Bolt Action: Tube fed or clip fed?


PDA






10 Ringer'
January 26, 2004, 09:26 PM
My Marlin 60 cycles through just fine with its tube feed. Ignoring integral magazine space inside the gun body, is there anything good or bad about a bolt gun/tube fed combination as opposed to clip fed... especially for the smaller rimfires like .22LR and .22Mag?

If you enjoyed reading about "Bolt Action: Tube fed or clip fed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
critter
January 26, 2004, 09:34 PM
1. Tube can be bent and is not 'disposable'. Ruin a detachable mag and it can be easily and cheaply replaced.

2. Removable mag's make it easier, quicker and more sure when unloading the firearm. Tube mag's sometimes get 'sticky' and appear to be empty when not and later release a round to be chambered when not expected. I was at a gunshow when the above caused a dealer to get shot in the leg.

3. It is easy to carry multiple detachable mags. (loaded) and ready for quick change for a quick reload.

Dave Markowitz
January 26, 2004, 09:36 PM
I prefer detachable mags for the same reasons cited by critter. I find them much more convenient, and I do own .22s with both types.

Jim K
January 26, 2004, 09:47 PM
With a few exceptions, all of which are the buttstock type (Remington Nylon 66 for example), .22 tubular magazines are an absolute pain in the neck. At some point, it is inevitable that a round will jam, which will spread the parts of the magazine or the feed mechanism and the whole contraption will never work right again.

I agree with the other comments, but from a gunsmith's point of view, I hate them.

Better made tubular magazines, like those in Winchester and Marlin center fire rifles, are usually OK.

Jim

tc300mag1
January 26, 2004, 11:03 PM
The guys have Hit all the good reasons for mags.. Also one tube fed you have to cycle them though the action on a rifle to get them out where as with a mag ya just drop it out.

JohnBT
January 26, 2004, 11:58 PM
1. Pull the plunger out of the tube and the rounds will pour out into your hand. Pulling the plunger is a fairly fast way to load, too.

2. Nobody I know of ever lost a tube mag.

3. The weight of a full tube mag hanging on the barrel dampens barrel vibrations - of course every round you shoot changes the amount of weight hanging on the barrel and your POI might change a tad from shot to shot. Likely doesn't matter because these aren't bench guns anyway.

John

P.S. - "I was at a gunshow when the above caused a dealer to get shot in the leg." Was the gun pointed in a safe direction? Obviously not.

ChiefPilot
January 27, 2004, 02:12 AM
One benefit that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that you'll have a much easier time using .22 Shorts with a tube magazine. I've got the itch to pick up a tube-fed bolt action .22 so I can use the CCI CB caps without having to manually feed each one like I have to with my 10/22.

Cadwallader
January 27, 2004, 07:24 PM
I find .22 rifles with tube mags much easier to handle - you can grab them anywhere in the middle, sling them without the mag dinging you in the ribs, and it just seems more graceful, and that's important to me - a .22 should he a handy thing IMO. Removable mags that don't stick out like the 10/22 has suit me just fine. I also like the high capacity of the tube and being able to use LR, Long, Short, without fuss.

cheygriz
January 28, 2004, 01:56 AM
I've had several of each type, and I'm 100 percent in favor of tube fed!

Much easier and faster to load, holds more rounds, and you don't have the mag protruding from the bottom.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bolt Action: Tube fed or clip fed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!