Ruger Deerfield Carbine

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?!
 
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.

:)
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
The rounds just can't perform like other rifle rounds can in terms of performance.
Click to expand...
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?!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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....
 
Sure it will, most of the time. But not as well as a .270 Winchester.

Dead's dead, though. I hear ya there.
 
Sure it will, most of the time. But not as well as a .270 Winchester.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Is Ruger bringing back the Deerfield Carbine?
Replies
0
Views
481
biggameballs
B
E
  • Locked
Has a local store mispriced this Deerfield 44mag?
Replies
6
Views
612
Ranger J
R
W
  • Locked
Ruger semi-auto ranch rifles
Replies
1
Views
373
1KPerDay
1KPerDay
N
  • Locked
10 rnd mags for Ruger Deerfield .44 mag
Replies
22
Views
14K
Al Thompson
A
5
  • Locked
Ruger deerfield?
Replies
0
Views
594
5x5
5
Back
Top