Detachable Magazines, who needs them?

I agree for hunting rifles. I especially dislike all the new plastic mags on hunting rigs. Hard to argue with them on a combat rig though.

I think the OP has it pretty well figured out. For the fellow who is worried about having enough ammunition for battle, detachable magazines are the answer. For everyone else, they are not. Neither side is wrong or right, and I am satisfied that everyone can get what they want.

Really? said:

So, maybe I am an old soul, but I have come to the conclusion that detachable magazines are mostly a pain in the butt.

Now, obviously, there are conditions and weapons for which they are vital. If you actually expect to be involved in an gun fight they are probably the best invention since smokeless powder.

However, pretty much all the rest of the time magazines are another thing that can get lost, can break, and have to be purchased. It is just frustrating to realize that a new rifle or handgun that you just purchased probably has an extra $50-$100 dollars of hidden costs associated with it.

When my grandfather was distributing a few of the items in his collection he told me that he thought that for most shooting it was best to keep things simple and not have a lot of things that could fail. He even tended to prefer peep sights over glass optics because they don't lose their zero. At the time I thought that this was probably familiarity bias, but now I think I see the wisdom in it.

For this reason, I have been looking at rifles like the savage 99 for my next rifle. Am I alone in this or does anybody else not convinced that detachable magazines are really all that advantageous?

Click to expand...

The "C" model 99s had detachable magazines. They were not very well designed and compromised the structural integrity of the receiver. The rotary-magazine 99s are gems though. Get one and you will love it!

Really? said:

However, pretty much all the rest of the time magazines are another thing that can get lost, can break, and have to be purchased. It is just frustrating to realize that a new rifle or handgun that you just purchased probably has an extra $50-$100 dollars of hidden costs associated with it.

Click to expand...

Really?
First off, all magazines can break, whether they're integral or detachable. Integrals are (usually) tougher, but it's a helluva lot easier and generally cheaper to replace a detachable if things go sideways.

Secondly what do you mean by hidden cost? Any gun from a reputable manufacturer is going to come with at least one magazine. If you want more by all means buy 'em, but doing so is a choice, not a "hidden cost". I hunted with a Model 100 Winchester for 30+ years and never had anything except the original factory 4 round mag.

Also keep in mind than no detachable magazines is a VERY restrictive philosophy where handguns are concerned. It pretty much limits you to revolvers, single shots or a few old stripper clip loaded autos like the Steyr M1912 and early 1896 Mausers.

The rotary Savage '99 is an awesome rifle and feeds slicker than any other lever action I've ever owned, but get it because it's the best lever out there, not because it fits a particular philosophy, like peep sights never losing zero (they can and do).

I think for the Fudd shooter that drags ol' Bessy out of the closet once a year to hunt deer detachable mags are probably unnecessary. For anyone that shoots a lot I think they're useful. If you CCW a sidearm daily then you need magazines or a wheelgun, not really many other effective options. If you keep a long gun for home defense it could go either way. A shotgun with a tubular mag can generally be left loaded and the chamber empty, which works pretty well so long as you don't need to reload quickly, and if you either don't have kids or keep the shottie in a safe. If your home defense weapon was designed in the last 50 years it probably needs a magazine.

To each her own of course. I certainly won't try to change anyone's mind. Hunt your own hunt and hike your own hike.

I prefer to not have a detachable magazine on my hunting rifle, it's just one less thing to worry about.

Yet another thing Mauser got right - the 3 position safety on a blind magazine. Lets you run the bolt to empty the ammo with zero risk of an AD - the firing pin gets cammed back into the bolt.

I don't really care what magazine system my rifle has, as long as it doesn't stick more than 1/2" out the bottom.
I have both DMs, and floor plates, but no blinds any more. Mostly because that's just how my rifles are set up more than personal preferences.
I like the way blind and floor plate designs look and carry.
I like to be able to leave my detachable mag loaded when driving around and simply pinched in the ashtray of my truck. I also like that if I empty my magazine I'm not fumbling with loose ammo to reload. Yank my spare (if I have one) from my hip pocket and swap it in.


If I had my druthers all my guns would use a DM/hinged floor plate of my Browning ABolt. It's a redundant system, but it offers the elegance of a hinged floor plate, but most of what make DMs advantageous to me.
It's not as easy to quick swap, but it's still significantly faster than loading an internal, and less motion than tossing loose rounds into the receiver. It's also carries like an internal, and while expensive normally I got 3 magazines (338 Ultras) for 30 bucks. Gave one to a friend for his long throat .300 and I still have two.

I guess my preference would depend on which laws your particular state has on driving around with loaded rifles in cars or atvs. I still live in a free state, so theres no reason to unload anything.

There are a lot of reasons why you can now buy a $300 rifle that will outshoot a $1000 rifle from just a few years ago. The design features that allow that kind of accuracy to be sold at such low prices require the use of a detachable magazine. And it has nothing to do with mag capacity. My old school Winchesters with floor plates and CRF actions hold 5+1 with standard cartridges. Most of my rifles with detachable magazines hold only 3+1 or 4+1, although extended magazines that hold 5 rounds are available.

The newer rifle designs with enclosed actions and only an ejection port are much stiffer, more accurate actions. You can't top load them and a detachable magazine is the only way to make them work. Even on traditional open top actions having an internal box magazine, with or without, a floorplate, is a major hurdle to overcome to achieve an accurate rifle. It can be done, but it adds cost and complexity of the rifle. A rifle with a detachable magazine is simpler, cheaper to manufacture, more reliable and more accurate.

It took a while for me to come around and I still prefer the aesthetics of a rifle with either a blind magazine or with a floorplate. But the advantages of a DBM are pretty overwhelming. You're only going to see more of them in the future.

Swampman said:

like peep sights never losing zero (they can and do)

Click to expand...

Agreed the bridge style peeps are actually really easy to bend. I've pulled more than a few that needed straightening because they were banged or dropped. I've also seen more then a few front sights bent, or broken off. I think because if your gonna wack your gun on something, it's usually the very front, and if you drop it, the stock often hits heel first and fulcrums straight into the sight.

As mentioned above,methods of transporting and storage have a lot to do with it.

I really prefer blind,IF it can stay loaded. But as soon as you get into a vehicle and "need"(for whatever reason) to unload..... they suck.

They can be convenient. My RAR and mossberg MVP use detachable mags. Each rifle has a cheek pad that has a small pocket for "stuff". I keep my mag and hunting license in the pocket. I can load my rifle in the dark as soon as I get out of my jeep with minimal fumbling, and when I am finished, unload the mag and chamber, and place the round from the chamber back in the mag, then put the loaded mag back in the pocket, ready for tomorrow. As far as actual use (shooting the rifle) I see no advantage in a hunting rifle with a detachable mag. And for the record, I used a M24 (700 action) sniper rifle in combat with a 5 round internal mag.

I don't mind having a removable magazine in my hunting rifles. It makes it quicker and easier to unload when transporting or when talking with the Game Warden. With the magazine out and bolt open, there is absolutely no questions if the rifle is unloaded or not. As gun friendly Missouri is, you still can't transport a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle. And there are other safety considerations to include when you should unload your rifle when crossing obstacles, a removable magazine just makes it easier and faster.

To each their own, use what you like.

I am indifferent for hunting. Most of my hunting rifles utilize detachable magazines but certainly not all. I have hunted deer with an AR platform for the past few years. I like the magazine fed rifles. One magazine in the gun and one spare magazine in my pocket. The magazine makes it easy to carry few spare rounds quietly and of course allows for quick and easy reload.

I have never found a reliability difference between the two.

I'll just agree with 12Bravo20.
He said what I was going to say.

I do love my tube feed leveractions (Marlin 39A Mountie, Marlin 336W, Rossi Puma) but unloading a tube-fed rifle is not as easy as just removing the detachable box magazine and clearing the chamber on my other riflles.

As some others have said - I agree on a hunting rifle. A detachable magazine is another thing to get lost. I don't need to quickly change a mag when deer hunting. Heck even if the rifle holds more I typically only load 2 or at max 3 rounds because most of my guns you have to cycle the action to unload it and I just don't want to be sitting there cycling out a half dozen rounds to empty the gun.

For a "combat" rifle though, I think detachable magazines are an obvious advantage.

I prefer a blind magazine or metallic detachable. New production plastic fantastic magazines need not apply.

For vehicle transport in CO, you can keep your rifle magazine loaded, just not chambered. I avoid shell shucking to minimize cartridge damage, so often I will keep the magazine loaded during the entire hunting trip. I will selectively chamber and unchamber one given cartridge as the hunting situation dictates. Completely unloading a rifle to cross a fence or a stream is stupid.

Super-Fudd.

Haters gonna hate.

Some systems work better then others. My Savage was a feeding pos with the internal box mag, swapped it into a Mcree chassis, using AI mags, it never missed a beat!

.455_Hunter said:

Completely unloading a rifle to cross a fence or a stream is stupid.

Click to expand...

I agree 99%. If it makes someone feel safer, I wouldn't call it stupid- more like excessive. Where I used to work, we climbed fences, walls, ladders (may have 4 guys stacked up on one ladder), mountains, into and out of windows, rapelled, fast roped, and just about everything else you could think of with fully loaded weapons of all sorts, and managed to not wipe ourselves out through trigger discipline, muzzle awareness, and keeping our weapons (sometimes 3 different ones on one person) in a SAFE condition. Not because we were "highly trained commando operator ninjas"- but simply because we followed those basic rules of gun safety at all times- especially when we were doing complex tasks. Based on this logic, doing something as routine as climbing into a tree stand, or negotiating a fence or other simple obstacle (particularly if you are alone) shouldn't be a cause for much concern, but I guess we owe it to ourselves and those around us to stay within our own "comfort zones" when it comes to safety.

JDGray said:

Some systems work better then others. My Savage was a feeding pos with the internal box mag, swapped it into a Mcree chassis, using AI mags, it never missed a beat!

Click to expand...

Scott is good people.

FL-NC said:

I agree 99%. If it makes someone feel safer, I wouldn't call it stupid- more like excessive. Where I used to work, we climbed fences, walls, ladders (may have 4 guys stacked up on one ladder), mountains, into and out of windows, rapelled, fast roped, and just about everything else you could think of with fully loaded weapons of all sorts, and managed to not wipe ourselves out through trigger discipline, muzzle awareness, and keeping our weapons (sometimes 3 different ones on one person) in a SAFE condition. Not because we were "highly trained commando operator ninjas"- but simply because we followed those basic rules of gun safety at all times- especially when we were doing complex tasks. Based on this logic, doing something as routine as climbing into a tree stand, or negotiating a fence or other simple obstacle (particularly if you are alone) shouldn't be a cause for much concern, but I guess we owe it to ourselves and those around us to stay within our own "comfort zones" when it comes to safety.

Click to expand...

I can completely understand unchambering a round to cross fences or streams, however some guidelines indicate a complete unloading- emptying the magazine. That's what is stupid and excessive.

However, a detachable mag makes that easy if that's somebody's SOP. Blind and tube mags, not so much...

I'd like a DBM on a hunting rifle, IF, as LoonWulf says, it protruded no more than a floorplate and carried 5 rounds.(5 is all that is legal here for big game, and yes, I have, once, fired all 5 with the last being the last required) Can't quite grasp why the Mans can't make a mag that does both. Frankly, the plastic latching mechanism on the newer rifles gives me the willies.