Why No Extended Mag Capacity for Ruger .22lr Autos?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Confederate

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
3,402
Location
Arlington, VA
I used to have some Ramline magazines that held 12 shots. They were plastic, but worked fine when 10 shots were the max in factory Ruger mags. It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with extended mags that take 16-20 rounds.

Are there technical reasons or just no market? I know I'd like some.
 
Popular misconception is that staggered magazines don't work well with rimmed cartridges. John Ciener proved that to be false with his super reliable 15rd design for his 1911 conversions. I think they do not 'perceive' there to be a market for such a thing and are stuck in the 10rd target pistol mentality. I have no issues with the 1911's original capacity but with .22's, the more the merrier.

IMG_7134b.jpg
 
They are harder to make work well, but not impossible. It just gets increasingly tough in larger capacities if you don't have the option to curve the magazine to make up for how the rounds sit.

The most common consensus is that 10 rounds is legal just about anywhere, and not many people are going to carry more .22 in a gun big enough to hold all that much more, if they have the option.
 
The original Standard Model (including Mark I target variety) had a nine shot and the Mark II standard and taget varities) had a ten shot single stack magazines latched at the heel, whch limits the length of the magazine.

The Mark III or later with the "conventional" latch near the trigger guard would allow longer single stack magazines.

On the Ramline magazines, I have had the 14 shot and still have a 12 shot Ramline plastic magazine with the flat coiled expansion spring inside the follower. That's as high capacity as you can make a single stack .22 magazine to fit the bottom latched Mark II and earlier.

A double stack magazine like the Ciener would require a different frame meaning a Mark IV Ruger series. Looking at the unloved California-legal "improvements" to the Mark III series, that sounds like a potential nightmare.

Ten shots for what is most commonly used as a target pistol (ten shots per bullseye target standard course of fire) is suffient, also for a hunter or trapper's side arm or as "Life Below Zero" illustrated for a punch making a hole in a stovepipe for a damper. I have a Ruger Security Six revolver and two military semi-auto handguns with designed six, seven and eight shot standard capacity (spare mag pouches standard with carry rigs) so critical for defense large capacity is not. (Since the only threats I have received have been at the wrong end of a six shot revolver and later a seven shot semi-auto, I don't think large capacity is critical to offensive use of handguns either.)

Normally, the larger the capacity the more pressure you have on the feed. The standard magazines use a coiled compression spring. The Ramline Ruger magazines use a flat, coiled expansion spring with relatively constant pressure. When they are dirty they will drag due to friction caused by powder residue coating top inside of the feed. The plastic magazines need periodic cleaning to keep reliable feed. On my Ramline magazines, the last one I picked up the 12 shot used at a gun show for $5. First thing I did was disassemble it, clean the parts thoroughly, wipe the parts "dry" (minimal lube) especially inside of the magazine body and reassemble. After awhile, it is necessary pull the follower down and clean the inside of the feed lips and first inch or so of the magazine tube, else in firing the bolt will close before a cartridge can rise up to feed position.

The standard Ruger magazines are more reliable in my experience, although the 14-shot Ramline did give 15 shot total capacity for plinking which was fun. But to sell me on a large capacity magazine for the Ruger .22, it would have to be as reliable as the standard factory magazine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top