Ruger Deerfield Carbine


PDA






Jason_W
November 18, 2010, 04:21 PM
Why did these rifles end up discontinued? Seems like a neat concept, though the crescent buttplate is a strike against it IMO.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Deerfield Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
greyling22
November 18, 2010, 06:54 PM
lack of demand I assume. I would have bought one had they bothered to build a magazine that took more than 4 rounds. I mean really, who builds a 4 round semi-automatic gun?!

Jason_W
November 18, 2010, 08:28 PM
Yeah. A better buttstock and more magazine options and it would have been formidable for a variety of purposes.

Maverick223
November 18, 2010, 11:00 PM
I agree magazines and lack of chambering options and magazines with a decent capacity. Although I remember hearing about someone modifying Desert Eagle .44Mag. mags to fit...don't know how well that worked out though.

:)

TexasPatriot.308
November 18, 2010, 11:13 PM
wished I hadd bought one for hogs here in Texas..seems like the ideal gun likea model 94

Welding Rod
November 18, 2010, 11:34 PM
I had one... loved it except the damn limited magazine capacity.

I would buy another if they would take a detachable 10 rounder (or higher).

HOOfan_1
November 18, 2010, 11:39 PM
My dad had one and said it was a jamomatic

Jason_W
November 20, 2010, 08:25 AM
Maybe chambering it in 10mm would help with some of the feeding issues inherent to rimmed cases in semi-autos. It wouldn't quite have the power of the .44, but still enough for deer at woods ranges.

Clipper
November 20, 2010, 09:03 AM
You mag capacity guys crack me up. A carbine is supposed to be small & light, and mag capacity gets heavy. And just how many rounds do you need to kill a deer? Not to mention, some states (like mine) have a capacity limit for deer hunting...Still doesn't stop some guys from trying to spray down a running deer. I've had to hit the dirt a few times myself because of guys like that. I'm just as glad Ruger had sense enough to limit capacity and bulk on what is supposed to be a deer carbine.

uspJ
November 20, 2010, 09:09 AM
I wish Ruger would start making them again. I've been trying to buy one off a friend for years but he refuses to part with it.

The capacity doen't make that big of a deal with me for hunting, but a 10 rd detachable mag for plinking would be nice.

Fremmer
November 20, 2010, 09:19 AM
The rounds just can't perform like other rifle rounds can in terms of performance.

They could have called it the Ruger manfield and made it to take 20 round mags, and it might have sold better. I guess ol' Bill wouldn't have liked that, though. :D

CraigC
November 20, 2010, 09:28 AM
The rounds just can't perform like other rifle rounds can in terms of performance.
You get a 300-400fps boost over handgun velocities making it a legitimate 150yd carbine. How many hunters really need a rifle that can shoot further than that? Recoil and muzzle blast are also far less than rifle rounds as well. There's a very good reason why pistol cartridge leverguns are very good sellers. Because lots of folks recognize their utility and the fact that you can't make a 300yd shot is unimportant.


I mean really, who builds a 4 round semi-automatic gun?!
Because it's a hunting rifle, not an entry weapon. Let us not forget that most states have laws regarding the capacity of semi-autos used for hunting. :rolleyes:


The original went away because they were too costly to produce. They were entirely machined from steel billet and the design was not compatible with investment casting. The Deerfield went away because of lack of sales.

kaferhaus
November 20, 2010, 09:35 AM
One of the handiest hog rifles ever produced. I've been kicking myself in the ass for 15yrs for selling the one I had...

Jason_W
November 20, 2010, 09:44 AM
You get a 300-400fps boost over handgun velocities making it a legitimate 150yd carbine. How many hunters really need a rifle that can shoot further than that? Recoil and muzzle blast are also far less than rifle rounds as well. There's a very good reason why pistol cartridge leverguns are very good sellers. Because lots of folks recognize their utility and the fact that you can't make a 300yd shot is unimportant.

I'm a huge fan of pistol cal carbines in general. Most hunting terrain here in the northeast is pretty thick with a 100 yard shot being incredibly rare, unless you're hunting a clearcut or field. My experience has been that bucks learn to avoid the open areas during legal hours anyway.

Short, light, carbines are a lot easier to work through the thick stuff than a bolt rifle with a huge scope. I could be wrong since I've never tried it myself, but I have a suspicion that all the parts protruding from an AR style rifle would snag on brush.

As far a pistol caliber being "inferior", it won't bounce off, and how much less meat ruined by a "slow" and heavy round at close range as opposed to a high velocity round at 35 to 50 yards?

CraigC
November 20, 2010, 09:55 AM
I agree, around here it's impossible to even see 100yds until all the leaves fall off. I've never had a shot at deer beyond 100yds and my single long-legged rifle (.270) has been dormant for five or six years.

Fremmer
November 20, 2010, 10:11 AM
I think you get a lot more out of a .270 Winchester than a .44 Mag, but to each his own I guess. Range is irrelevant, because I want better performance from a dedicated hunting round that will penetrate bone and put it down hard (at any range). To each his own, though, using a deerfield might be fun sometime, too.

I'm telling ya, they should go with the Manfield Carbine with 20 round mags. Now one of those would be interesting....

Jason_W
November 20, 2010, 10:15 AM
A .44 mag at 100 yards or less will clear straight through any broadside deer, especially considering wide meplate, heavy, hard cast bullets.

Fremmer
November 20, 2010, 10:39 AM
Sure it will, most of the time. But not as well as a .270 Winchester.

Dead's dead, though. I hear ya there.

CraigC
November 20, 2010, 11:24 AM
Sure it will, most of the time. But not as well as a .270 Winchester.
Mmmm, hmmm. Put down the energy tables. The .44Mag will shoot clear through any whitetail, elk or moose that walks the earth with the proper bullet. And not just broadside either. Sorry sir, the .44Mag carbine gives up NOTHING to a rifle cartridge, inside its effective range of 150yds.

Fremmer
November 20, 2010, 11:52 AM
Yeah it does, which is why people use the rifle rounds like the .270 for hunting rather than using a 44 mag, 10mm, or any other handgun round. And when you're going out to the 150 yard range, I'd certainly much rather have the .270 for both accuracy and effectiveness. Sorry, but reality is that the rifle round will perform better, which is why everybody uses them.

I don't even have an energy table, but I'm not surprised that they show more energy from a .270 than the handgun rounds. That's one reason they're more effective.

Jason_W
November 20, 2010, 01:27 PM
I find pistol cal carbines more fun to shoot than most centerfire rifle rounds which goes a long way in my opinion.

An irony that has always perplexed me is that often the same hunter who bowhunts in the early autumn, and hunts with a muzzle loader in the late autumn (muzzleloaders these days essentially fire pistol bullets) will call any modern deer rifle that isn't in the 30-06 class inadequate. At bow range, a .44 mag or .357 magnum round from a carbine will mess up more vital tissue than a broadhead, yet many consider the above rounds poor choices for deer at any range. It's perplexing.

Granted, if I was on a spot and stalk hunt for mule deer or elk out where a person can actually see past 50 yards, a pistol caliber wouldn't be my first choice, but in the thick stuff, give me something that is short, light, relative wide in bore diameter and offers a quick follow-up shot.

rallyhound
November 20, 2010, 01:46 PM
I've shot about 15 deer now with my deerfield and the simple fact is that at 50-100 yards the 44 mag simply does more damage and drops them faster than a rifle round.

They go all the way through and the holes are bigger ( rem 240 semi jacket).

They are lighter and shorter and easier to carry.

I use a shotgun scope on mine and target acquisition is faster than a 3x9 on heavier rifle (like a bolt action).

I have hunted with the same 4 guys for 10 years or so and every one has switched to a Deerfield 44 now.

bhk
November 20, 2010, 01:51 PM
I've shot three close range deer with a four-inch .44 magnum, and tissue damage was as great or greater that I note with my .30-06. An expanding .44 slug make a pretty good sized hole. The .44s kill a lot better than many folks realize.

I still use my 7-08 or 30-06 for hunting from stands that might produce long shots where good triggers and nice scopes shine, but the .44 is a real killer at closer ranges where open sights or low power scopes excel. I am sure it would be ok out to 150 yards or so if your shooting platform allowed for the necessary accuracy. I just shot a 9-point buck and a doe this week with my 7-08. Any more deer next week will be taken with a .44 mag. Marlin.

Otony
November 20, 2010, 02:16 PM
CraigC wrote "The original went away because they were too costly to produce. They were entirely machined from steel billet and the design was not compatible with investment casting. The Deerfield went away because of lack of sales."

Can you substantiate this claim that the receiver is machined from billet? I am highly doubtful that it is correct, but I could be wrong of course. If you examine a Deerfield closely, the receiver shows fairly obvious signs of being the same sort of casting used on other Ruger firearms. Indeed, it is not too dissimilar from a Mini-14 receiver, which is a known cast item.

Maverick223
November 20, 2010, 05:50 PM
Can you substantiate this claim that the receiver is machined from billet? I am highly doubtful that it is correct, but I could be wrong of course. If you examine a Deerfield closely, the receiver shows fairly obvious signs of being the same sort of casting used on other Ruger firearms. Indeed, it is not too dissimilar from a Mini-14 receiver, which is a known cast item.The originals were milled from solid stock, but they absolutely were compatible with the investment casting process, which is what spawned the Deerfield (essentially the same gun, but with a cast receiver). BTW, Ruger investment castings are of very high quality (it is the backbone of their company) and have proven to be equals of most comparable forged receiver/bolt, and is sometimes better. The only fault I see, is the quality of the finish is often not as good as their forged counterparts.

:)

RonDeer10mm
November 20, 2010, 05:55 PM
I just posted about this gun IN "Guns you would like to see in production. in 10mm :)

HOOfan_1
November 20, 2010, 05:58 PM
I wonder how the Marlin 1894 Cowboy would handle .45 Colts loaded up to .44 Mag energy levels. That would be an excellent back woods deer rifle.

Jason_W
November 20, 2010, 06:48 PM
I wonder how the Marlin 1894 Cowboy would handle .45 Colts loaded up to .44 Mag energy levels. That would be an excellent back woods deer rifle.

Don't take my word for it, but I'm pretty sure that the Marlin can handle hot .45 Colt loads. You might want to do a little research first, though.

Maverick223
November 20, 2010, 07:17 PM
The Winchester '92 is a much stronger action, but the Marlin isn't too bad. I'd say you could easily match a standard .44Mag. out of the Marlin, but the Winnie is amongst the few that can withstand .454Casull pressure.

:)

HOOfan_1
November 20, 2010, 07:19 PM
The Winchester is a much stronger action,

Good luck finding one at a reasonable price though

Maverick223
November 20, 2010, 07:46 PM
Good luck finding one at a reasonable price thoughPuma makes one that isn't too bad, and if you go that route you might as well go with the .454Casull version (if you reload that is).

:)

CraigC
November 20, 2010, 08:21 PM
The originals were milled from solid stock, but they absolutely were compatible with the investment casting process, which is what spawned the Deerfield
I guess you know better than R. L. Wilson, who wrote of such in his book, "Ruger and His Guns". The only reason the original .44 carbine was machined from barstock is because it was NOT compatible with investment casting. Or at least, not at the time. The later Deerfield was a broad redesign based more on the Mini 14.

Seriously, you guys think I make this stuff up???

Marlins can indeed handle "Ruger only" loads in .45Colt and more in fact.

Considering that new Marlins can run up to $700, I don't think the slightly higher tariff on a Miroku 1892 is too far out of line. Think I paid $900 for my .45Colt Trapper model and better deals can be had.

Otony
November 21, 2010, 01:10 AM
I don't think you made up anything, and never wrote anything to that effect.. I had not read your statement closely enough to realize you meant the originals were machined, whilst the later Deerfields were cast. The last sentence became more obvious upon re-reading the passage.

No reason to get defensive, just asking a question to makes things clearer.

CraigC
November 21, 2010, 01:19 AM
Sorry Otony, that was directed at Maverick, not you. If I get defensive, it's because I have to be.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Deerfield Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!