Scout Rifle with Stripper Clip

[AgentPickle]

In this video I show how the Ruger Gunsite Scout can be modded to accept stripper clip. This is a simple operation and needs to be performed by a qualified gunsmith. Please do not Bubba your rifle. Let me know what you think.https://youtu.be/Kq5sWqjRiaI

[jetinteriorguy]

Personally I think it’s ridiculous. The whole reason they invented detachable magazines was to eliminate using stripper clips as well as increasing ammo capacity. In the video it looks clumsy and way slower than just popping a mag off and on.

[khegglie]

OK can be done but why?
Old rifle with no spare mags available???

[AgentPickle]

Originally Posted by jetinteriorguy

Personally I think it’s ridiculous. The whole reason they invented detachable magazines was to eliminate using stripper clips as well as increasing ammo capacity. In the video it looks clumsy and way slower than just popping a mag off and on.

The idea is that stripper clips are cheaper and take up less space than mags. I carry 2 loaded mags and 4 stripper clips. Less space and weight than 6 mags in the field.

[bamaranger]

OK, you asked, so here goes.

I think the inclusion of a large detachable box on a scout rifle is a contrary to the original concept of the design ,but has become the norm on recent renditions of scout rifles. The scout was conceived as a shoot and scoot arm and a low volume of fire was acceptable. If needed , strippers could be used to speed the loading process ahead of feeding single rounds. However, ahead of all else, the concept of the scout rifle was portability and ease of carry. Hanging a half box of cartridges (or more) out the bottom of a rifle is not conducive to ease of handling and handiness. My own experience toting rifles with large box mags is that the mag seems constantly in the way, banging my ribs when slung, limiting my placement of the rifle on the bench or shooting prone. and limiting stowage options. There may be circumstances where upping the capacity of one's scout rifle would be an advantage, so the "provision" to allow attaching a large box seems acceptable, but in my mind, a scout rifle should not be outfitted with a large box as a matter of course.

I'll mention that I have come to the conclusion that for me, a detachable magazine on a rifle is a liability, mainly because.......it detaches. Sometimes apparently on its own, sometimes because I've done something stupid. Ever arrive at the range or to your stand and .......no mag in the rifle. A blind magazine solves that problem, and to some extent, so does a rifle with a pivoting floorplate. In truth, all a floorplate has ever done for me is to facilitate dropping rounds to the ground.

If I follow correctly the OP is afield with 40 rds. Well and good for him. My own practice of late is to equip my bolt rifles with a simple, inexpensive elastic ammo cuff. Empty, stored with the butt cuff full, I still have ammo available to load the rifle fully and have a reload as well, nothing to remember in the unlikely event I have to jump and run. Nothing to remember if I intend to transport the arm via any conveyance. Nothing to remember but take the rifle with me. (don't laugh, I have left the house to hunt, and left the rifle at home)

Loading a detachable box with strippers is not new, the old SMLE rifles had boxes that detached, but the intention was to load them with strippers. The 10 rd box on the SMLE is about the best rendition of that idea to date. Blended in with the trigger guard, tapered forward and melding with the forearm, and extremely durable. The SMLE was equipped with a proper stripper guide that secured the clip and cartridges at the REAR during the loading process.

The modification illustrated by the OP does not secure the clip at the rear and requires maintaining the proper relationship between the clip, ammo and magazine solely with the fingers. The result is what appears to be the somewhat awkward loading process demonstrated. Consider that when loading AR mags from strippers, there is a stripper guide that aids the process. No such arrangement is present on the modified Ruger. At the risk of being blunt, I see the mod as something that was done because it could be done, not that it serves a practical purpose or lends itself to efficiency.

The first scout rifle to hit the market that was affordable and not custom work or pricey like the Steyer was the Savage 10C. I bought one and still have it. Early on, I used grip tape to tape the funky side release and detachable magazine in place and there it has stayed. I load from the top, bolt open , with the forward mounted scout scope not hindering the process a bit. I have essentially equipped the rifle with a blind magazine. That early Savage has no flash hider to add to unnecessary length either, another recent trend that compromises the original intent of the scout concept. I wish Savage had built those early scouts with 18" bbls and blind mags from the onset. That likely could be done and I should look into it.

I have a Ruger 18" Predator with a conventional scope mounted. Ruger provides a kit that will allow the conversion to detachable ACIS mag. I've bought the kit, but have not installed it. The little Predator has the improved conventional follower in its Ruger flush mount 4 rd box and it has worked thus far for me. The kit requires a paddle type release similar to the Mini family, and I have had issues with the flush mount 5 rd Mini magazine detaching itself when the rifle is slung. The paddle style release requires a longer box, say 10 rd plus, to protect the release lever paddle from being tripped accidently. Thus my Predator, somewhat scout like in dimension, keeps its factory 4 rd detachable box. Because the receiver mounted scope obscures the receiver top, the detachable 4 rd box aids loading and I have retained it.

The OP can do what he wants. He can sally forth with 40 rds. To date, anyhow, we all can if we choose. His flash hider equipped Ruger will display less of a fireball when fired owing to the device attached at the muzzle. And when the time comes, he can wiggle 5 rds from those stripper into that big box hanging out the bottom of his carbine. It is after all, his rifle. His scout is a bit different from mine.

[Pahoo]

Personally I think it’s ridiculous.

Personally, I think it's a good "option" and in general, there are some advantages. The OP did not post this to start a debate, only as an option. On some applications, I prefer; Stripper-Clips" ......

Be Safe !!!

[AgentPickle]

Wow thanks for the honest opinion. I agree with you on the large box mag. I think the 10 rounder that the GSR comes with is ridiculous and thats why I only use the 5 rounders as they are flush with the bottom of the trigger guard. I was using the 10 in the video just for illustration. Also as to a guide the bottom of the clip hooks in behind the lip of the magazine and forms a guide. Yes there are other aftermarket guide options. The awkwardness of loading is partly due to trying to do it on camera. It's much easier if you are actually holding the rifle with both hands or laying on top of it prone.

[PolarFBear]

The SKS does a pretty good job with stripper clips too. I like the idea.

[44 AMP]

What do I think? I think it's a barking stupid idea.

Not the idea of a stripper clip, but the way you are going about it.

First (and biggest point) you are cutting metal out of the action of a current production bolt action sporting rifle. AND, you are cutting it out of the FRONT RECIEVER RING.

I'd be willing to bet that if you sent that rifle to Ruger (for any reason) they would not send it back. YOU INTENTIONALLY DAMAGED THE ACTION.

You don't see it that way, but I bet they would. Literally.

The reason you gave for wanting to use stripper clips, taking up less space carrying than loaded magazines has some logic. However, there's NO LOGIC in needing to cut away part of the action just so you can use strippers to load the magazine in the rifle. NONE.

WHY NOT simply use (make one if you have to) a sheetmetal stripper clip guide, such as used on M14 and M16 magazines? The process is simple and does work.

Remove the empty magazine from the rifle, slip the guide over the magazine box, insert the loaded stripper clip, then push the rounds into the magazine. Repeat until magazine is fully loaded. NO MODIFICATION to the rifle needed.

The US military has been doing it that way for over 60 years.....

Next point, look at all the rifles designed to use a stripper clip, with very few exceptions they are all fixed magazine rifles.

The only exception I can think of is the SMLE, which is technically a detachable box magazine rifle, but not in the terms people think of today. The mag is removable without tools, but it was never intended to be removed and replaced with another loaded magazine to speed reloading of the rifle. Troops were issued a spare magazine, not for reloading rapidly, but so they would have an immediately available spare magazine if the one in the rifle got lost or damaged in combat.

Early versions of the rifle actually had a brass chain attaching the magazine to the rifle, so it would be less likely to get lost if removed from the gun. Anyone who has personal experience with the SMLE will tell you that outside the gun, the magazine does not hold loaded rounds very securely. (it was never made to). This is different from the modern design practice where the magazines do hold rounds securely out side of the gun.

Also consider the fact that all those rifles were designed to be military combat infantry rifles. Intended and used in situations where rapid reloading of their fixed magazine was important.

That is not the case with the Ruger Scout, or any modern sporting bolt action rifle.

If the goal is to be able to reload the magazine using stripper clips, there are easy, simple ways to do that with the magazine removed from the rifle.

If the goal is to be able to load the magazine from stripper clips in the rifle, a rifle never designed to allow that, and needing permanent removal of metal from the action to do it, I'd say you're wrecking a rifle in order to use a concept that has been outmoded for several generations.

BAD IDEA.

[jmr40]

Stripper clips on a rifle designed for stripper clips is a good idea. This is not. I could see some utility to using them to reload the magazine once detached from the rifle. But modifying the rifle and trying to load the mag directly from the top of the action isn't a good idea on this rifle IMO.

[taylorce1]

I don't see a need for it, but it isn't my firearm. If you're happy with the results that's all that matters. I've had an action recontoured, including the front reciever ring. It was expensive and a waste of money in the end, and I feel perfectly safe shooting the rifle.

[AgentPickle]

I assure you the rifle is perfectly safe. the material removed was quite far back and less than a few mm performed by a professional gunsmith. This is not a new idea. I saw that the Ruger GSR could be loaded this way using a stripper clip loaded with 3 cartridges at a time if you angled them under the lip. I just removed enough material to allow 5 at a time to be loaded. Its not an old concept either. This was done and surplus rifles after WWII when re chambering them to the longer 30-06. https://www.reddit.com/r/milsurp/com...eceiver_notch/

[JustJake]

I assure you the rifle is perfectly safe. the material removed was quite far back and less than a few mm performed by a professional gunsmith. This is not a new idea. I saw that the Ruger GSR could be loaded this way using a stripper clip loaded with 3 cartridges at a time if you angled them under the lip. I just removed enough material to allow 5 at a time to be loaded. It's not an old concept either. This was done and surplus rifles after WWII when re chambering them to the longer 30-06.

It was also a standard feature on what Winchester collectors call "pre-War" M70s. I have my granddad's. It's a 5-digit ser. #, built in 1942. It has a stripper clip guide and will easily load five 30-06 cartridges from a WW1 G.I. stripper clip, same as our dough boys did with their M1903s when they went afield to kill Krauts.

The Fudds up at our deer camp every year are droolin' fools about it and envious too that their rifles, being of more recent vintage, lack the same "tactical advantage" of speed-loading (or reloading) as Gramp's rifle has.

However, after thinking about it for a while they decide the addition of this tactical mod on their guns would be too pricey to justify to the Mrs. just to kill a deer once a year. .... So sad too bad.

[44 AMP]

I assure you the rifle is perfectly safe. the material removed was quite far back and less than a few mm performed by a professional gunsmith

From my point of view, its not a matter of the physical mechanical safety of the modification that is the problem. Now, its your gun, and you have the right to do anything you want to it, not arguing that at all. Just looking at A) making an unauthorized modification to the receiver of a current production sporting rifle, B) How the maker is going to view that, C) how other people are going to view that (relative to the future value of the rifle) and D) making a video showing what you did, and potentially encouraging others to do the same.

Did a little research and from what I've been able to find, the civilian sporting rifles factory made with stripper clip guides are all pre-WWII designs and production. Most are .30-06, but not all.

Winchester model 54s and the early model 70s. Remington model 30s and I think the 720. Savage models 1920 and 25 (.300 Savage) and the Remington semi auto models 8 and 81 (.25, .30, .32, & .35 Rem and some in .300 Savage) Haven't found and post WWII sporting rifles made with stripper clip guides, though its possible there have been some I'm not aware of.

Ruger built their rifle the way they did because it was what they wanted to do, its your now, and you're free to mod it any way you think is a good idea, just as we're free to think what you did and the way you did it is a bad idea.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Haven't found and post WWII sporting rifles made with stripper clip guides, though its possible there have been some I'm not aware of.

If you go back and read the OPs comment, he said it was commonly done to surplus rifles being made into .30-06. He never said it was done to post WWII production sporting rifles. I don't know if this modification was common or not, but a lot of things were done with surplus rifles without a second thought.

[44 AMP]

but a lot of things were done with surplus rifles without a second thought.

Yep, and I've been involved with doing some of them. A couple points about that, one being the milsurp rifles were nearly as common and nearly as cheap as dirt. There was no "factory support" for Springfields, Enfields, Mauser, Arisakas or any of the others. There were no warranties to void.

I've had quite a few really well done sporters and even varmint rifles built off those actions. Rifles where, literally, the only original piece is the action itself.

They weren't "valuable collector guns" in those days. And, while most of them were originally made to use stripper clips, most of the time, what we did was things that prevented stripper clip use. We covered up the clip guides with scope bases and such. Same reason we removed most of the GI wood, or replaced all of it. The military advantage of a stripper clip and a heavy long rifle built to withstand hand to hand combat were of no use or concern on a sporting rifle.

What the OP did was modify a current production sporting rifle so he could charge the magazine using stripper clips while the magazine was in the gun.

I understand his reasoning for wanting to use strippers to charge the magazine, and by carrying loaded strippers instead of loaded spare mags, reduce his carry load. I don't disagree with that. I just think the right way to do that is with a clip guide on the mag, outside the rifle, so no modification to the rifle itself would be needed.

He asked what we thought about what he did, and I said I thought it was a bad idea. And why. Its his gun, if it makes him happy, I'm ok with that.

[The Happy kaboomer]

Waste of time. Just like mounting the scope half way down the gun. The concept is useless in predawn and post sunset applications. Its also proven a scope mounted close to the eye focuses better and is faster on target. As to stripper clips....Magazines replaced them many years ago......This is no modern military rifles that use them.

[44 AMP]

This is no modern military rifles that use them.

In the RIFLE.

Stripper clips, along with clip guides that fit on the magazines were in use when I served in the 70s and I expect still are today. I have more than a few in .308 M14) and .223 (M16) in my stuff still today. Magazines are still loaded using stripper clips, but recharging the magazine in the rifle with stripper clips is a concept that has gone away, like the magazine cutoff, the military has moved beyond it.

[JustJake]

As to stripper clips....Magazines replaced them many years ago......This is no modern military rifles that use them.

Technically, that's not correct.

Does our military still keep serviceable M14s in inventory? Thought we used a few of those in the 'Stan.

Don't the receivers of said M14s still have stripper-clip guides?

[44 AMP]

Does our military still keep serviceable M14s in inventory? Thought we used a few of those in the 'Stan.

Don't the receivers of said M14s still have stripper-clip guides?

The ones I've seen pictures of still have stripper clip guides. But you can't USE them for stripper clips, because they are being used as one of the attachment points for the scope mount.

They're still on the rifle but in order to use them you'd have to take off the scope and unbolt and remove the scope mount currently in use. Even the old style scope mount that doesn't use the stripper clip guide as a mounting point has to be removed to provide clearance to use stripper clips in the gun.

The use of stripper clips to reload the rifle was a sound, valid and actually good idea for military rifles back when military rifles all had fixed magazines. It was significantly faster than loading with loose rounds.

With detachable box magazines, reloading via stripper clip, in the rifle, is significantly SLOWER than swapping an empty mag for a full one. And, simply cannot be done in most (perhaps all??) of newer designed military arms.

Using the M14 as an example, filling the standard 20rnd box magazine takes 4 (four) 5rnd stripper clips. Reloading the mag in the gun with strippers means your rifle has the action open (and therefore cannot fire) several times longer than it does when you swap out magazines. This could be a serious tactical disadvantage. The military retains the stripper clip as a convenience for loading magazines when they are not inside the rifle. When there is all the time needed to load magazines with stripper clips or loose rounds.

Cooper's scout rifle concept included stripper clip guides basically as an emergency use feature. Remember the name "Scout rifle". It was not intended to be a combat rifle. Scouts are supposed to sneak and spot, not shoot. Realizing that there would be times when things "went to hell" and it might be necessary for the scout to need all the firepower he had available, Cooper included the simplest, fastest system he knew, for recharging a fixed box magazine. Cooper's orginal Scout rifle concept did not include a detachable magazine as a requirement. The forward mounted "Scout scope" was also NOT one of his requirements. Ironically since nearly everyone identifies the forward scope with the scout rifle today. It was not one of Coopers requirements for a scout rifle. He felt that if you were going to use a scope on a scout rifle, it should be forward mounted, but it wasn't one of his basic requirements.

Like the detachable magazine, Cooper didn't consider them basic requirements for a Scout Rifle. Nice to have, if done the way he felt they should be done, but his Scout rifle could be a completely adequate scout rifle without them.

The fact that Cooper's scout rifle concept was several decades out of date for military use is a different subject.

[Jim Watson]

Hardly any of the contenders makes Cooper's weight and length limits for a Scout Rifle, it is a small gun.

[JustJake]

Hardly any of the contenders makes Cooper's weight and length limits for a Scout Rifle, it is a small gun.

Over time Cooper articulated at least three different weight limits for a true Scout Rifle and, IIRC, his acceptable barrel lengths morphed from between 16.5” on the low side to 20” as a max.

So which itineration of his weight and lengths limits are you referring to?

[44 AMP]

I always went by his original thoughts, the rifle should be 1m (one meter) in length and 3KG in weight OR LESS...

I don't think any major maker ever quite did that with what they called "Scout Rifles"...