quote:

Originally posted by dusty3030:

quote:

Originally posted by Batty67:
Done the whole PCC thing. I had a Marlin Camp 45 (filthiest gun I ever shot) and a Ruger PC4. The latter was built like a tank, but weighted the part.

Why won't Ruger make a Ruger 10mm carbine, or a caliber that, you know, actually gains a LOT from the increased barrel length? I believe the answer is the straight blow-back design requires an increasingly massive bolt and receiver, hence the weight.

While we're dreaming it isn't reinventing the wheel for them. The original Ruger .44 mag. carbine was gas operated, so a gas operated 10mm carbine about this size that took Glock 20 mags would make me moist/randy/tingly etc.

Yep. I'd be all over that.

It certainly looks very disjointed and cheap so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a leaked photo of a prototype.

Also, I'd prefer if it wasn't a takedown. I don't have any experience to support this but I'd have little confidence in consistent zero with a scope or red dot mounted on the receiver.

While I applaud the effort, that is one FUGLY gun. It makes a Savage look on par with a Benelli Legacy.

Eliminate the ramped rear sight and replace it with a peep on the rear of the receiver. Too much plastic for my liking and I shoot Glocks mainly. It's a very clunky looking carbine, needs lots of refinements.

I think they are mistaking the value of the PC9's for a mass market want for these things. Fake News!

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
I think they are mistaking the value of the PC9's for a mass market want for these things. Fake News!

I disagree heartily. If it only took Ruger mags, I would agree. But for 15 years everyone has been screaming from the rooftops for a Glock mag carbine. Yes there are a few AR platform guns that take Glock mags, but they are often very expensive, or clunky, or not reliable, etc.

Assuming it's reliable and gets generally good reviews, this could be a HOT item for Ruger.

I actually prefer the takedown vs a non-takedown as it would be a perfect travel gun or backpack gun companion with the Glock pistols we all already own (amiright?)

And yes, they should look at other calibers. I would love one in 45ACP that takes Glock mags

quote:

Originally posted by jcsabolt2:
Eliminate the ramped rear sight and replace it with a peep on the rear of the receiver.

This. The original PC9 was available with your choice of a barrel notch sight or a receiver peep sight.

Hopefully someone like Tech Sights will come along with a solution.

I just wonder if it shoots straight? As para said it looks cheap. I'd hate to buy it and be as accurate as the Hi-point carbine.

For the love of all that is Holy can we please stop putting recoil pads on everything? Just us mice on a hutch it's a 9mm rifle.

Glock owners complaining about an ugly plastic gun—?

It needs a pistol grip, folding/collapseable stock and a fixed barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Glock owners complaining about an ugly plastic gun—?

My Glocks don't look bent. That things look like it wouldn't even shoot straight.

The style of stock on this Ruger used to be called a “pistol grip” type. Jeff Cooper referred to the AK style as a “saw-handle” stock, and evidently didn’t much care for it. For fast handling and target acquisition I also far prefer this type and only put up with the dangling grip on ARs because there’s no good alternative due to the action design.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That things look like it wouldn't even shoot straight.

Can't disagree with that.

It's up on the Ruger website:

https://ruger.com/products/pcC...pecSheets/19100.html

quote:

Originally posted by BGULL:
It's up on the Ruger website:

Dang. Still ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

quote:

Originally posted by Rolan_Kraps:

quote:

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

It does have a rather "Kel-tec" look about it.

Seems to be for those that drink their own urine.

Because it’s sterile and I like the taste.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

quote:

Originally posted by Rolan_Kraps:

quote:

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

It does have a rather "Kel-tec" look about it.

I’d rather buy the Kel-Tec lol. If this thing had wood instead of synthetic I think it would help for me.

And on the flip side, I like the synthetic as this thing would likely ride around in my truck and get beaten up. It would pain me to beat on wood, but not so the synthetic.

All I wanna know is how much and when can I buy one?

quote:

Originally posted by thunderson:
For the love of all that is Holy can we please stop putting recoil pads on everything? Just us mice on a hutch it's a 9mm rifle.

First thing I noticed too. Seems like a helluva lot of recoil pad for a 9mm carbine. I’ve got Rem. Mdl 700 in .270 with no recoil pad at all. Why would someone think you need a 1/2” of pad for this rifle?

ETA: I note that Roger views the recoil pad as a way to adjust stock length.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
It certainly looks very disjointed and cheap so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a leaked photo of a prototype.

Also, I'd prefer if it wasn't a takedown. I don't have any experience to support this but I'd have little confidence in consistent zero with a scope or red dot mounted on the receiver.

I know the 10/22 takedown sold quite well and have heard of none of these complaints with it.
I can only presume it would carry over.

SRP is $649 per the link above