BLR pre-81 vs. post-81 Magazine Differences?

[Tycer]

Anybody got both? What would it take to get the newer mags to function in the pre-81 guns?

[iceman]

I had a pre 81 BLR and I had ejection problems with it. I think the hole (ejection port?) was too small. Sometimes the empty would hang up in the hole and cause a jam. (308 wcf) Maybe because I am left handed and the way I held the rifle, anyway I traded it on something. I can't answer on the mags but I thought i would tell you my experience. Just my .02.

[Pete44ru]

I no longer have my ca 1971 BLR in .358, and have only looked at the BLR-81's, but IMO they're too much different in latching and seating to adapt a newer one to the older rifle.

I'd rather reduce the older gun's mag capacity, to make it more flush, if I was so disposed.

I got in contact with a fella who did just that for my CZ527 .22 Hornet, to convert the protruding mag to a flush one - and he might be able to do the same thing to just about any box mag.



.

[Tycer]

Iceman, I have two in 358 Win. They function just fine.

I would lilke to have several mags and am trying to find a cheaper alternative to the pre-81s.

[Lastmohecken]

I believe it would be pretty difficult to do. the newer post 81 magazines are wider then the receiver is on the pre-81's regardless of any latching issues.

[Don McDowell]

The original style BLRs are thinner in the reciever than the 81's. The blr magazine is very thin, almost a single stack, and sticks down below the bottom of the reciever. They widened the reciever out for the 81 model, the magazine is a double stack, and fits flush more or less with the bottom of the receiver. While both magazines are the same lenght , the width and depth prevents any chance of crossfitting them.