The Ruger Charger
I know a lot of people are going all googly over Ruger's new 10/22 pistol, but I don't see the point. If you see something out there that needs a little hole in it, then why not punctuate it with a 10/22 rifle? If you want a good 22 caliber pistol, there is the Ruger MKII, or the Browning Buckmark, and neither requires a bipod. If you want a firearm on a bipod, why not chose a rifle? This attenuated rifle is neither a decent rifle, nor a decent pistol. Or am I missing something here?
Labels: .22 Rifles, 22 Caliber Handguns, Ruger, WTF?
posted by Xavier at 10:56 AM
15 Comments:
X:
I'm right there with you on this one! It seems people create things just because they can, not because there's a real need for those things. Heck, you could say that for a lot of guns! I think the late, great Col. Cooper called it (and I'm paraphrasing here) "answering the question that was never asked."
Mike Harbour
Helena, Montana
Ruger's 10/22 pistol makes no sense to me either.
When I followed your link to Ruger's site I found their new LCP .380 auto pocket pistol that does. It just appeared today! MSRP $330.
The buzz on RugerForum.com is that it is a clone of the Kel-Tec P3AT, but probably more reliable. It has a tilting barrel and camblock. It's very small and weighs only 9.4 ounces.
I think the appeal is that it is the closest you can get to an SBR without a tax stamp.
But it looks so cool.
>Ruger LCP
Saw that on THR. Now that looks interesting.
What do I have that I can trade off.....
I think the biggest and overriding reason Ruger made that "pistol" comes down to three words - "Because we can." The same can be said for the folks who are buying it - "Because they can."
It's a rather pointless firearm, but hey... I don't mind if someone has a Chevy SSR, despite the fact that it's rather useless as a truck and isn't a terribly good sports car either. It's their vehicle/their gun.
All it needs is a shoulder stock and a 16in barrel and it would be a fine firearm.
I could see an application in IHMSA competition, but that's about it.
One BIG reason: readily-available magazines of capacities higher than ten measily rounds.
I like my Buckmark, but I'm annoyed to no end by the fact that I must constantly be stopping to refill tiny magazines (which cost around $40 a pop!).
Target practice is target practice, but sometimes I want to plink!
I'm glad they made it. After having a $900 "high end" Ruger 10/22 clone pistol kaboom on me, I hope they take the market for 10/22-style pistols back, at 1/3 the cost.
Who cares what the practicality is? If the whole goofy concept only creates ONE new shooter, it seems worth it to me. Besides, it helps them to sell more magazines.
As you said, it isn't a fullsize 10/22 and it isn't a Mark II. It loses the velocity advantages of a longer barrel and is more unwieldy than a .22 pistol. This being said, I'm going to get one the first chance I get!!!!
slap a butler creek collapsible stock on that puppy and it would be worth something. As a pistol with a bipod, it is worth shat....or rather, it is worth the semi-auto receiver and the 10" barrel.
The reason this is sooooo great is this:
1. I have plenty of 10/22 32 and 25 round mags ... so I do not need to get any mags.
2. Sure the MKII is good, but can u load 32 rounds on a MKII?
3. No I am not in need of a rifle. If I did I would use a 10/22 ( let's keep discussion to .22lr ) or a Marlin.
4. Use w or w/o bipod.
5. Cutsie factor.
6. Accessories are a coming ( well the 10/22 they are a here but )
Just bought one this weekend! If you like to just get out and shoot it is a blast! Plan on carrying it in my Kawasaki Mule as a play plinker and a small game hunter. From a bench it is a heck of a target gun also.Try it, you might like it!
I'm planning on getting one to shoot in the IHMSA rimfire silouette game. Certainly cheaper than an Anschutz and easier to find than TC.
Mike (Oregon)
Post a Comment
<< Home