Thread 64268864

Why aren't there any new hunting rifles using the Krag Jorgensen magazine system for non detachable magazines?

>>64268864 (OP)
All new hunting rifles use extremely boring single feed double/single stack magazines

>>64268864 (OP)
>Why aren't there any new hunting rifles using the Krag Jorgensen magazine system for non detachable magazines?
Because it adds a lot of mechanical complexity which adds cost which most consumers won't spend extra for. Paul Mauser perfected the internal box magazine 132 years ago and everything since has just been cope.

>>64269067
/thread

>>64268864 (OP)
>Magazine with complicated geometry that affects the shape of the stock and receiver, has limited theoretical capacity, and potentially more difficult to resolve malfunctions with
>vs a hole with a spring in it (3 total parts)
>>64269067
spbp

The ruger M77 uses rotary magazines, no?

>>64269581
And a handful of other rifles but no recent ones I think

>>64269581
No. M77 is basically a Mauser 98. You are thinking of the 10/22.
>>64269067
Lee. Not Mauser.

>>64268864 (OP)
Because it's not as practical and foolproof as more straightforward magazines.

>>64269581
There's more to the Krag's magazine, it has a door which you open and then drop in loose rounds into.

>>64269662
Lee invented the single-stack mag.
Mauser invented the double stack.
And Hugo Schmeisser invented 2-to-1-stack type of magazines used in pretty much all modern pistols.

>>64268864 (OP)
Mannlicher Schönauer has the pro version since 100+yrs. Fixed or Detachable.

>>64270455
>>64270460
>>64269927
its a top loading rotary mag
since the m1903 Schoenauer

>>64268864 (OP)
no real demand for it, if somebody really wants a krag action rifle, they'll dig up an old one and work from there and it will inevitably be cheaper than starting up a whole new line for a bespoke design that has almost no market

My dumb ass thought that krags used a hopper until this thread

>>64268864 (OP)
Because we can't have anything fun and muh cost. Also FUCK do I want a Krag-style mag on a 22. Just make it look good and not tacticool plastic crap, PLEASE.

>>64269581
Ruger 10/22, one of Ruger's .44 carbines, and the Savage 99. Maybe a couple others.

>>64271997
>Krag-style mag on a 22
Wouldn't a small frame lightning be more appropriate?

>>64272011
I'm well aware that would also be cool as fuck. Unfortunately no one (no company) gives a shit about silenced tube mag 22s (other than Henry) and despite every other model of Lightning having a repro, no one makes a small frame 22LR repro despite it being an amazing rifle to silence in theory. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if someone made it and it weren't like $3k.

>>64268864 (OP)
I'll go one further, OP, and ask why aren't there any new bespoke 2-lug Krags being made? They're such a beautiful design. Mausers are excellent but boring.

In a perfect world, Norwegian Krags and Dutch Geweer M.95s would be as common as Mausers and Enfields.

>>64269927
Oh did he now.
Lee-Metford mk II (the one with the 10 rd double stack mag) was adopted in 1892.

>>64271647
It's a bit like a hopper, you drop in loose cartridges and when you close the door, they (usually) arrange themselves in a proper feeding order.
This is like, perfectly fine for a hunting rifle, and surplus Krags would become quite liked as hunting rifles in the U.S later on, but in a time period where everyone else was rocking rifles which took stripper clips or Mannlicher clips, the rifle is militarily dated.

>>64272486
That magazine was probably designed by George Vincent Fosbery.
And the Schmidt–Rubin rifle entered service in 1889 with a 12-round double stack mag.
The more I look into this matter, the less clear it becomes who actually invented the double stack magazine.

>>64272172
I was thinking just using the magazine from a krag with a mauser bolt to handle modern 30 cals.

>>64269662
The ruger 77 rifles all use a 10/22-like magazine, except for the 77/22 which actually uses a 10/22 magazine

>>64275474
Why frankenstein together two different rifle designs when a two-lug Krag patent already exists?

>>64278132
huh okay although those lugs aren't both on the front of the bolt.