Ruger PC Carbine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian46 said:
Do I need to hold one when I spoke to a tech at ruger directly when they were first announced to be coming out....... I don't care if it is an entirely different rifle, if the original 44 or Deerfield was available with a proper magazine and a synthetic stock, that is all I want.

10mm may fit, but if you are confident the current version won't hold up to a 44, it won't hold up to +P or buffalo bore 10mm either
Click to expand...

My best response here would be a facepalm meme.
 
Your signature makes it clear where you're coming from with the big and loud and obnoxious theme... but it sort of seems to me that mixing much more powerful cartridges with a relatively lightweight takedown rifle is a bit of a stretch. The thing's tailor made for 9mm. It's a good match. Going to a magnum load in a simple, compact takedown rifle is kind of like wanting a Chiappa Little Badger in 12 gauge.
 
B said:
My best response here would be a facepalm meme.
Click to expand...

Why?

A modern version of the old 44 autoloader is in the works, it will have detachable magazines. That is direct from ruger.

I guess some people are blind to how much the old ones still sell for if they are in good shape, they also sell within minutes of being listed, thankfully ruger is not
 
GerardSamija said:
Your signature makes it clear where you're coming from with the big and loud and obnoxious theme... but it sort of seems to me that mixing much more powerful cartridges with a relatively lightweight takedown rifle is a bit of a stretch. The thing's tailor made for 9mm. It's a good match. Going to a magnum load in a simple, compact takedown rifle is kind of like wanting a Chiappa Little Badger in 12 gauge.
Click to expand...

The old 44 carbine and later Deerfields were not heavy, I don't care for the takedown ability, likely never use it
 
So you're not what someone might describe as a Ruger fan, going by that last bit about "thankfully Ruger is not." But you want Ruger to make a version of the takedown rifle chambered in the cartridge you like. And you're unlikely to use the takedown feature, which is central to the carbine's design. Somehow this seems a poor fit. Like, maybe you ought to be looking for a rifle that isn't a takedown? But if as you say Ruger is looking at making a PC44, then I guess it's going to happen, and what you do or don't do with it is up to you. Seems less than ideal, but to each their own. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want a takedown rifle where repeatability of registration with a scope is predicated on using a special barrel-mounted scope base, when they don't want a takedown rifle. Why not get something in one piece, where the scope mounts once and for all and pulling it apart and stuffing it into a backpack isn't going to be a thing? This is confusing.
 
GerardSamija said:
So you're not what someone might describe as a Ruger fan, going by that last bit about "thankfully Ruger is not." But you want Ruger to make a version of the takedown rifle chambered in the cartridge you like. And you're unlikely to use the takedown feature, which is central to the carbine's design. Somehow this seems a poor fit. Like, maybe you ought to be looking for a rifle that isn't a takedown? But if as you say Ruger is looking at making a PC44, then I guess it's going to happen, and what you do or don't do with it is up to you. Seems less than ideal, but to each their own. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want a takedown rifle where repeatability of registration with a scope is predicated on using a special barrel-mounted scope base, when they don't want a takedown rifle. Why not get something in one piece, where the scope mounts once and for all and pulling it apart and stuffing it into a backpack isn't going to be a thing? This is confusing.
Click to expand...

I asked if they were going to produce a modern version of the old 44 carbine, by "modern" I meant with detachable mags and made that clear. Obviously they didn't hand over the plans to the rifle they are considering building, but they said a modern version was in the works.

I am puzzled, by how hard this is to understand.

If they make it a take down to satisfy some niche users as well as those who simply will never make use of that ability just to sell more units, so be it.

I have multiple ruger rifles, I don't need to be a fan to own a ruger do I?

Look at other rifles? Who else has made a magazine fed autoloading 44 carbine?
 
So your question to someone at Ruger was regarding a 44 carbine. They answered that such a thing was in the works. 'Takedown' wasn't involved? So this could be a project which isn't even relevant to this thread? You say you're confused... okay, but I think I'm more deeply confused than ever about your contributions to a takedown carbine thread.
 
The .44mag will probably be loosely based on the new PCC platform.
The new "RCC-44" and RCC-357 could be part of a new Revolver Caliber Carbine series with proprietary Ruger rotary mags.... :)
 
If they made a black rifle chassis for this, I'd be all over it. Still on the fence between this and a Scorpion. I gave up on the FX9 as a lefty shooter.
 
infini33.png
 
hotaam said:
I looked at 2 brand new guns. Considering a purchase. The rear sights on both were indexed off centre to the left, and canted about 3 degrees from the centre line (crooked front to back). ....The barrel was locked properly to the receiver. The fit of the forestock was proud on one side of the receiver, and recessed on the other. Anyone else notice this?
Click to expand...

I have two and both are without any issues I have noticed.
 
Brian46 said:
Why?

A modern version of the old 44 autoloader is in the works, it will have detachable magazines. That is direct from ruger.

I guess some people are blind to how much the old ones still sell for if they are in good shape, they also sell within minutes of being listed, thankfully ruger is not
Click to expand...

Good to hear about the possible new offering, would be a big hit with the 'hog hunter' crowd south of 49
the 9 is fine for ringing steel up here
 
hotaam said:
I looked at 2 brand new guns. Considering a purchase. The rear sights on both were indexed off centre to the left, and canted about 3 degrees from the centre line (crooked front to back). ....The barrel was locked properly to the receiver. The fit of the forestock was proud on one side of the receiver, and recessed on the other. Anyone else notice this?
Click to expand...

I've noticed this on all kinds of guns over the years..... it happens.
What did the shop do about it after you pointed it out? Some people don't seem to mind canted sights and poorly indexed barrels but personally I think they should be sent back and manufacturers be held to a higher standard as far as quality control is concerned.
 
GerardSamija said:
So your question to someone at Ruger was regarding a 44 carbine. They answered that such a thing was in the works. 'Takedown' wasn't involved? So this could be a project which isn't even relevant to this thread? You say you're confused... okay, but I think I'm more deeply confused than ever about your contributions to a takedown carbine thread.
Click to expand...

I called about this rifle when it was announced, asked if they planned a 44 carbine with detachable mags (non rotary), I didn't ask if it was specifically going to be a take down because I simply don't care
 
Brian46 said:
The reason for my call was this rifle, the title of the thread has nothing to do with "take down" it is about ruger pistol caliber carbines, one of which happens to be a 44
Click to expand...
Sure, the title doesn't say takedown, but the guy who started the thread was talking about and showing pictures of his new "take down" carbine, as he put it in that first post. But whatever, just seems odd to persist about higher powered cartridges and not caring about nor ever likely using the takedown feature in a takedown carbine thread.
 
GerardSamija said:
Sure, the title doesn't say takedown, but the guy who started the thread was talking about and showing pictures of his new "take down" carbine, as he put it in that first post. But whatever, just seems odd to persist about higher powered cartridges and not caring about nor ever likely using the takedown feature in a takedown carbine thread.
Click to expand...

Seems odd you completely overlook that the reason I called ruger in the first place was because they started building this rifle the op posted about........

I don't care for a take down, but that doesn't mean ruger isn't going to produce it as one, you must think I am rather special to believe ruger will put a rifle into production exactly the way I want based on a phone call rather than what they were already planning to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom