Ruger MK2 Magazines

>>The two aftermarket mags were like 50% fail to feed right out of the gate<<

I've tried after market mags. in my MKlls, namely MecGar. While I've had stellar success with their offerings in center fire calibers I found them to be unreliable in .22 form. You're better off just sticking with OEM mags. here rather than try and save a few bucks. Just my observation.

Trying to get garbage .22 mags to work right is an exercise in futility IME. Save them for malfunction drills and get some more factory mags IMO.

I have always gone with Ruger factory mags for my MK.II. Never a problem with any of them.

Lower priced aftermarket mags actually working in any particular firearm is generally the exception. Yeah yeah I know you all want to pipe up with MecGar mags working great for BHPs and Berettas and Wilson and Chip McCormick work great for 1911s but these are similarly or higher priced than OEM.

The general rule is that if you cheap out on a mag, sometimes even as little as a dollar, you will generally end up paying more later in one way or another.

Several years ago, I found that you can save money on Ruger factory magazines by buying them in parts directly from Ruger. The sum of the parts (body, baseplate, follower, spring, etc.) was less than the price of a complete magazine. Assembly was a matter of a minute or two. The current magazines will work in the earliest Mark I pistols because the follower button is reversible.

Maybe Ruger has corrected this discrepancy. I don't know. Anyway it's worth checking out.

film495 said:

also, noticed the little mag follower that you put your thumb on - when pushing down on the follower, the knob sticks out appreciably further than the factory mags like a lot - maybe that contacts something.

Click to expand...

That's a very real possibility, if the follower button protrudes further than the factory part. There's a channel on the inside of the grip frame that's supposed to clear the button, but the clearance is not large. Try substituting just the button from one of your factory mags. If that does the trick, then you can buy just the buttons alone from Ruger, and use them to upgrade your aftermarket magazines.

Spats McGee said:

I had a Ruger (Mark I) years ago that would eat any .22LR ammo on the market, as long as it came from a factory mag. It hated every other mag, though.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%, except mine is a Mark 2. Use only factory mags.

1KPerDay said:

Trying to get garbage .22 mags to work right is an exercise in futility IME. Save them for malfunction drills and get some more factory mags IMO.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever pulled a malfunction drill or any other kind of emergency drill with a .22.

I teach them with a nine as the smallest caliber. I don't see a reason to teach them emergency drills with something as different as a Ruger.

Mecgar has been making Ruger OEM mags for a very long time. If the aftermarket mags which failed to feed were Mecgar, then the difference was either conditional or coincidental - aka, you were looking for it, or the Mecgar’s were dirty or rusted in some way which didn’t afflict the factory issued version.

I have bought after market mags for my standard model made in 1976 and as you mentioned the thumb button stuck out more than the factory mag. But its an easy fix.

Just remove the button by pushing it down to the hole at the bottom of the mag and remove it. You can chuck the tiny stem in a drill motor and spin it and use a file to dress it down so it looks like the factory button. The reinstall. I guess if you wanted to test first to see if the button is the problem take the button from a factory mag and swap it to the after market mag and give it a try.

Also load up a factory mag and and after market mag and see how the bullets sit in the AM mag. If they look different then adjust the mag lips until they look about like the factory mags.

film495 said:

Nothing looked wrong about them, springs seemed like the ones in the OEM magazines.

Click to expand...

If everything looks identical, my guess is the weight of the spring is different. Another possibility is that the configuration and/or dimensions of the follower and/or magazine feed lips are different (from OEM specs), if only slightly.

Sorry to sound like an echo chamber, but IMHO, just use factory mags. Even the most reliable .22 pistols IMHO have a reliability that is "fragile". Eg, even if it works perfectly it won't take much to get it out of whack. It's just difficult to get them working right and all of my .22's that I have have needed a little extra nudge to get them working properly. I wouldn't tempt fate by throwing an aftermarket magazine into the mix.

Mec-Gar does indeed make Ruger magazines in Italy. But the Ruger magazines are made on Rugers "proprietary tooling". Mec-Gar mags are not. They use their own tooling:

These are what the base plates look like.

This is what the feed lips look like.

I have two early Rugers, one is an RST4 with the A54 style grip frame, the other is a Ruger Mark I Target with the bull barrel and A100 grip frame. Neither of these pistols like the magazines that they arrived with when new, so they sat in exile in one of my safes. Enter the Ruger Mark II version in 1982 and the new style 10-round magazines. Both of my early Ruger .22 pistols took to these new style magazines right from the start. I now had 10 round magazines for both of these pistols. All I needed to do for the A54 grip frame RST4, was to move the follower button over to the right side of the magazine.
**NOTE**: I have worked the Mec-Gar magazines to get those to work very well. The Pro-Mag version, I may try once again, but at this point, you're better off getting a good cigar for the cost of those magazines.

I did have a sticky on another site that showed how to smooth up the Ruger Mark magazines so they would feed and function better than ever. That sticky was copied and made into a you-tube video by a couple of east coast marketeers who make nothing and only buy parts, rename those parts and then sell those parts.
If there is enough interest, and the powers that be, here, would allow it, I'd be glad to resurrect that sticky here. The process works for other similar magazines much like the Ruger style.

Ruger has a reputation of being finicky with anything but factory magazines...and I’ve personally had issues with aftermarket mags in the MK pistols, the Mini 14 and Mini 30 and even the 10-22. (An old Ram Line banana mag was a 30 round jam fest in my 10-22.)

Stick to the real McCoy and you’ll be alright.

Stay safe.

On the subject of Ruger Magazines. I use a Ruger LC9 for summer carry in 9 mike mike. The three magazines for that pistol are all marked "Made in Italy", so most likely, Mec-Gar made. They work flawlessly after a short bit of time attending to smoothing up and polishing the feed lips. I get no more brass dust collecting in the chamber or magazine bodies.
Same for the wifes Ruger SR22 pistol and her magazines. So, the idea here is to get those magazines tuned up and smoothed so they feed rounds through the feed lips like goose poop through a screen.

Riomouse911 said:

Ruger has a reputation of being finicky with anything but factory magazines...and I’ve personally had issues with aftermarket mags in the MK pistols, the Mini 14 and Mini 30 and even the 10-22. (An old Ram Line banana mag was a 30 round jam fest in my 10-22.)

Stick to the real McCoy and you’ll be alright.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

I've had a boat-load of trouble with the plastic Ram-Line magazines for the 10/22's and the Mark Rugers. The ONLY multi-round magazine that I've had good luck with is Rugers BX-25 magazines for the 10/22. Even with those, the fit can be a bit a bit loose and cause feeding issues. A little bit of thick black tape along the sides of the loose BX-25 rounders will keep them in place much better. The BX-25 magazines are quite fun when using the BMF "Crank" installed on a 10/22.

SGW Gunsmith said:

I've had a boat-load of trouble with the plastic Ram-Line magazines for the 10/22's and the Mark Rugers. The ONLY multi-round magazine that I've had good luck with is Rugers BX-25 magazines for the 10/22.

Click to expand...

In my 10/22 I've actually had great luck with the Butler Creek "Hot Lips" mags. The only thing I don't like about them (though it hasn't caused an issue so far) is that from what I can tell they're glued together and can't be disassembled. If some dirt ever gets in there I'm not sure how I'll get it out.

mgmorden said:

In my 10/22 I've actually had great luck with the Butler Creek "Hot Lips" mags. The only thing I don't like about them (though it hasn't caused an issue so far) is that from what I can tell they're glued together and can't be disassembled. If some dirt ever gets in there I'm not sure how I'll get it out.

Click to expand...

Nice! I have a BX 25 myself. So far all good.

Stay safe.

film495 said:

Based on the photo shared my extra 2 magazines are Mec-Gar. It is unlikely I would be messing with them if they didn't come with the gun when I purchased it used. I did stone off the feed lips a little and may examine with some snap caps if I can see any difference hand cycling between them and the factory mags, but - having heard so much feedback that factory mags are the way to go - and having 2 that are running perfectly - my interest in the aftermarket mags will probably be short, but I'll give them a little chance, just to see if it can be worked out easily.

Click to expand...

For some reason I can't help myself when I run into guns or magazines that need some help, especially .22 rimfire firearms. Finding solutions to get some of 'em back to functioning properly is indeed a challenge, and working with crappy magazines doesn't make the job fun. Then again, sometimes the time spent try to make a sows ear into a silk purse, just ain't worth the time involved. Better off to set the crappy magazine up on the target stand and end it right there.