It's only a problem if some official Ruger paperwork claims it will never slam bolt home during barrel install/removal. In absence of that text, they can claim it's a feature, not a bug.
Ruger PC Carbine
- Thread starter wayupnorth
- Start date
- Status
It's only a problem if some official Ruger paperwork claims it will never slam bolt home during barrel install/removal. In absence of that text, they can claim it's a feature, not a bug.
Well I'm calling back and insists they look at it because I can't see how this could be normal
It's a bad deal.
I could be wrong, but think it may have actually caused damage to mine. I think the bolt face smacking against the barrel extension might have damaged the bolt face retaining pins. The last time I disassembled mine for cleaning, the one pin looked a bit banged up and I wasn't even able to get the other one out.
I could be wrong, but think it may have actually caused damage to mine. I think the bolt face smacking against the barrel extension might have damaged the bolt face retaining pins. The last time I disassembled mine for cleaning, the one pin looked a bit banged up and I wasn't even able to get the other one out.
I watched both part 1 and part 2 of Hickock45 YouTube videos and part 2 was needed to discuss the feeding issues he experienced.
Too bad the bolt did not slam back when he was filming. It does not seem to be acceptable for this to happen because damage can occur and it just should not do that.
Too bad the bolt did not slam back when he was filming. It does not seem to be acceptable for this to happen because damage can occur and it just should not do that.
Did you contact ruger or snapshots... curious what their response was to you..
Either way the bolt shouldn't snap forward when installing bolt...and if its causing damage that's more reasons that ruger should figure this out
Thanks Stevo, it latched, I just had to man up and hit it harder.
Perfect!
CTCSupplies.ca had one but it is "out of stock" at the moment.
I also wanted one but the price of $249 cooled me off. IMO too much money for something which is, mostly, for aesthetic purposes.
Just got to try mine out for the first time last weekend. In terms of fun (not necessarily utility), this may be my new favourite plinker. That said, I did have three or four stovepipes and failures to feed out of ~120 rounds of cheap Winchester steel cased 9mm, using the Glock adapter and brand new G19 mags.
I don't know if I'd be drilling holes in mine but I know what you're talking about - everytime I pick it up it's heavier than I expect. Too many years of carrying my 10/22 I guess.
I rather doubt that drilling holes in the hollow, glass-reinforced nylon stock would save more than an ounce or two. I mean... you could skeletonize the thing, but then you'd have a very fragile stock. If I were wanting to shave significant weight off a gun like that, I'd start with the barrel. Put it between centres in a lathe and trim it down from maybe 4" in front of the chamber to the end, then sleeve the new pencil barrel with JB Weld and a carbon fibre tube, probably 2 tubes with 2mm wall thickness each to stiffen it again, using a stepped portion to bridge from the thinned part to the full-thickness part for the outer CF tube to be glued on, so as to avoid a weak spot or 'stress riser.' The barrel is already grooved from just ahead of the rear sight mount so you could probably save something like 4 ounces by removing steel in that area without dangerously weakening the barrel, just taking it down to the bottom of the grooves. Of course you'd lose your front sight and threaded muzzle going that thin... but if you're using a scope or dot sight that won't matter.
Can't see a lot else that could be safely carved away. Probably bits and pieces here and there could be lightened, saving another few ounces, but it's already a fairly light carbine, seems Ruger has been quite spare in the over-building department.
It's the thick barrel and the heavy bolt that do it. Not sure why Ruger went with such a heavy barrel for a 50-100 yard carbine.
I've only held a PC9 briefly - Barfman's a couple of months ago - and haven't shot one, but it felt 'right' in my hands. I liked the weight. For a .22lr it'd be a bit heavy, but for a 9mm it seemed appropriate. Weighty enough to hold steady and probably not kick a lot on firing. Felt like handling an old school Leica 35mm camera or an old Stanley plane, or a 1950's Webley air pistol for that matter. Solid, instilling confidence. Seemed like it'd have enough inertia to be relatively easy to shoot offhand at 100 yards.
- Status
