My polymer mags do not drop free but the steel mags do. I'm not particlulary partial to either one as both get the job done. The polys are nice because of the light weight, different capacities, & at the time price.
I am partial to the plastic ones. They feed alot smoother than the metal ones do and at half the price I think it is a no brainer.
If you watched the "Best Defense" on the outdoor channel all last year the first segment of every episode was about using the GSR at Gunsite training courses.
You would note that they were taught to operate the bolt "vigorously". This was a concession to the metal mags which need to be ran hard to function correctly.
The 10 rnd poly mags sometimes fail to present the cartridge high enough for the bolt to pick up, but this was a spring problem and supposedly is now fixed. I get around this problem by watching the feed as it occurs to make sure I am in fact stripping a round off the mag.
That said, my 3 & 5 round poly mags function perfectly everytime. I seldom use the 10 rounders unless it is in a Tactical match. I have several of both types of mags but prefer the poly mags because of they smooth feed.
They are definately worth the $40 and if you hunt you really need a 3 rnd mag for that anyway.
I have 1 10rnd metal mag and 4 10 round poly as well as 1 5 round poly all ruger brand....all of my 10 round poly mags drop freely when empty, feed and fire flawlessly....5 round poly feeds and fires fine but does not always drop freely when empty....I have not tried any non ruger poly brand mags but have heard mixed reviews about them
The polys would be more durable in the long run, if the feed lips on the metal mags get hit they could bend and give feeding problems. The poly mags have "give" to them and it would be real hard to tweak the lips. The metal mags look nice, more of the M-14 look, but rounds have to be slid front to back. The poly mags can be top loaded, in or out of the rifle. Nice to top off a mag without having to remove it. That's provided you have a scope mounted in the "Scout" position out of the way of the action. You do have a scope mounted out over the barrel on the GSR, don't you ? There are about 6 reasons I can think of why you should put the scope there and not in the conventional spot over the action. Lastly the poly mags are cheaper, lighter and are a bit shorter than their metal counterparts.
The Gunsite Scout takes AICS compatible magazines. I use the metal Ruger 10rd magazines with my Reminton (Ruger's poly mags won't work with an AICS compatible chassis).The metal mags work very well. Ruger 5 and 10 rd mags are made by Accurate-Mag.
You can also pickup mags form AICS, Alpha Industries (nice mag, it's a double stack. Which makes it shorter) and MDT. The MDT mags are poly and new on the market.
I take the above discussion pertains to the .308 version that was available for a while. But does anyone know if the newly announced 5.56 Gunsite Scout takes proper Mini-14 mags? The magazine attachment arrangement looks a lot like Mini-14, but I would like to know for sure.
The official website says:
"10-Round, detachable box magazine with push forward, Mini-14 style, magazine release just forward of the trigger guard. (Additional magazine available at ShopRuger.com)"
That is not quite a declaration of compatiblity that I would like.
The magazine is clearly the size of an M14 20 rounder, but its not. It uses a spacer within the mag body to feed 5.56 NATO. It is also listed as having a 1-8 inch rate of twist, therefore stabilizing even 80 grain pills.
I just heard that the AICS magazines will let you reload longer length bullets. (I'm thinking 80 and 90 grain bullets) Longer than the standard Mini 14 and AR magazines will let you load. If this is the case, then for those who reload and like longer heavier bullets, this could be the answer you were looking for. I believe the rifle needs a longer barrel to take advantage of those longer loaded bullets but I guess they had to start somewhere.
I may be eating my words when I said "what were you thinking" if all of this is true.
I called a friend at Ruger and he gave me the skinny on the rifle.
It is a normal Ruger Scout with a 1:8 twist .223 barrel on it. It has a full sized magazine with a plastic insert to cope with the smaller rounds. the barrel should stabilize bullets up to 80 gr no problem. Maybe even 90 gr? Great for hunting Small Deer species in the Pac NW or Coos deer in CA and Mexico, or bad people.
Then intention of the gun is to have a Scout Style Rifle that can be shot a lot for little money and that people who don't hand load can afford to shoot. Also less to no recoil with the .223 version.
Other than the barrel, bolt face, and magazine the guns are identical to the .308 version.
This was the fastest way to clone this gun, also If they ever decide to adopt other calibers like ones from either the .223 family (.300BLK) or .308 family changes would be minimal. In the case of any of them only a barrel with a different sized hole in it and appropriate bolt and magazine would be needed.
The only one I see as a possibility would be the .300BLK, as all the other .308 based rounds are for hunting applications and this gun is not a purely hunting rifle, but more of a does it all type of gun. Most of the other .308 based rounds are simply too specialized for this type of gun. Ruger already makes plenty of other rifles for these other rounds anyway so there is no need to change this gun just so someone could have a Scout Lookin' rifle to hunt deer with.
It makes no business sense whatsoever.
I personally would have preferred a smaller gun made on a .223 sized Hawkeye action using AR mags but that is a whole different gun and this is what they did instead to avoid a complete redesign.
From a production standpoint this is the smartest way to go simply because of the usage of all the common parts. Least amount of change to produce an entirely new product.
I'm thinking a 22-250 would be nice. There would be no issues with the already larger size magazine. Well heck, let's make one in .243 as well. Or something 6.5 (260). I was initially disappointed at first that I could not use my Mini 14 magazines but I now see the potential. kwg
As I was told the mags are .308 sized metal with a plastic insert to choke it down to .223 size. When I get to see one in person I will tell you exactly what it is.
I would prefer the plastic ones as shown above since my plastic .308 Scout Mags feed much smother than my metal ones ever did.
Even after extensive polishing of the feed lips the metal mags still impart a lot of friction to the cartridges as they are stripped off. The plastic ones have more lubricity in the material and thus impart much less friction.
I doubt you'll see any more GSR models after this. Like I said the only one I see as even a small possibility is the .300 BLK.