Stainless Steel Stoeger Magazines

Sieger · 08-09-2003, 08:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Steve Richards:
I am sitting here with two magazines. One is an aluminum bottom vintage that I think is E German. It has S/N 1561 and a 2 on the bottom and 2/1001 on the side. The inside front to back at the top is 1.064". My new stainless is 1.065". The vintage is .505 wide on the outside and 0.595 over the follower button. The stainless is 0.473 and 0.560 respectively. But the big difference in the new model is that it is wide all over while the vintage is 0.438 away from the rib. The top of the catch opening is 1.095 from the top on the vintage and 1.041 on the stainless. So there are some differences other than just looking different.<hr /></blockquote>Dear Steve:

If those are good tight measurements, you have just answered my question. It looks like Aimco just reproduced the interior length of the original magazine without taking the shorter, newer, standard length cartridge into consideration. In essence, they have just reproduced the step feed problem of the shorter, newer, standard length ammo. This would be so easy for them to fix.

Bob

08-09-2003, 08:20 AM	#21
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Steve Richards: <strong>I am sitting here with two magazines. One is an aluminum bottom vintage that I think is E German. It has S/N 1561 and a 2 on the bottom and 2/1001 on the side. The inside front to back at the top is 1.064". My new stainless is 1.065". The vintage is .505 wide on the outside and 0.595 over the follower button. The stainless is 0.473 and 0.560 respectively. But the big difference in the new model is that it is wide all over while the vintage is 0.438 away from the rib. The top of the catch opening is 1.095 from the top on the vintage and 1.041 on the stainless. So there are some differences other than just looking different.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Steve: If those are good tight measurements, you have just answered my question. It looks like Aimco just reproduced the interior length of the original magazine without taking the shorter, newer, standard length cartridge into consideration. In essence, they have just reproduced the step feed problem of the shorter, newer, standard length ammo. This would be so easy for them to fix. Bob