It might just be me but I do not see it... not with a clip fed gun. Now if you were to make a small BELT fed gun running from a 10-22 I can see that in semi but I do not see semi shooting from a clip fed 10-22. Why not just take your Ruger and put a crank on it and strap it to a table... The dress up part does not do much for me. I love the MG42 but even the 10-22 dress up kit that looks like a MG42... in the end you just have a weird looking 10-22... I am not trying to kill your idea but if you want my 2 cents... go for the belt fed and skill the look-a-like part.
I appreciate your concerns and would like to go through them in the order you made them.
You wrote..."It might just be me but I do not see it... not with a clip fed gun. Now if you were to make a small BELT fed gun running from a 10-22 I can see that in semi but I do not see semi shooting from a clip fed 10-22."
The average belt of ammo holds 100 rds. True you can link up more belts or metal links, but that is the average single belt. Using a 50 rd magazine, that is one magazine change with my currently magazine fed ruger dress up prototype. In the time (or less) than it takes for you to clear a jam on a belt fed gun I can change mags and equal the 100rd belt in capacity. People tend to forget that belts have to be loaded just as mags do. They don't just keep magically feeding with an unlimited supply. The Russian Degteyarev and Lewis machine guns use a drum magazine or "clips". They are viable machine guns. Some versions of the Hotchkiss machine gun used a limited capacity tray or "clip" as did some Italian machine guns. All viable feeding systems.
The fine Bren machine gun is magazine fed or "clip" fed as you say. (Although a "clip" is a mannlicher style ammunition holding device not synonomous with a magazine and most commonly found in Carcano and Garand rifles). The British Bren machine gun is an excellent machine gun with a proud proven track record. It's box magazine holds 30 rds. That is a full 20 rds less than the capacity of my MWG magazine for my Ruger 10/22.
According to your post you "do not see" the Bren or the other machine guns I mentioned as a viable fed firearm since they are "clip" fed.
I understand your reasoning for this and where it stems from but disagree and wanted to point out the above facts. (Some) people who prefer belt fed tend to unreasonably discount any other type of feeding system as not being viable. They tend to forget that machine gun crews were usually composed of more than the one civilian man that they are when they are at the range. As a magazine got close to being empty, the assistant was ready to quickly take the empty one out and replace it with a full one, leaving the gunner able to concentrate on his sights and the enemy. A magazine fed machine gun also has less tendency to jam since its magazine fed system is smoother than a belt feed and not subject to a jumping, cocking, kinked belt or a cartridge not properly loaded into a belt. The early crank fire machine guns (yes they were called machine guns in those days even though they were crank fired)
such as the twin barreled water cooled Gardner gun, could keep up a continuous uninteruped rate of fire. A two-barrelled firearm operated by crank which loaded and fired each barrel in turn. The feed system was a grooved strip into which the rims of a box of cartridges could be slid, after which the box was removed. In public trials the gun fired 10,000 rounds in 27 minutes. See the below pic for an illustration of this on how its magazine was replenished by an assistant while the gunner continued to fire.
A trained crew or even one man can keep up a withering hail of fire even with standard magazine fed machine guns. If you were being fired on by a Bren would you stick your head up because you thought the 30 rd mag was empty and it would take about 2 or 3 seconds to reload a fresh one? I do agree that having the ability to link belts for uninterupted fire is an advantage, and that is why I am working on the belt feed for the 10/22. But I disagree that magazine fed is not also a viable feeding system. In actual combat (discounting some rare instances of human wave charges by Japanese in WW2 and in Korea) a belt fed machine gun is not continuously fired anyway. It is only as civilians at the range that we get our kicks out of hearing that satisfying long 100 rds or more litany of crack, crack, crack, that gives us an ego boost by saying "I have a belt fed". Now that is fine, but not a reason to discount any other type of viable ammunition feeding system. I have attended many machine gun shoots. Dirt gets kicked up, fire extinguishers, fridges, washing machines, lawnmowers and old cars all fall prey to our guns and yes it is fun to hear that long string of belt fed firing, but....that does not make it the only viable feeding system. I haven't had a line of infantry with fixed bayonets charge me yet at the range where I felt the need for uninterupted belt feed to save my life. Is it fun to hear and fire off 100 rds or more without stopping? Sure. But it is not the only way to fire rapidly.
You wrote...."Why not just take your Ruger and put a crank on it and strap it to a table... The dress up part does not do much for me."
Would you strap a Lewis, Gatling, Degteyarev, Bren, Browning 1919 or any other firearm for that matter to a table? By "strapping it to a table" you could not move the gun for elevation and windage. I do not understand the reasoning behind your statement. Regarding the dress up part that you said "does not do much for me". With my air cooled model it is simply esthetics. Why have a sports car when the 4 door economy model will roll down the road? Why not wear checkered pants with your pinstripe suit, they clothe you whether mismatched or not correct? Why put any aftermarket stock or add ons on your AR15 or any other firearm when the bullet will still go downrange the same? Esthetics is why. So much in firearms is esthetics. Why does one person prefer a maxim over a Browning or a Browning over a Maxim? Esthetics. Beauty in the eye of the beholder. If you would prefer to just add a crankfire device to your factory stocked ruger over having a ruger that looked like a real machine gun, then that is your preference, but I think many others would prefer the esthetics of it looking like a real machine gun. However, regarding my water cooled prototype, it is more than just "dress up" or esthetics with my water cooled ruger prototype. It is an extremely useful function of cooling. I find myself firing it a lot more than my air cooled model simply for the reason that it does not overheat like my air cooled does. I like them both and fire them both, but I prefer the water cooled.
In conclusion, if you could not previously "see" or understand the reasoning I have put forth above, I hope now you may pause to reconsider your preconceptions.
If you are one of the lucky people who has a full size 30 caliber or larger semi or full auto expensive to feed belt fed and have no desire for anything less, then accept my congratulation and a tip of my hat to you. Then most likely my designs would not be for you. However, if someone would like to have a nice metal, air or water cooled, stock replacement kit, that is a machine gun look alike, that fires rapidly with a crank or transferable full auto 10/22 and is extremely inexpensive to feed, then my designs might be for them.