Mag Mistake

In his March 2014 article about the new Ruger American Rimfire, Holt Bodinson says the Ruger American Rimfire rotary magazines are not interchangeable with standard BX-1 10/22 magazines.

Of course this is wrong as the American readily accepts standard BX-1 10/22 magazines. Holt is correct in one aspect. He shows the Ruger American magazine next to a clear BX-1 magazine. I’ve found all of the black BX-1 mags fit perfectly but my clear BX-1 mags do not. They are slightly wider.
Gene Sederholm
via e-mail

Holt replies: I stand corrected. The American Rimfire model does accept most standard 10/22 magazines. The problem was I just happened to select a clear 10/22 magazine which did not fit. Contacting Ruger, we received the following:

“The clear 10/22 10-round rotary magazine, introduced in 2004, has historically been somewhat wider than the standard black plastic magazines. Occasionally they are a little snug in some of the narrower 10/22 magazine wells.

“The Ruger American Rimfire magazine well generally runs slightly narrower than the magazine well in 10/22’s, so the odds of coming up with an incompatible magazine/magazine well combination increases when trying to fit a clear magazine into a Ruger American Rimfire. Ruger is working to correct this.—Sturm Ruger”

Two-Gun Man

I just read John’s February article. He doesn’t know this and I am not sure I will tell him. When we shot the Cowboy Action every month, I used a .38 pistol but a .44-40 rifle. John always told me that I should get the same caliber rifle as my pistol.

Anyway, one day John wasn’t shooting (he was recovering from his blood clot issue), and was sitting in a chair back by the car.

I was shooting first on my team and the rifle would not shoot. One of the fellows helped me and I tried shooting again.

This time when it didn’t work I left my shooting spot to really take a look. Lo and behold! What John always worried about had happened. I’d put .38 Special in my .44-40 rifle. No wonder it wouldn’t shoot! So now you, Ray Walters and our readers know my secret…but not John! I couldn’t let him know he was right.

Dot Taffin
via e-mail
Formula Error
In the February issue, Jacob Gottfredson states, “Range = mils x 27.77 ÷ size in inches of the target.” Is this formula correct?
David Schwartz
via e-mail

No, it is wrong! The formula should be: Target size in inches x 27.77 ÷ mils.

Thus, if an elk measures about 30 inches at the brisket, if it’s 2 mils on the reticle, it would be 30 x 27.77 ÷ 2 = 416.6 yards.

I took the formula from a European website. I didn’t even think they might publish an error (inverting inches and mils). I should have caught the error myself. I should never assume something is correct because it is published by people who know what they are doing. Now I’ve made the same error! Thanks for your attention to detail and pointing this out. — Jacob Gottfredson

Welcome Aboard

It’s great to see the talents of Payton Miller adding to an already outstanding staff at GUNS Magazine. He nailed three essential elements where GUNS excels: reader involvement, covering all the bases and editors responding to feedback.

Sadly, the powers at his previous magazine refused to cover all those bases and ignored readers when they complained, which is why GUNS has my complete support. Now, as icing on the cake, I get to read Payton Miller again!
Phil Potter

GUNS Magazine® welcomes letters to the editor. We reserve the right to edit all published letters for clarity and length. Due to the volume of mail, we are unable to individually answer your letters or e-mail. In sending a letter to GUNS Magazine, you agree to provide Publisher’s Development Corp. such copyright as is required for publishing and redistributing the contents of your letter in any format. Send your letters to Crossfire, GUNS Magazine, 12345 World Trade Dr., San Diego, CA 92128;; e-mail:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(Spamcheck Enabled)