The magazine on a Ruger Hawkeye is 3.425" internally and supposedly the action opening can take another 0.065" (=3.490").

What would happen if the box were removed?
The front box-retainer-tab would need to be ground off from the receiver. Is that relatively easy for a smithy?

Would the underside of the rails need a little beveling added, perhaps with some bedding compound, to compensate for the top inward curves of the factory box?

Would the extra width without the box allow 3 500 AccR rounds (or 49-10) to be fit in a boxless magazine?

Primarily, the question is whether or not a smooth feeding rifle could be expected out of a Ruger Hawkeye Alaskan without the box? The Hogue synthetic-rubberized stock would become the "box".

The idea would be to provide 3.48" COL capacity.


[[PS: I suppose that the box could be retrofitted, if desired, by epoxybedding some wedges on the side of the box to serve as stabilizing replacements for the front magazine-tip that had been ground off of the receiver.]]

Your talking about 2 different things, making the box longer wont increase the capacity

I have opened my spare Ruger action to 3.575 so there is no problem doing this and I was able to use the original magazine box. You need to do a few other things but all up it can be done

The wideth gained by not using the box is another issue, I dont however think there will be enough gained to fit the 3 round down. My 500 AccRel easily fits the 2 but quiet a bit short of fitting a 3rd

quote:

Originally posted by ShortandFat:
Your talking about 2 different things, making the box longer wont increase the capacity

I have opened my spare Ruger action to 3.575 so there is no problem doing this and I was able to use the original magazine box. You need to do a few other things but all up it can be done

The wideth gained by not using the box is another issue, I dont however think there will be enough gained to fit the 3 round down. My 500 AccRel easily fits the 2 but quiet a bit short of fitting a 3rd

So how did you open things up to 3.57"?


Sounds pretty nice for a 500AccR whenever a higherBC HP bullet comes out. (like the .426BC in .500" 430 CEB, picture on the CEB anecdote thread)

The idea leaves me cold, as does the Hogue rubberized stock that is what underneath? Injection moulded plastic?
You need an HS Precision composite stock with full aluminum bedding block for the Ruger Mark II.
I have my Hawkeye .375 Ruger in one. Drop-in fit.
Milling out that magazine well some would be a sight better than rubber and plastic.
The technical issues of that should be left to a gunsmith doing the work, like jeffeosso or Rusty McGee.

I be waiting on a Pa-Nor barrel for 49-10 McGee-Wiebe M98 Mauser with 3.505" box,
and I be waiting on a McMillan stock for the McGee-Sunny Hill M70 Winchester with 3.625" box.
Magazine box of 3.425" length is great for a .500 aka 49-10.
Single load the pointy-long bullets and fill the box with the short and heavy loads.

RIP

I appreciate the advice and will keep HS Precision in mind. A 3.42" factory-well for a single-shot, long, top bullet is surely the easiest option.

This rifle is intended to be built on a 'working class' budget, meaning to aim at full functionality with minimum of cost. So I'll try to get the Hogue to work at the start.

For what you are wanting to do, I would send it to Dennis Olson, Plains, Montana, and have him widen the and lengthen the box as much as possible. I think it would need to be wider in the rear and in the front both, but you could discuss that with Dennis.

I have a Ruger African in .338 Win and am considering lenthening the box to allow me to set bullets out to match the throat of the rifle., but so far its only a thought, and might not be worth the trouble.