Study of two .22 LR magazines

[STEINBVG]

As you might know , I like to tinker with .22.

I have 2 magazines- one for HK270 rifle and another is for Ruger Mark III or IV.
I don,t have either weapon, but looking at the 2 I think the HK is a better design.
Never mind the difference in angle of the magazines.

1) the back of the HK magazine is wider, the cross section of the sleeve is a keyhole , very smart design allowing the shells to be double stack at the rim level making them lay at ~the same angle from the 1t to the last round

2) Ruger and similar truly single stack rim magazines seem to need the follower to be at more aggressive angle to keep the straight line of the magazine at expense of the gradually decreasing angle of the bullets towards the top one.
Banana clips for 22 are more logical in this case.
The worst part is that the bullets seem to feed at different angle from the 1t to last round, which probably will limit capacity due to the extreme variation. I doubt Ruger could make a 20 round stick magazine of such design that would feed good at full capacity, all the rounds.

3) notice that HK rounds lay practically at the same angle, well fixated by the lips and laying flat on the top of each other and the follower. I believe there are 15 and 20 round mags out there.
Also
Ruger,s round on the top is loose, pinched at rear and can capriciously move the tip up and down: the more rounds are in, the worse this movement.

4) additionally judging the front lip geometry HK seems to feed the rounds almost directly to the chamber, when Ruger expects the rounds to climb up above the front lips guided by the magazine spring and feed ramp and , hopefully controlled by the face of the bolt and extractor.
I could never understand the need for such a dramatic climb...
There are designs, where the tip of the bullet is practically facing the center of the chamber entry and is under much more optimal angle.