SR22 mag disconnect removal????

BudE · Post by **BudE** » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:16 pm

Bulseye,
Just picked one of these up today. Traded a Mak for it. Do you think it would be possible to remove the mag disconnect? What would the difficulty level be? I come to you for all questions Ruger.
Bud

Post by **Bullseye** » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:57 pm

Sorry Bud, I haven't yet had the opportunity to explore the SR22 to the level I'd like and then improve upon its operation.

R,
Bullseye

greener · Post by **greener** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:02 am

It looks like Ruger is designing its later offerings so that "safety" features are harder to disable. Removal of the mag disconnect on the SR9 was a simple, easy process. LCI's have been easy to remove until you got to the LC9. At least part of it has to be there. The SR22 seems to be in the line of harder to do.

It's not exactly obvious from the schematic but it appears that the magazine lock pushes the disconnect up. So, you would have to remove the disconnect spring and find a way to lock the disconnect up. Put the spring on the bottom?

I'm not a fan of mag disconnects but I doubt I'd ever shoot my SR22 without a magazine.

Post by **Bullseye** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:23 am

I do believe firearms designers are getting more serious about preventing owners from easily disabling the factory safety features. In this litigious society I don't blame them for that one bit.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:00 am

greener wrote:It looks like Ruger is designing its later offerings so that "safety" features are harder to disable.

I'm not a fan of mag disconnects but I doubt I'd ever shoot my SR22 without a magazine.

Don't have one of those but rarely if ever can I remember shooting any of my mag fed firearms without one.

Post by **Bullseye** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:21 am

I can see the benefits either way. I know I like mine without the mag safeties. I don't keep hammers cocked in storage, and sometimes relieving hammer strain can be a pain with inserting and removing a magazine.

The only time I've really felt strongly about removing the mag safety was with the Browning Hi Power (P-35), because that safety drags on the body of the magazine with the trigger's movement, and this really gives its trigger pull an awful feel.

R,
Bullseye

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:02 am

I mostly didn't like the Mark III's mag safety "side effects". The mags not ejecting freely, and field strips more of a pain. So far as the main function of requiring a mag for the gun to fire, that didn't bother me.

The LCI would have been better had it been all metal, but I'm sure it gave me some feed problems.-

Post by **Bullseye** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:55 am

The LCI was originally all metal but since it is a rimfire cartridge that it is riding on the previous metal lever was capable of detonating the round if struck hard enough.

R,
Bullseye

blue68f100 · Post by **blue68f100** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:35 pm

Bullseye wrote:I can see the benefits either way. I know I like mine without the mag safeties. I don't keep hammers cocked in storage, and sometimes relieving hammer strain can be a pain with inserting and removing a magazine.

The only time I've really felt strongly about removing the mag safety was with the Browning Hi Power (P-35), because that safety drags on the body of the magazine with the trigger's movement, and this really gives its trigger pull an awful feel.

R,
Bullseye

Your dead on with the BHP. As the gun get dirty with as little as 50 rounds the trigger gets really bad. Without it the BHP has a pretty nice trigger.

I personally don't like them, none of my guns have them anymore. I'm not sure I would buy a carry gun with one. A range gun it really does not matter. Now with that said. If it's engineered right where it has NO impact on the trigger I could live with it. But not my preference, just complicates the detail cleaning.