Practical!

Byron

Then, I took the gun afield for some walk-and-stalk ground squirrel hunting in the mountains. On a typical day, this might involve as many as 80 shots, all of which you 'had' to carry with you (or at least one might carry them). Under these conditions, I found the detachable mags vastly superior to the internal box type, and I was only using two of them, not a basket full.

So, for me, it was a 'lesson learned', as the facts thoroughly defeated my feelings on the matter. I would still probably say detachables are no advantage for things like big game hunting, but for all-around use I think they are at least worth considering (or trying).

Just to 'complete' the story, I should probably add that I had to give up 'big-bore' riflery a few years ago, so I no longer have my Steyr.

I thought about getting one in .223, but that just wouldn't do.

Funny thing, not sure if any of y'all will remember this but a few years before the Ruger Scout rifle was introduced I proposed building a similar rifle using a 77 short action. I wanted a walnut or laminate stock, good peep sights, and chamber it to .308, sort of like a Scout but without the forward rail and detachable magazine.

There was not one positive post in regards to that idea, and I was soundly lectured on how unsuitable the 77 action was for any kind of accurate work. While it certainly isn't a match rifle action, the howls of disapproval made it sound no better than a '93 Mauser. Maybe worse

Fast forward to the intro of the Scout rifle and all of a sudden the tune has changed. It is a light saber now, able to cut time and space. Who woulda thunk?

BTW Dave, this isn't directed at you. FYI, I have two each of the 3-round and 5-round mags coming from Brownells. I honestly would have preferred a conventional magazine, but the package is too useful to ignore. Just waiting for the longer tubed version to show up in left-hand and I am ready!

Otony