Ruger Deerfield (and the older .44 carbine)

S

St. Hogustine

Inactive
Hi all,

I've been looking for a handy short-range deer rifle, and have always admired the old Ruger .44 Carbine (semi-auto).

Good news: I have the chance to buy one of the older-style carbines, a 1978 model, for $350-$400. It looks to have been shot fairly little, and the stock and trigger guard both look good.

I also stumbled into someone willing to sell his newer model 99/44 Deerfield carbine for $400-$450. It is also in very, very good condition and without a lot of rounds through it.

I know that both models have their fans, and I would like to hear your informed opinion on either. Which had you rather take to the woods (and why)? Right now the newer models are a good bit more expensive than the older ones. Is this for good reason?

Thanks for the info I've already learned from looking around!
 
Right now the newer models are a good bit more expensive than the older ones. Is this for good reason?
Click to expand...
Not according to some. Some will say the quality of the new pales in comparison to the old. Personally, I've never had either, but would like one or the other. One question is, would you like a tube-mag or rotary? I'm sure parts are harder to come by for the old tube fed ones.
 
I had one of the newer Deerfields for a while. Mine was only "okay accurate," and I really wished someone made a more-than-four-round magazine, which seems pretty limited in a semi-auto. Eventually sold it with no regrets. Were I to look for another, I think I'd opt for the older version. I don't see any value to such an anemic detachable magazine.
 
I've got 2 old style 44 carbines and one Deerstalker. All three shoot well and handle the same.

You can top off the tube magazine on the old style carbine without having to drop the magazine (just like a tube-fed shotgun).

The Deerfield is simpler to disassemble for cleaning. The way its op rod and dual recoil springs are designed, it is what the Mini-14 should have been. The only thing I don't like about the Deerfield is the limited choice of scope rings due to the proprietary Ruger ring notches on the receiver.
 
The customer is always right

I have been on the lookout for the old style Ruger .44 auto-loading carbine for years.......the one that looks like the 10/22.
A few years back Ruger made a mistake by answering the call for the revival of the .44 Mag auto-loader with a Mini-14 Garand style takeoff.
Hunters knew & asked for what they wanted but some whiz kid exec at Ruger marketing knew better so the newfangled 99 fizzled & as they say "the rest is history".
If a bunch of customers write & phone asking for a particular gun........don't second guess em.........give em what they want.
 
I had one of the newer Deerfields for a while. Mine was only "okay accurate," and I really wished someone made a more-than-four-round magazine, which seems pretty limited in a semi-auto.
Click to expand...

I guess the question of magazine capacity has more to do with what you're using the rifle for than anything else. If you're hunting deer with your Deerfield, I can't imagine a hunting scenario where more than four rounds would ever be needed.
 
In the early 80’s I had one of the Ruger carbines. It functioned flawlessly but accuracy was never what I thought the gun should have been capable of. 8 inch groups were normal at 100 yards. But that was before I started reloading. I think the gun would have done much better with reloads built for it than I did with factory. I now have one of the Ruger 77/44’s and I am very impressed with the accuracy of the gun.
I agree that the rotary mag having only 4 rounds is a disadvantage. My 77 takes the same mag (at least it looks the same as I remember) and my only complaint is the short mag does not allow very heavy bullets (+300 GR) to fit into the magazine so I have to single fire them.
Buy it, I think you will be very happy with it, just think about reloading for it.
 
I've owned/shot/hunted with both the Old Model .44 Carbines, and a newer 99/44 Deerfield, and prefer the original for a few reasons.

First - On the 99/44 Deerfield, I didn't like the plastic cover atop the barrel/operating arm; and I surely didn't like the non-walnut stock.

Second - The aftermarket receiver peep sights for the OM had more adjustability than the Deerfield's built-in peep.

Third - My OM shoots 100yd groups (w/peep sights) half the size of Deerfield groups (see typical OM group below)

GKRXO-.44Group.jpg


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top