Carbine or Deerfield

two-dogs said:
^ cool, thanks! Is there not some sort of loading/unloading difference in the early carbines and later carbines? I read something somewhere about a difference that made me not want the early one. The article stated that one was more desirable that the other for a reason. Might have been something to do with unloading.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I never heard that. However there were two series. First: 1961 to 1974 and Second: 1975 to 1985. They must have made some change. Mine was manufactured in 1976 and I never had an issue with loading or feeding (other than the inconvenience of the tube mag compared to the removable mag of the Deerfield).
 
ronecol said:
Interesting. I never heard that. However there were two series. First: 1961 to 1974 and Second: 1975 to 1985. They must have made some change. Mine was manufactured in 1976 and I never had an issue with loading or feeding (other than the inconvenience of the tube mag compared to the removable mag of the Deerfield).
Click to expand...

I could be away out in left field here, but it may be possible for unloading that the early ones had to be ejected through the gun receiver and the later ones could be unloaded out of the tube. There was some kind of inconvenience or something that didn't suit my fancy making me not want the early carbine.
 
Last edited:
it's a rain day here today and all this talk about the Ruger 44 is giving me that warm and fuzzy feeling so much so that I am going to dig my sweet pea Deerfield out of the safe and fondle it! I'll leave it in the front row and take a few shots off the deck as soon as the rain quits.:d
 
Both are very nice and it's a shame Ruger discontinued the 99/44 in 2006. On the Ruger forums it has been mentioned that Ruger are looking at resurrecting it in .357 but who knows?
 
I have one made in 1976 and there is a button you push just inside the loading gate and it releases the cartridges one at a time. I've had the older ones but I don't remember it being that difficult to unload.
 
ronecol;11803015[B said:
]In good condition for a Deerfield $1200[/B] on up to whatever you're willing to pay - that is if you can find one. Most who have one won't sell at any price.

There's a 1977 Carbine on EE now for $850 which is about right if it's in good condition. http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1292474-1977-Ruger-Model-44
Click to expand...


yep, $1290. shipped for me for the Deerfield 99/44, so my left nut went with the deal, oh well, I'm an old SOB, wasn't using the nut anyway! So WTF! I got one and it sits in the safe! Geeeeezzzzz.
 
I've owned 3 of the .44 carbines in the past, but not the Deerfield. It would be nicer for me to have the Deerfield model due to the 1 in 20" twist so as to stabilize heavier boolits of 300 gr. plus. Of course, without knowing the maximum overall length the magazine of the Deerfield would accept cartridges, I'd have to reserve a price to pay on one. 1200 bucks+ ain't in my reality to spend on a .44 automatic carbine from any maker.
 
I've had a Winchester 92 rifle (converted to 44 Mag), A S&W Mod. 29, a Marlin 1894 and the second generation Ruger carbine (push button to unload mag tube).

Couldn't ever cotton-up to the Deerfield.
 
I had mine imported from the USA last fall.At that time our dollar was pretty much at par so the exchange didn't kill me.Between the buying,import and shipping cost I was still around the $1200CA mark so didn't mind that.If you watch some web sites you can get them for 6-800$US.With the exchange rate the way it is now I'd never think about doing it again until it's around par again.Glad I did it when I did.I got it a week before our deer hunt last fall and got a huge doe with it with one shot at 75yrds so as far as I'm concerned it's paid for it's already !
 
I'd dearly love to own either rifle, but the Deerfield is especially distracting. Living in S. Ontario...and not being a big-game hunter...$1K+ is simply far too much to spend on a rifle for novelty/collector value alone (in my world) but then again...my wife is convinced we need $3,100 worth of new vinyl windows to replace the wood ones simply because the paint is starting to peel. (got the quote last night, still coming to terms...lol)

Funny how every expense gets measured against the "what shooting-related item could that much money buy?" ruler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom