Ruger 44 Mag carbine (pre-Deerfield)

[rbernie]

I've been eying an older Ruger 44 Mag carbine; the one with the tubular stock that looks to be built on the 10/22 receiver but old enough to NOT be marked as a Deerfield or such.

Will 10/22 triggers and stocks fit this beastie? Does anyone make magazine extenders for it?

 

[Mannlicher]

no, and no

 

[rbernie]

Well, dang.

 

[flatdog]

You really wouldn't want an extended magazine. Four rounds of rapid fire heats the barrel quickly, and the zero can wander until it cools. The wandering is worsened by the barrel contacting either the barrel band the stock or both.

It's regulated for the 240-250 grain loads and it may not cycle reliably with lighter ones. Think of it as a hard hitting, handy little brush gun that looks a lot like an M1 carbine.

 

[Matt-man]

The .44 Carbine is not in any way, shape, or form built on a 10/22 receiver. They're completely different rifles except for the fact that they look (and feel) alike. The .44 came before the 10/22 - I read somewhere that the 10/22 was originally intended as an inexpensive practice rifle for owners of the .44.

The .44 Carbine stock is retained in a manner very similar to the M1 Carbine's stock. In addition to the barrel band there's an attachment point at the back of the receiver.

I took my carbine apart to clean it when I bought it, figuring it'd be a piece of cake since I've had my 10/22 apart dozens of times. Wrong! What a hassle. It operates in a completely different manner than the 10/22 and sure doesn't look like it was designed to be disassembled easily like, say, a Garand. So, 10/22 triggers are definitely out.

I think the tubular magazine is limited in length - and hence capacity - by the gas piston assembly being ahead of it inside the forearm.

 

[Eyesac]

I really wish they made a 44mag in an AR configuration. Or any autoloading 44mag for that matter. The ruger isn't much of an option to me...