...
If you don't like or need a full-scale rimfire trainer, you've got plenty of other options.
Cool story bro...
Now back to "where do we go from here..."
Hint: The answer isn't 2018
Sorry, falling on deaf ears Dude, but thanks. I'm intimately familiar with the math associated with CoG and although that math is applicable to many things, it has no place in determining whether the AICS form factor magazine is relevant to this community beyond 2018.
MB
Neutral-balance barrel profiles are easy to calculate...what do you recommend?
There isn‘t a soul that can answer that question. Unless you’re talking about one particular stock or chassis, the exact same action, scope, rings, level, Arca rail, bipod, etc. etc. And even then it would be determinate on where the bipod and / or barricade stop are placed! There are literally millions of combinations.
I recommend we don't "fix it til it's broken." What you're looking for is a cure to subjectivity, which is exactly what @ohiofarmer is referring to, and he's spot on. Everyone that participates in this community has an ability to select what suits them and I foresee that they'll continue to do so. Just curious though, by chance, do you drive a Tesla?
MB
i can have 'neutral balance' with a 20" HV and a 32" 1.25" straight on different chassis configurations
your question is dumb
Actually, he's not wrong, he's just presenting a different perspective and we need different perspectives....that's how we made it to where we are now. So, the question isn't dumb inasmuch as the application needs a bit of fine tuning.
@ma smith , keep the questions coming and I'm hoping you have a sense of humor about the Tesla question....
MB
Glad to see progress.
Remind me, is this going to be a full scale R700 footprint rifle or closer to the CZ457/Tikka T1X size?
60-70* bolt throw or 90*? (would love a fortner action designed and built my Mike)
Having used 10/22 magazines in bolt actions, I’m not impressed with what they do to the bullets and the reliability of them for bolt guns compared to my CZ’s or tikkas.
YMMV
Keep up the great work Mike
Remind me, is this going to be a full scale R700 footprint rifle or closer to the CZ457/Tikka T1X size?
60-70* bolt throw or 90*? (would love a fortner action designed and built my Mike)
Having used 10/22 magazines in bolt actions, I’m not impressed with what they do to the bullets and the reliability of them for bolt guns compared to my CZ’s or tikkas.
YMMV
Keep up the great work Mike
Did you ever try turning back the spring in the magazine to reduce force on the bullets?
Only on one magazine and it was too little. Maybe I’ll work on fine tuning the magazine for my boys RPRr or the American rimfire that I have. Give me something to mess with this spring before the turkey hunt.
Personal opinion, and I’m likely alone in it, but the present Clone system of mag latches being part of the bottom metal needs to go away from precision rifles.
It wouldn’t be insurmountable to have a magwell mounted to the receiver with the release tripped by a transfer lever that’s part of the bottom metal. Having the well hard mounted to the receiver ensures consistent alignment of mag to chamber without all the bs in the other system.
It wouldn’t be insurmountable to have a magwell mounted to the receiver with the release tripped by a transfer lever that’s part of the bottom metal. Having the well hard mounted to the receiver ensures consistent alignment of mag to chamber without all the bs in the other system.
I don't believe you're alone with this and the perspective has value. What I hear you pointing out is, the mag latch is a symptom of a larger issue and I've spoken to it over the years as variation. If we look at where the current convention originated and associate that to the incredibly large number of offerings of the same or at least significantly similar conventions, there's no wonder that, dimensionally, things are all over the map. Although it's true that changing the convention isn't insurmountable and could have a positive impact on function, that impact is temporary, as the overall approach across a large source-set will not change.
MB
Maybe something like this is the solution with AICS style magazines. Instead of the magazine being able to float up it rests against a stop and the latch can be tailored to the fixed position.
![20200222_170227_edited[1].jpg](https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/attachments/20200222_170227_edited-1-jpg.8366960/ "20200222_170227_edited[1].jpg")
I’ve already been labeled Dunning-Kruger on this site, so take this with a grain of salt:
Ok, if I’m understanding you folks, the 700 footprint is the de facto industry standard, so any future offerings must fit this box?
Ok.
Add a stamped steel mag well that is fastened to the receiver, fits inside the existing stocks and chassis without contact, and has its own release. The magazine would by necessity be smaller in width and length, but still retain depth for the 10+ rounds required by the prevailing games.
Still doable.
By curing the feeding issues once and for all, you can spend less time on repairs/complaints and more on production.
Spend any time on social media gun groups and you will rediscover just how far the knowledge of the average shooter has slipped. Build something that eliminates one more variable can only be a good thing.
Ok, if I’m understanding you folks, the 700 footprint is the de facto industry standard, so any future offerings must fit this box?
Ok.
Add a stamped steel mag well that is fastened to the receiver, fits inside the existing stocks and chassis without contact, and has its own release. The magazine would by necessity be smaller in width and length, but still retain depth for the 10+ rounds required by the prevailing games.
Still doable.
By curing the feeding issues once and for all, you can spend less time on repairs/complaints and more on production.
Spend any time on social media gun groups and you will rediscover just how far the knowledge of the average shooter has slipped. Build something that eliminates one more variable can only be a good thing.
Something like that, but what's pictured won't work well, as it's fixed and the issue of variation still exists. I designed a spring loaded piston back in 2009 as part of my DBM and I believe the machined feature that accepts the piston is still part of the Vudoo DBM. However, at Vudoo, the feature was a convenient way to hang the DBM for Cerakote.
MB
First, to keep things relevant and clear, the 700 footprint is not a "standard." Second, anything that is stamped steel has a larger tolerance band based on process than anything that's machined. So, this approach doesn't "cure" anything, but instead, lends itself to "fixin it til it's broken" (as addressed in a prior post) or in the case of the topic at hand, "more broken."
MB
Regarding magazines and more consistent loading of the cartridge into the chamber: I’m pretty sure that most designs under the sun of already been attempted. And I’m sure @RAVAGE88 knows about most of them and has invented a bunch of other new ones.
Ok, so as a non-engineer, with the above in mind, here is just a fun idea. It’s not going to solve the above problem.
What if we could get ammo that was linked like machine gun ammo? Let’s say it was in sold in lengths of three, five, ten, whatever. We could just pull out a length and put it in the magazine. Some sort of mechanical magic would feed the round up without us having to manually place the first round in the bolt’s path (like in a belt-fed machine gun).
Maybe I’m just getting tired of loading magazines lol. A man can dream can’t he?
Edit: positive my idea will not work. Someone’s gonna point that out anyway. Think of it as expressing the desire, not solving the problem.
Ok, so as a non-engineer, with the above in mind, here is just a fun idea. It’s not going to solve the above problem.
What if we could get ammo that was linked like machine gun ammo? Let’s say it was in sold in lengths of three, five, ten, whatever. We could just pull out a length and put it in the magazine. Some sort of mechanical magic would feed the round up without us having to manually place the first round in the bolt’s path (like in a belt-fed machine gun).
Maybe I’m just getting tired of loading magazines lol. A man can dream can’t he?
Edit: positive my idea will not work. Someone’s gonna point that out anyway. Think of it as expressing the desire, not solving the problem.
Last edited:
Agreed, although Anschutz and Cooper seems to have it worked out. Any manufactured part can suffer from tolerance stacks, I mentioned stampings merely for the strength in the material. Perhaps castings, printings, rotomoldings, or whatever to keep production reasonable. While the excellent CZ mags have been continually produced for roughly 80 years now (from steel to polymer), the magwell’s transition to polymer hasn’t been without failure.
Not that this really matters, but how is the 700 footprint not a "standard" when it's very much the de facto standard? Same goes for the AR, Glock, 10/22, 1911. There wouldn't be multiple 700-footprint rimfires now if it wasn't the de facto standard. (Key words here being "de facto", which is exactly how @obx22 phrased it.)
Loading links or belts sounds tedious, some sort of gravity-feed mechanism that allows you to just dump in an entire box of ammo is the way to go.
Question is which 700? How many times have people asked if it fits x, y, or z action? Which bottom metal? How many different bottom metals are there? Does it take bdl? Will it fit left handed?Not that this really matters, but how is the 700 footprint not a "standard" when it's very much the de facto standard? Same goes for the AR, Glock, 10/22, 1911. There wouldn't be multiple 700-footprint rimfires now if it wasn't the de facto standard. (Key words here being "de facto", which is exactly how @obx22 phrased it.)
Loading links or belts sounds tedious, some sort of gravity-feed mechanism that allows you to just dump in an entire box of ammo is the way to go.
Take a look at foundation stock options for just one place. Options for just centurion short action. How many of those are considered "700 pattern"?
It's a good question, and has long confused me. You'd think 700 footprint means Remington 700 footprint*, so why aren't all the 700 footprint actions out there compatible with Remington 700 stocks and chassis? Which engineer or gunsmith messed it up first and then encouraged all the others to go and do likewise?
*and even Remington decided to muddy those waters by introducing an entirely different gun called the 700, when they released the Alpha 1. Go figure.
A standard, as it's specifically defined for the purpose of the variation we're discussing, conforms to widely accepted/agreed upon measurement(s)/value(s). If the Rem 700 was a "standard," Remington failed to meet their own standard and anyone that has ever measured any number of Remington receivers would agree, as would anyone that has ever reviewed actual prints of the Remington 700 receiver. Additionally, anyone that has ever "created" a clone of the Remington 700 has had the luxury of what they'd consider "creative license" to change what they didn't like, didn't agree with, or simply didn't understand. This isn't the case for the MilSpec that applies to small frame AR upper and lower receivers.Not that this really matters, but how is the 700 footprint not a "standard" when it's very much the de facto standard? Same goes for the AR, Glock, 10/22, 1911. There wouldn't be multiple 700-footprint rimfires now if it wasn't the de facto standard. (Key words here being "de facto", which is exactly how @obx22 phrased it.)
Loading links or belts sounds tedious, some sort of gravity-feed mechanism that allows you to just dump in an entire box of ammo is the way to go.
Instead, the Remington 700 (along with the Glock, 10/22, 1911) is a benchmark (far looser as a reference set than a standard) that gave everyone a place to start, me included. As long as the action bolts, trigger, ejection port, bolt handle and receiver face are positionally within a pretty large tolerance, all the associated peripherals will work. "De facto" doesn't speak to any "legally" established law or strict rule of conformance but instead, pertains to "actuality," so the "de facto standard" is literally the reason we're discussing variation. If we want to keep it broken, we'll continue to adhere to the oxymoron, "de facto standard."
MB
Last edited:
My point was it would be cool if the belt was able to be loaded into a mag (in manufacturer-made short sections, 3, 5, 10, 30, etc), so you could swap quickly and carry it easier. And you don’t look like this with a belt around your forearm lol
It’d save time loading mags, and maybe help with the consistent loading issue due to mag fit.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding how the gun in your pic worked? Looks side-loading vs bottom feeding via a mag.
But then they would limit belts to those certain lengths. Only. All guns can only have 5 round belts.
You would also have to load the belt after you are done with it. Which would you rather load? A magazine once, or load the belt and then load it into the holder?
Dude, you're hilarious but you're actually not far off either. The closest thing to what you're describing is the rotary magazine, which, in my opinion, is the best package ever devised for ammo but the worst mechanical solution as it relates to how the ammo/bullet is treated.
Keep 'em comin....
MB
Ha, definitely can't argue with that.
Or that. While we're on wild and exciting ideas, what about a new type of rotary magazine that treated the ammo/bullet with sublime gentleness? It might require some sort of moving chamber design but I think it could work.
Now you're talkin....Ha, definitely can't argue with that.
Or that. While we're on wild and exciting ideas, what about a new type of rotary magazine that treated the ammo/bullet with sublime gentleness? It might require some sort of moving chamber design but I think it could work.
View attachment 8367057
MB
I’m not explaining my half-cocked idea very well lol. Pun intended.
So, as I understand it, one problem we have with our bolt actions is the variation in how magazines fit in the magwell in relation to the bolt.
My stupid idea is instead of having manufactures pre-package ammo loosely, it would be cool if you could buy it linked together in different amounts.
I’m not saying it would only come in five round links. I’m saying, say, 223 could come in three round links AND five wrong links AND 10 and 20 and 30 etc. The consumer would have a choice.
So if I have an AR, I buy the 30 round links. I go home and take this science-fiction 30 round magazine and just drop the already-linked together 30 rounds into the magazine. I then load this crazy magazine into my gun and some special mechanism places it into the right spot so the bolt can pick it up. I don’t have to lay the first round in a certain spot.
I’m definitely not suggesting that we load links ourselves. I would hate that more than loading magazines.
Maybe when I load the magazine there’s a special “follower” that I click the first round into. I know it’s not a follower but you get the idea.
And since that wouldn’t solve the variation in ammo-height-to-bolt, maybe the spring in these magazines is set purposely too high. Way too high. Something in the gun stops how high the ammo goes and that’s how you control ammo height variation.
I know there will be problems about where the link material goes after the shot etc. etc. I’m just talking out of my ass lol.
So, as I understand it, one problem we have with our bolt actions is the variation in how magazines fit in the magwell in relation to the bolt.
My stupid idea is instead of having manufactures pre-package ammo loosely, it would be cool if you could buy it linked together in different amounts.
I’m not saying it would only come in five round links. I’m saying, say, 223 could come in three round links AND five wrong links AND 10 and 20 and 30 etc. The consumer would have a choice.
So if I have an AR, I buy the 30 round links. I go home and take this science-fiction 30 round magazine and just drop the already-linked together 30 rounds into the magazine. I then load this crazy magazine into my gun and some special mechanism places it into the right spot so the bolt can pick it up. I don’t have to lay the first round in a certain spot.
I’m definitely not suggesting that we load links ourselves. I would hate that more than loading magazines.
Maybe when I load the magazine there’s a special “follower” that I click the first round into. I know it’s not a follower but you get the idea.
And since that wouldn’t solve the variation in ammo-height-to-bolt, maybe the spring in these magazines is set purposely too high. Way too high. Something in the gun stops how high the ammo goes and that’s how you control ammo height variation.
I know there will be problems about where the link material goes after the shot etc. etc. I’m just talking out of my ass lol.
Last edited:
