quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
They need to make it look cheaper.

Don't know if they actually could.

Here's a link to the manual, complete with detailed breakdown with photos showing the "dead blow weight" in the bolt (which some had questioned earlier in the thread):

https://drive.google.com/file/...Mwuv9gBwlsetcAe/view

Details gleaned from the manual:

- It does hold the bolt open on the last round.
- Mag well swap only requires taking down the rifle, loosening two bolts to release the receiver, lifting out the current mag well, and dropping in the new one
- Ambi (swappable) charging handle, but only ejects out the right side
- Ambi (swappable) magazine release
- 1/2-28 muzzle threading
- Adjustable length of pull; comes with three 0.5" butt spacers
- +P ammo compatible


I wish they would offer a non-takedown version that's laid out more like the old PC9, with the rear ghost ring on the receiver.



Still, with the addition of a better aftermarket peep sight at the rear of the rail, as well as a nicer aftermarket stock, I could see this being a real winner.

quote:

Originally posted by amc:
Ive wanted a pc9 for years but didn't want to pay increasing price for one and the mag compatibility was a minor issue for me. Ill have to keep an eye out for one of these. Just wish they would have kept the simplistic look of the old pc9.

I still have my old PC-9 (along with its companion, a P89) and eight 15rd mags. I'm in no rush to get this one.

It does look a little odd but I’ve seen worse ideas. I can see a use for one of these if Magpul makes a stock similar to their 10/22 stock as a backpack / trunk gun.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DrewR,

None of its utilitarianism detracts from the fact that it looks like a fresh, steaming pile of dog shit that has been stepped in by a cross trainer athletic shoe with aggressive tread.

Any attempt at aesthetics have been completely abandoned for the sake of utilitarianism. In fact, “utilitarianism” has been added where none was needed solely for the purposes of making it look like it has some functional benefit. A fluted barrel? You can pull the trigger on that all day long as fast as you can and you will wear your finger out before you overheat the barrel to the point that it will benefit from fluting.

There is no attempt at all to make any aspect of this gun pleasing to the eye. And possibly not for the lack of trying. As we’ve entered an era where beauty and aesthetics have no place, and has been replaced in its entirety by function, even to the point of adding “function” where none is needed.

This monstrosity is another product that will take its place, in short order, among the forgotten failures that died of ugliness. If you buy it, you will never have pride of ownership. It will never make anyone envious. If you, or this gun, live long enough to pass it down, it will be sold out of your family to finance new rims - which may give us all some hope that the desire for asthetics isn't completely dead, since new rims would, at least, be pretty. That’s how trivial this thing is.

Speaking about her husband, the late Moms Mabley said "He was so ugly, he hurt my feelings."

I loves me some 10/22 takedown.

This thing is one hell of a sneaker, in need of furious polishing.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
give me a 357 sig version and I'll buy 3.

or a .45 that'd be alright.

^ This.

We both know Ruger won't make a .357 Sig version, but I will bet they will make a .45ACP model. If they do I will be interested.

It reminds me of a conversation my buddies and I had after the hurricane hit Huston. One of my friends was preparing to head down to help some family and we were debating what firearm(s) he should take.

I was of the mind that his pawn store rescued Glock and Marlin 336 were the two least headturning choices. If this had been available I might have recommended it instead of the Marlin.

After all, we don’t always want to look like we're about to be dropped into Tora Bora.

I was in the market for a 9mm Carbine a few months back. I really wanted an M1 Carbine in 9mm, but since nobody makes a good one, I was looking at the PC9. The prices on those are ridiculous, and they're impossible to find, so I ended up taking advantage of some deals that PSA was running and building a 9mm AR. If this had been available then, I probably would have bought one.

It is ugly as sin, but I like that it takes Glock mags, and the takedown feature is kinda cool, I guess. I'd rather see them re-release the PC9, though...if they do that, I may just have to buy one to keep my 9mm AR company.

I keep hearing and reading about how ugly this weapon is. And it isn't that bad. And I doubt all of those posting about it are some type of Adonis. Something I read in a book years back: Form follows function. That's about right.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I was looking at the PC9. The prices on those are ridiculous, and they're impossible to find,

With the release of this new thang from Ruger, I'll bet you'll find more PC-9s in the marketplace, with lower prices.

Some folks will want the latest, especially if it has a takedown feature. Me, I'll stick to the old design.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
I wish they would offer a non-takedown version that's laid out more like the old PC9, with the rear ghost ring on the receiver.

Consider how much less a non-takedown version would cost to produce.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Here's a link to the manual, complete with detailed breakdown with photos showing the "dead blow weight" in the bolt (which some had questioned earlier in the thread):

Details gleaned from the manual:

- It does hold the bolt open on the last round.
- Mag well swap only requires taking down the rifle, loosening two bolts to release the receiver, lifting out the current mag well, and dropping in the new one
- Ambi (swappable) charging handle, but only ejects out the right side
- Ambi (swappable) magazine release
- 1/2-28 muzzle threading
- Adjustable length of pull; comes with three 0.5" butt spacers
- +P ammo compatible


I wish they would offer a non-takedown version that's laid out more like the old PC9, with the rear ghost ring on the receiver.




Still, with the addition of a better aftermarket peep sight at the rear of the rail, as well as a nicer aftermarket stock, I could see this being a real winner.

As usual, I agree.

I had a Marlin Camp Carbine, a sordid abortion and lame excuse of a gun if there ever was one, but it went bang just enough to sell me on the fun factor of a 9mm Carbine.

A 9mm carbine takes some getting used to, notably in how pathetic is its performance past 50 yards. But they sure are fun, and with cast lead bullets, almost free to shoot.

I wish they made it for SIG 320 mags. Maybe with GI adoption they will? I have a pile of 21 shotters that would be great for this little thing.

I like the idea Ruger has ginned up here, but I'm not sure why they went in for a takedown. Sure, it's handy and for the odd camper that might want to bring the thing along seems a decent enough idea but what market is there really and truly for a TD 9mm carbine over a fixed and possibly even cheaper version?

Or maybe the design for engineering purposes worked out to be just as cheap as a fixed version and the "marketing" was just Madison Avenue covering for a fabrication advantage?

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
I'm not sure why they went in for a takedown.

As with countless other examples, it’s the idea of the thing, not its practical value that counts.

Look at all the people who bought (and buy) takedown 10/22 rifles. Did/does every one of those purchasers have a true, legitimate reason to have a rifle that can be broken in half for carry and storage? I strongly doubt it, especially if we ask if the reason was important enough to overcome the disadvantages of a takedown design.

When the takedown 10/22 appeared I posted a question about the effect on zero of mounting a scope on the receiver or splitting the irons between receiver and barrel. The responses I’ve seen have all been suspiciously vague: “Mine holds a zero fine,” without providing any hard detail. I don’t have any use for a pistol cartridge rifle at this stage of my life, but if I did, I’d want one that had the proper iron sights setup with one at the muzzle and one at the back of the receiver. If, however, I just had to have a takedown, then I’d accept the shorter sight radius of putting them both on the barrel.

Be a nice middle ground for my son. He’s getting a little bored with .22, and occasionally gets tired of the blast of an AR after a long session. I’ll find a use for it when he’s not shooting it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
I'm not sure why they went in for a takedown.

As with countless other examples, it’s the idea of the thing, not its practical value that counts.

Look at all the people who bought (and buy) takedown 10/22 rifles. Did/does every one of those purchasers have a true, legitimate reason to have a rifle that can be broken in half for carry and storage? I strongly doubt it, especially if we ask if the reason was important enough to overcome the disadvantages of a takedown design.

When the takedown 10/22 appeared I posted a question about the effect on zero of mounting a scope on the receiver or splitting the irons between receiver and barrel. The responses I’ve seen have all been suspiciously vague: “Mine holds a zero fine,” without providing any hard detail. I don’t have any use for a pistol cartridge rifle at this stage of my life, but if I did, I’d want one that had the proper iron sights setup with one at the muzzle and one at the back of the receiver. If, however, I just had to have a takedown, then I’d accept the shorter sight radius of putting them both on the barrel.

That's a great bunch of points.

And most all of us already have breakdown .22's...AR15's that easily separate into parts. Yet how many of us every pack them around in 2 pieces?

Yeah, it's the "idea".

It must be too much to ask for a decent looking 9mm carbine. I enjoy shooting them, but I consider the current lot from Beretta, Kel-Tec, CZ, etc., ugly as hell. Not really interested in another AR. Mec-tec is interesting but there's the whole break down your pistol concept to use. I haven't found one yet to move my cash.

quote:

Originally posted by ScooterX:
It must be too much to ask for a decent looking 9mm carbine. ...I haven't found one yet to move my cash.

Not a carbine, but I think it's sexy AF.
Want to move some cash? It's take some!


get url photo upload

I think its great that Ruger is trying to bring back the PC9....just wish it was the PC9. I have no need for a take down 9mm carbine.

It is less useful as a backpack gun (IMHO) than the TD10/22 and the TD feature necessitates the crappy sight set up.

9mm out of a 16" barrel velocity is not that great...a 357 sig would at least be close to a 357 mag levergun....
levergun....

A 9mm in an AR pistol with a 8-10" barrel would be more useful...again IMHO

But all that said.....its a start, lets see what this evolves into.....

And IF Ruger is listening.....please give us one in 10mm