I could have sworn I posted a second time in this thread, addressing the original question. I guess not.
I've spent a bit of time with some Americans, particularly one in .243 Winchester.
It's a good rifle, almost entirely milled from bar stock (odd for Ruger), it has a pretty decent trigger, the price is reasonable, and they're just as accurate as (or better than) anything else out there.
1. The stock is very thin. I don't like the way the fore-end or wrist feel in my hands.
2. Balance - it's far too muzzle-heavy (due to the hollow stock, of course).
3. The magazine .... that thing is a joke. It's a cheap, nearly-worthless hunk of cheap plastic; it barely locks into the action/stock; it rattles around, due to the poor engagement; capacity is not what you would expect; and the feed lips are thin little pieces of plastic. With the .30-06 and .243 versions I've handled, loading a cartridge into the magazine was a 3-step process that required repositioning your hand twice, because of the ultra-cheap (non-existent) engineering that went into the design.
Out of all the "budget" rifles on the market (Savage/Stevens, Remington, Ruger, Marlin, Mossberg, etc.), I still rank it right up at the top with the Marlin X7s due to build quality and performance at the range.
But, that magazine is a deal-breaker for me. It is the Achilles heel.
They're great shooters. I could get used to the stock. I could compromise on the balance. I cannot stand that magazine.