Cheapest / easiest ever single shot adapter

So as anyone who has been around knows, it is a giant PIA to find a single shot adapter for a Savage rifle which has a blind centerfeed magazine. And if we can find the engineer who took the sheet metal from the DBM and then stuffed that into the the blind hole in the stock, he should get a wooping too. How Savage could expect customers to accept such an awful magazine is beyond me.

Anyway, after messing with it for a few weekends, I solved the issue for the short term today. I took some aluminum flashing from the local hardware store (it is about 0.016" thick and springy from being rolled) and a pair of tin snips and cut a rectangular piece of the flashing large enough to cover the opening in the receiver and overlap about 1/4" on either side. At the trigger end, I cut a notch for the action screw when the front edge was just touching the front action screw. This way the 2 action screws locate it in the axial direction.

I then rolled the flashing, initially around the front end of the barrel, but I could not get the curvature to extend to the edges. So I used a screwdriver shank to get the curvature to the edge of the strip.

I removed the blind magazine from the stock, then put the L shaped metal clip back in position at the rear action screw (leaving it out the rear of the action drops down too far). You might need a dab of 5 min epoxy or superglue to temporarily hold it in position. Then turn the action upside down, lay the new flashing material down on the bottom of the action, correctly aligned with the action screws and drop the stock in place. Insert action screws and torque and you are in business.

The fact that the material is so uniform in thickness and so thin seems to have no great negative effect on the bedding. The curvature seems to place/guide the cartridge and the height seems perfect for the feed ramp on the front of the action and all bullets fed perfectly (308 185gr Berger VLD's).

Instead of waiting several months for the SSS adapter (I want one but don't have that kind of patience), just use a few cents worth of flashing and you are good to go. It is completely reversible too. I got my DBM + bottom metal today so now I need the stock inlet for it and in future if I want to single load I will have to get a "Fred Sled". Single loading today at the range was much nicer than trying to single feed over the blind magazine. The only way that worked was if you loaded the bullet tip into the chamber and then used the bolt to push the rest of it in. With the flashing guide, just drop in the bullet through the port and push it forward.

Here was the final result http://www.fotoshack.us/fotos/63046308 185 44gr.jpg
Without the flyer (1st shot) I was pretty satisfied.

If you really dislike the centerfeed's that much there's 50 years worth of old staggered-feed rifles out there you can go buy. Of course then you'd probably just complain about how poorly they feed as a repeater. Just goes to show that no matter what they do they'll never make everyone happy.

I applaud you on your shadtree engineering and sharing your success with us. However, I am somewhat baffled by your statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westcliffe01

And if we can find the engineer who took the sheet metal from the DBM and then stuffed that into the the blind hole in the stock, he should get a wooping too.

---

I have used any number of blind magazine centerfeed rifles with no issues whatsoever, so I am not sure what the problem is. Perhaps you could provide some additional specific details so that others might be able to help you.

When Savage switched to the 4.4" action screw spacing and the new centerfeed system, they took the magazine box of the DBM and stuffed it into the blind magazine stocks. The DBM was designed to be loaded from the front, like any detachable magazine. That is not possible in a blind magazine configuration.

When you feed bullets out your DBM, they are not forced upwards, spreading apart the steel feed lips, no - they are fed forward like they were loaded. Similarly, when you load your DBM, you do not force the bullets in from above, like you do with an AR magazine. But when the DBM magazine box was "re-purposed" in a blind magazine stock (the exact same parts) you now have to stuff the bullets in the side port and then force them downward, spreading apart the lips of the magazine. This requires a fairly considerable amount of force and scuffs up the brass on both sides.

I owned 2 stagger feed Remingtons with hinged floor plates (a long and a short action) and had no issues with how their stagger feed magazines worked. I doubt there was a patent on the design. Every Military box magazine that I know of is a stagger feed, and all of them work, unless the manufacturer does not know what they are doing.

So if this is Savages second attempt at a blind magazine, clearly they have some employees that need to be fired. I personally suspect that the decision to reuse the DBM components smacks of "accountant engineering" or basically the engineering team being told that they WOULD make the same hardware work for both systems. It was a bad decision, whichever way it went.

As a detachable magazine, their system works fine. As a fixed magazine which has to be loaded from above, it absolutely sucks.

Ok, now I understand what you don't like about the current version of the centerfeed blind magazine system. Interesting. I had never really thought of it in that way before until reading your post. Thanks for clarifying.

The centerfeed magazines are not designed to be loaded from the front, they're designed to be loaded from the top. The housings are made from spring steel and were designed to have the rounds PRESSED down into the magazine as the feed lips will flex apart and spring back to facilitate this. Just because you can't wrap your head around that fact doesn't make it a defective or inferior design.

You posted a picture of your target; could you please post a picture of your single shot adapter ? With the sheet metal on the "bottom" of the action, it seems like the round would fall into the slot in the bottom of the action and could catch on the front lip or otherwise not feed. I'm sure there is something I am missing ? Thanks :) Jim

Due to popular demand, I took 2 pictures at lunchtime.

http://www.fotoshack.us/fotos/49807S... adapter-1.JPG

I hope it is clear from this second picture that the nose of the 168gr bullet I used for the photo overlaps the feed ramp by a substantial margin (you can see the shadow from the nose of the bullet on the ramp). Feeding reliability is fine. Yes, a machined adapter that raises it even higher will be better but I doubt I would see any benefit in function as long as I am shooting hollow point bullets of the match variety.
http://www.fotoshack.us/fotos/59840S... adapter-2.JPG

Why would you CHOOSE to load a magazine like that, when you CAN front load it ? Do you load your rimfire rounds the same way ? Doesn't matter either way, I don't like loading it from above. Why should I scuff up the brass and expend a bunch of extra energy forcing something when it is unnecessary ? Your view on this (if it represents the general public) would offer a rational explanation why this design has persisted. The factory probably assumes that the small minority who are not satisfied will rip it out and go to an acis magazine system anyway.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFurious

The centerfeed magazines are not designed to be loaded from the front, they're designed to be loaded from the top. The housings are made from spring steel and were designed to have the rounds PRESSED down into the magazine as the feed lips will flex apart and spring back to facilitate this. Just because you can't wrap your head around that fact doesn't make it a defective or inferior design.

---

Thanks for the pictures. I "think" I understand the concept now ?

Take a playing card (which is thicker than the flashing) and wrap it around your action and hold it in place with some masking tape. That will directly replicate the geometry and allow you to check function before you even consider doing anything to your stock/magazine.

I dropped off my rifle at my FFL today so that he can cut the inletting for the DBM bottom metal with his mill. My stock was pillar bedded so the aluminum pillars have to be cut down front and back, as well as the inletting to allow the magazine through, else I might have tried to do it myself.

I was a bit surprised to find that the short action DBM allows for the bullets to be seated way out, so I loaded some long and then checked how much the length changed after chambering. My final load length is 2.9" for the 185gr Bergers, it has plenty of neck engagement and does not compress the powder with 44-44.5gr of Varget loaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westcliffe01

Why would you CHOOSE to load a magazine like that, when you CAN front load it ? Do you load your rimfire rounds the same way ? Doesn't matter either way, I don't like loading it from above. Why should I scuff up the brass and expend a bunch of extra energy forcing something when it is unnecessary ? Your view on this (if it represents the general public) would offer a rational explanation why this design has persisted. The factory probably assumes that the small minority who are not satisfied will rip it out and go to an acis magazine system anyway.....

---

I'll answer your questions in order....

1. Simple, because you CAN'T load a blind magazine from the front - which IIRC is what you were initially complaining about and labelled as a design flaw in your initial post.

2. No, because I have yet to see a single rimfire magazine that was DESIGNED to be loaded that way. Duh!

3. If you're that anal-retentive about your brass possibly being scuffed by loading it into a magazine (any magazine) then you should just do yourself a favor and sell all your magazine fed guns and replace them with single-shots as ALL magazine lips will scuff/scratch your brass when loading a round into or feeding a round from the magazine. It's a fact of life.

4.. My view isn't MY view - it's a fact based on the design and how it was intended to function. Call and talk to the engineers at Savage if you don't believe me, they'll tell you the exact same thing I am - that their 110 center-feed magazines are and always have been designed and intended to be loaded from THE TOP. Doesn't matter if you agree with it or not - facts are facts.

You're starting to remind me of the guy that was on here a few months ago who insisting the AccuTrigger was inherently flawed because it trips and blocks the sear if the trigger pull is set too light or if it isn't pulled straight back. No amount of logic and reason could get through that guys thick skull and I can see you're going to be just as bullheaded and close-minded on this issue so I won't waste anymore of my time trying to help you understand the truth.

And I'm not trying to single you our or pick on you in any way - it just really irritates me when someone comes on here and proclaims that something is defective and/or deficient simply because it's not how THEY think it should be. "That's not how I would have done it or how I want it to be, thus it is wrong!" This is how bad information starts and gets spread across the internet, and then WE have to spend the next several years re-educating those who bought into and/or were told said bad info.

Enjoy your Savage.

Sir, I own a model 10 PC in 223 with a detachable magazine, a model 12 in 243 with a DBM and now a former model 11 in 308 with an aftermarket laminated stock with a blind magazine.

So, I have a good deal of experience with the DBM and it most certainly can be loaded from the front and it is very easy and logical to do. I have no complaints regarding the function or user friendliness of the DBM.

So, given that background, (and being a product development engineer myself), I was both surprised and perplexed by the use of the exact same hardware in the blind magazine application. I challenge you to find another manufacturers rifle that uses a similar system requiring you to spread spring steel magazine lips using your $1+ per shell ammo. I own and have used a few others (certainly not every make and model) and I have never seen one.

I dropped off my rifle at my FFL yesterday with a DBM magazine and bottom metal to get the stock inlet for it. So my criticism is very specific regarding the way the blind magazine has been handled. I am not going to get rid of any of my Savage rifles as a result of this, since it is fixable. But to suggest that the design used by a manufacturer should be immune from criticism is a folly. There are certainly better ways to solve that problem and the only price differential will be due to the blind magazine hardware not being identical to the DBM hardware. Do we really care about a $1 price difference to have a better functioning magazine ?

I just met someone this weekend with a model 11 which had the plastic magazine. I doubt too many of us would like that to be the default magazine system in the future ? To get what we want, we have to provide feedback to Savage. I'm pretty sure the marketing dept at Savage keeps an eye on what people here are talking about.

Not sure what all the fuss is about. I decided to try the "flashing" single shot adapter. I didnt have any flashing, so I figured any sheet aluminium would work. I cut up a soda can and shaped it and placed it under an action to see how this worked.

It worked fine.

Its possible that for small diameter shells like 223, the nose of the bullet may well be too low for this to work. A cheap workaround in that case may be to cut a stack of "tin/pop can" inserts which can fit inside the receiver cutout (on top of the original layer I am using) and then attach then one by one with epoxy or superglue until one has built up a stack high enough to position the bullet optimally.

Or if you are handy, one may be able to whittle an insert out of a 1" hardwood dowel and then glue that to the pop can/flashing "retainer". I figure that an insert that is 0.1" thick would be close to the right thickness.

I agree with the original poster that the centerfeed blind magazine is a rather poor design. It obviously is designed to be loaded from the top (as is every other blind magazine) but that doesn't mean the design works well. It does function fine but is not user-friendly. I only have one non DBM centerfeed and likely won't buy another. It was my first savage (stevens) and every one since has been a used stagger feed and I am much happier with them. I don't have any problems with the older design. The one blind centerfeed I have will eventually end up at CDI for their bottom metal install.

Here is another vote...I vote also with OP...Loading those mags is especially challenging if you are using a one piece scope base....
The design also included some savings in machining...Otherwise I would have converted mine to stagger feed ...I have converted two of my three blind center feed mags to single shots...My method uses a wood block cut to fit the mag well with a slight angle for feed purposes...The wood block is topped with a piece of 1/8 Lexan that is fit formed to fit into the bottom of the action....So far everything from .221 fireball to 30-06 seem to feed great by just dropping them on the Lexan....And after hundreds of rounds the Lexan doesn't seem to be wearing out any time soon.....Beauty of it all is there are no attachment points...just fit and drop in the pieces...
I still will buy a centerfeed if the price is right....But the staggered feed would be my first choice any day of the week.....
Good post,
Randy

I have had SF and CF magazine rifles. The CF mags have ALWAYS fed my rounds right into the chamber, never tried to stovepipe, or drive the bullet point into the sides of the action, or prematurely let go of the round. For most rounds, the feed lips on the CF's will allow you to set the round on the top of the lips and singel load pretty nicely.

The SF mags have many times let go of the round prematurely, dropping it out the side, turning the round near sideways, and even tried to double feed. I had a SA-SF that if the muzzle was elevated 15 degrees or more when the bolt was cycled it would let go of the round early every time and the round would be loose in the action. I had another that if you worked the bolt while the gun was perpendictular to the ground (freehand or on bi-pod or sandbags) it would pop the round early, but if it was elevated it would feed fine. I have also had more situations where the follower has jammed in a SF while I have never a follower try to bind or jam in a CF.

I have had more troubles loading the SF's with a 1pc base than the CF's. I have large hands and fingers, and the CF's allow me to push straight down on the round to load it, the SF's require you to push it towards one side, then the other.

These are just my experiences from the actions I have had. I have had about 50/50 CF vs. SF and near as i can recall that makes up about 2 dozen actions. For me the CF is just way more reliable, and in the field if it takes me a couple extra seconds or a bit more force to load the mag at the truck so be it, as long as it works perfectly when I have my target in my sights and need that 2nd shot.