Carbine or Deerfield

ronecol

ronecol

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
67   0   0
Location
Orillia, Ontario
So which is it? The Carbine or the Deerfield?

Specifically which of the two would you take a field?

Some have one... . or the other....or both. Some would like to have one.... or the other.... or both. Some could care less.

However, if you do have one or the other or would like to have one or the other, which one would go hunting with you?

We’re not comparing these rifles to other makes and models, only to one another. And we’re not comparing the .44 Remington Magnum calibre to other calibres. It’s only a comparison between the original Ruger .44 Carbine (1961-1985) and the later Ruger Deerfield 99/44 (2000-2007)

Some comparisons

Carbine

Weight: 6. lbs
Overall length: 37 in.
Barrel length: 18.5 in.
Rate of twist: 1-38
Magazine: 4 shot tubular
Front sight: blade & gold bead
Rear sight: flip-down “V”
Scope mount: drilled and tapped for mount(s)
Design: exclusive & original ( first long gun manufactured by Ruger)
Handling impression: sleek, well balanced and quick to the shoulder

Deerfield

Weight: 6.5 lbs
Overall length: 37 in.
Barrel length: 18.5 in.
Rate of twist: 1-20
Magazine: 4 shot rotary removable box
Front sight: blade & gold bead
Rear sight: flip-down aperture & adjustable
Scope mount: integral to accept (supplied) Ruger rings
Design: Roughly on the Mini 14
Handling impression: a bit bulky but well balanced and quick to the shoulder

So what's your choice and what's your reason(s)
 
Last edited:
Having handled both, but shot neither. ......my choice was the Deerfield. I dont think for me it would make sense for either as they would sit in a safe....10th or lower on the depth chart. If i lived on the Vancouver Island or Southern Ontario it would appeal more to me.

Did you just pass another 1000 posts Looky......why the goat ????
 
nowarningshot said:
Having handled both, but shot neither. ......my choice was the Deerfield. I dont think for me it would make sense for either as they would sit in a safe....10th or lower on the depth chart. If i lived on the Vancouver Island or Southern Ontario it would appeal more to me.

Did you just pass another 1000 posts Looky......why the goat ????
Click to expand...

Looky is moved to verse by the first few sentences in my post. :)
 
Had both and now only have the Deerfield.I like the Deerfield for the ease of loading and having a mag.So much easier than the than the original for loading and unloading.Depending where your hunting if you have to cross roads it's a royal pain to unload a tube mag for 100ft and then reload again.Just pop the mag out and pull the bolt back and unloaded for the deerfield.I will have another original again but in no hurry now that I've got a Deerfield and love it!
 
I have had both and did not care much for either one. Sold them.
The choice between the two would depend on the shooter. Every rifle fits everybody differently.
 
I would prefer the Deerfield because of the detachable magazine and because of the aperture rear sight and its location. I'd settle for the carbine.
 
I wanted the Deerfield because of the DM, I looked for years for one, turned down a few carbines, finally got a 99/44 about a year or two ago. Had to pay an arm and a leg for it. Fired a couple of shots, loved it, and it sits in the safe. I'm so bad for that kind of thing! I gotta dig her out and do some more shoot'en.
What is the deal with the early carbine and the later carbine? There was difference of some sort. I had it in my head that if I couldn't come up with a Deerfield, I would settle for the later carbine.
 
Brian46 said:
I would like the full stock International version
Click to expand...
Like the one here? Great little gun to carry around during deer season
SAM_3249_zpscd8322e0.jpg
 
two-dogs said:
I wanted the Deerfield because of the DM, I looked for years for one, turned down a few carbines, finally got a 99/44 about a year or two ago. Had to pay an arm and a leg for it. Fired a couple of shots, loved it, and it sits in the safe. I'm so bad for that kind of thing! I gotta dig her out and do some more shoot'en.
What is the deal with the early carbine and the later carbine? There was difference of some sort. I had it in my head that if I couldn't come up with a Deerfield, I would settle for the later carbine.
Click to expand...



The Carbine was the earlier model manufactured from 1961 to 1985 with some 250,000 manufactured. The Deerfield from 2000 to 2006 saw only 17,500 go to market with most sold in the U.S thus their relative rarity in Canada.

Only one run of the Deerfield was manufactured. It is designed roughly on the Mini 14. It was built on the Mini 14 line. To manufacture a second run of the Deerfield the production of the Mini 14 would have had to be suspended temporarily to permit the Deerfield to be built on the Mini 14 line. By then the Mini 14 was in such demand and selling like gang busters. So purely for economical reasons it was not in the best interest of Ruger's bottom line to cease even temporarily the production of the Mini 14 and the Deerfield was discontinued. The Ruger executive I spoke with said "it's all about the shareholders".

If you're interested in the "Deerslayer - Deerstalker" history go here: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1149077-The-Ruger-Deerslayer-The-Real-Story
 
Last edited:
^ 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom