The Levergun Ruger SHOULD Have Made

[Pete44ru]

The 96/44 International, or full-length mannlicher-style walnut stock, ILO the birch stock they did put on them.

I might have kept mine, if they did.

One of the Ruger Forum members had one so custom stocked (seen below).



.

[bbleverfan]

i love the full lenght stocks

[Blaine]

A different cup 'o tea, fer sure.

[AJMD429]

Even if they just rounded off the 'knob' on the forend and took off the barrel clamp it would help aesthetically. Same for the 10/22's (the accuracy guys take them off anyway most of the time).

I ALSO wish they'd made them in other cartridges (these should be EASY to re-engineer given the rotary magazine):

.357 Mag, .41 Mag, .45 Colt

better yet - .32-20, .44-40

or if the action is as strong as the Savage it resembles (or if it could be made to be), how about lengthening it just a bit:

.454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh, .480 RUGER (of course - in a Ruger), .500 S&W

(no 'not enough metal' in the receiver issues like with the big barrel and tube magazine holes in the Marlins and Pumas...make it out of good steel and I'll bet it would be pretty tough).

and don't forget that 'pointy' rounds could be used, so what about .223 Rem - or even lengthen it for .308 Win...?

(...or the whole "Ultra-short" fat-boy ones, for that matter for the ones who like them.)

The short lever throw, smooth action, and reliability (my Ruger tolerates OAL variations WAY better than my Marlin) make the gun potentially a real winner; mostly the objections are just that it 'looks' funny (IMHO so did the Savage 99's), but better wood and a slimmer and more contoured forend would go a long way to solving that.

Ugly or not - if they came out witn one in the big fat calibers like .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, or .500 S&W, or even .454 Casull, they couldn't keep them on the shelves.

I'd want ones in .223 Rem, .32-20, .357 Mag, .454 Casull, and .500 S&W, myself...

[Jason_W]

Simply having a flat buttstock instead of the crescent would have been a help. In such a light rifle, it made things uncomfortable, IMO.

[J Miller]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the 96-44 or it's cartridge. It's an excellent caliber, nicely suited for the package it's in. No doubt accurate and dependable.
The problem is, many of Ruger's ideas are great, but they drop the ball with the external components. The rifle, action, magazine are great, but the stock sucks. I hate the stocks they put on the 10-22s and 96-22s, 96-44s etc., they are just plain ugly. Probably why I've never owned one. And that stupid butt plate does not fit the concept. It's totally outdated and out of place on that design, as is the barrel band.
That's why they can't sell enough of them to make them profitable. They are using junky stocks that virtually force the buyer to buy something else. Many folks don't want to go to that expense. I don't and won't. And that rifle design does interest me.


JMHO

Joe

[eric65]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the 96-44 or it's cartridge. It's an excellent caliber, nicely suited for the package it's in. No doubt accurate and dependable.
The problem is, many of Ruger's ideas are great, but they drop the ball with the external components. The rifle, action, magazine are great, but the stock sucks. I hate the stocks they put on the 10-22s and 96-22s, 96-44s etc., they are just plain ugly. Probably why I've never owned one. And that stupid butt plate does not fit the concept. It's totally outdated and out of place on that design, as is the barrel band.
That's why they can't sell enough of them to make them profitable. They are using junky stocks that virtually force the buyer to buy something else. Many folks don't want to go to that expense. I don't and won't. And that rifle design does interest me.


JMHO

Joe

Sooo, what you are really saying is you don't like the Ruger?

[J Miller]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the 96-44 or it's cartridge. It's an excellent caliber, nicely suited for the package it's in. No doubt accurate and dependable.
The problem is, many of Ruger's ideas are great, but they drop the ball with the external components. The rifle, action, magazine are great, but the stock sucks. I hate the stocks they put on the 10-22s and 96-22s, 96-44s etc., they are just plain ugly. Probably why I've never owned one. And that stupid butt plate does not fit the concept. It's totally outdated and out of place on that design, as is the barrel band.
That's why they can't sell enough of them to make them profitable. They are using junky stocks that virtually force the buyer to buy something else. Many folks don't want to go to that expense. I don't and won't. And that rifle design does interest me.


JMHO

Joe

Sooo, what you are really saying is you don't like the Ruger?

Nope, what I said is it's a good design except for the stock, which I don't like. Now I've said it twice.

Joe

[Kansas Ed]

I've never owned a Ruger rifle because of the stocks. They just don't fit my frame at all. Most others do OK to Good, but the Rugers are way off. If they would add about 2" LOP to the 1022 I would probably have one.

Ed

[AJMD429]

I've never owned a Ruger rifle because of the stocks. They just don't fit my frame at all. Most others do OK to Good, but the Rugers are way off. If they would add about 2" LOP to the 1022 I would probably have one.
Ed

Yep - I think they hit paydirt with the 10/22 and especially as a 'kid' gun. Later, they came out with fuller stocked ones, and of course the aftermarket has gone crazy with stuff; you can get a varmint-barreled 10/22 on a custom stainless action with a full-size 'sniper' stock if you want!

But they never got to that point with their leverguns.

The sad part is that all the 'engineering' was done and worked well - they could have EASILY had someone sketch out a fuller stock without the barrel band, and offered a 'field' grade birch (I'd have bought that one) and a 'collector' grade walnut.

Now that the demand for leverguns is up, Winchester is sort of in limbo, and Ruger has their fat little .480 cartridge, it seems a no-brainer to spiff up their little carbine for that round, let alone all the other popular ones. The action shooters who don't demand a traditional look would go for them in .357, .32-20, .45, and so on, too.

I say we MARCH on Ruger and set them straight...

[hocbj23]

Re: international (Mannlicher) stock-why would u want to tote all that extra wood and weight around?bj

[Pete44ru]

[Re: international (Mannlicher) stock-why would u want to tote all that extra wood and weight around?bj]

(sigh)......... If I HAVE to tell you, you'll never understand - and if you understand, then I don't have to tell you.

.

[J Miller]

[Re: international (Mannlicher) stock-why would u want to tote all that extra wood and weight around?bj]

(sigh)......... If I HAVE to tell you, you'll never understand - and if you understand, then I don't have to tell you.

.

You know Pete, that's might be just a tad unfair. There just might be one or two folks out there that honestly do not know about the Manlicker type stocks. Now, I just might be one of them too. I've handled a few rifles stocked in that style, but never shot one.

So why does that stock design appeal to you? Just for conversation.

Joe

[Pete44ru]

I can't explain the inexplainable - any more than I could explain why I might prefer one woman, of twin sisters, over the other.

Properly-styled, meaning curved/tapered forend, full-stocked rifles, of almost every kind, have been ringing my chimes since the late 50's.
Yet, full-stocked clubs do absolutely nothing for me - as do figureless, grainless stocks w/o any color contrasting grain, even if they are full-stocks.

Call it: my "taste".

.

[J Miller]

I can't explain the inexplainable - any more than I could explain why I might prefer one woman, of twin sisters, over the other.

Properly-styled, meaning curved/tapered forend, full-stocked rifles, of almost every kind, have been ringing my chimes since the late 50's.
Yet, full-stocked clubs do absolutely nothing for me - as do figureless, grainless stocks w/o any color contrasting grain, even if they are full-stocks.

Call it: my "taste".

.

Pete, that is a perfectly acceptable explanation. You see, you really can explain it. Heck, even I understood.
Really I do. Like why do I prefer the old XR-3 Colt style grips over the newer XR3-RED grips? There is a reason, much of it personal "taste". But sometimes it's just darn hard to put into words.

Joe

[2ndovc]

Just one of those things that you love 'em or hate 'em!




jb

[Old Time Hunter]

Ah! for want of a Mannlicher.......I mean gun stock, guys. The 88 Commish Carbine w/Mannlicher style stock was ever so cool!

[AJMD429]

Ah! for want of a Mannlicher.......I mean gun stock, guys.

Just send me a new keyboard now, ok...?



I'd be afraid the wood would warp and push the muzzle around and mess up accuracy, yet I see European fancy-schmancy guns with that kind of stock that are reportedly tack-drivers. Is it fake 'mystique' or unique barrel bedding techniques?