Anyone have experience with a Ruger 96/22?

[oregon73]

Was thinking about getting one. I think they only made them for a few years. This would be the LR version.

I do have a Win 9422 so it's not like I need another lever gun in 22LR. Just saw a 96/22 in a shop the other day and got to thinking....

Thanks,
Rob

[Old Savage]

AJ is the man here. I think they are his favorite.

[Streetstar]

AJ is the man here. I think they are his favorite.

I was about to say the same thing ! He is the man on obscure Rugers

[AJMD429]

"...obscure...???????"

Yep - my Ruger 96/22 is 'my favorite .22 LR levergun', or I should say my youngest daughters favorite - I just had to give her mine after I saw the look of cool and eager satisfaction when at age 8 or 9 she shot mine the first time (it gave me an excuse to buy another one for me, though... )

I've not handled the Win 94/22, but I've handled a Marlin 39a, and although in terms of 'craftsmanship' they are wonderful, when I think of a .22 levergun, I think of something light, handy, and quick, with a short lever throw, and the Ruger 96's are three inches shorter than the Marlin 39A's, and they're a pound and a half lighter . I want something I can put a scope or receiver sight on easily, to take advantage of the .22 LR's inherent accuracy, especially in dim woods-light when out for groundhogs or whatnot. I also want something that can be loaded and unloaded very quickly and easily, for the times when you are out woods-walking, and come home with rounds left in the gun (I know to some that would be a sin in itself). I don't care about feeding shorts, because I never use them, but I want perfect feeding with long rifle rounds. I want a one-piece, quickly-removable stock, so I can clean sand and rain and stuff out of the gun after I've been out in real-weather and hard trails. I've also handled a Henry .22 LR, and really think it is 'slick' - but no more so than the Ruger 96/22, and although the look of the Henry is more 'traditional', in terms of the practical needs outlined above, the Ruger truly is better.

The Ruger 96/22 does all that, and there are some other 'plusses' besides - it takes the same regular (and extra-capacity) magazines that the 10/22 and 77/22 does, so having two or three loaded ones in your pocket is no problem. It also has an easily-removed barrel, just like the 10/22, and the only difference is an extra extractor-cut, which you can make with a Dremel and/or hand-file in about five minutes, should you decide you want a special barrel like a 'bull' or target-grade or 'tactical' (threaded) one (my 96/22's are very accurate once I glass-bed them). In addition, you can easily put on an integrally-suppressed barrel, making it even better for rural varmint-hunting, or for a 'newbie' gun to introduce new shooters to shooting without a noisy, flinch-inducing gun. (I know seasoned shooters find the .22 LR anything but distracting, but having started out dozens of 'hesitant' non-shooters of all ages, I can tell you a suppressed .22 LR is WAY better than a 'regular' one for that purpose.)

Plus, you can easily convert a .22 LR to an .17 Mach-2 if you so choose. I didn't do that, but I did buy two .22 WMR's, and in about 10 minutes I converted one of them to .17 HMR with an after-market 10/22 barrel. The magazines are the same for the WMR and HMR, so the only thing needed is the barrel.

Finally, since one of my favorite deer-rifles is my Ruger 96/44, having a 'companion' gun built the same way is a nice option for practice. I like the 4-shot detachable magazine in the .44 Magnum, since that's plenty for a deer-hunt, and it makes loading/unloading easy in the deerstand or when back home, or crossing roads, in/out of vehicles, etc., vs. a tubular magazine.

Downsides of the Ruger 96's...? The 'carbine-style barrel-band' was something they should have left on the 10/22 alone - they were smart enough to remove it from the 77/22, and should have done likewise for the 96/22. You can solve that huge 'problem' by just . . . taking it off. If I really cared about the band and/or shape of the stock all that much, I could fix it in about an hour with a rasp, sander, and can of urethane, but none of the varmints or targets I've shot seem to care, so I haven't bothered. Also, I will admit that the .44 Mag version isn't as accurate as the single-shot Handi-Rifle I once had (3-4 moa vs. 1-2 moa off the bench), but it keeps close to the Marlins and Rossi's I've shot (from 2 to 4 moa). I used it for deer, not competition, so I really don't care. If I wanted to, I might be able to improve it by glass-bedding like the rimfire ones I have (which it has helped tremendously), but I'm more likely to want to hit a golfball-sized target at 75-100 yards with a .17 HMR or .22 LR or .22 WMR, whereas with a .44 Mag I'm content if I can bust a grapefruit at 75-100 yards reliably.

Here's some pictures:

Plain .22 WMR scoped:



Not that bad vs. a Win 88 or Marlin 62, eh...???




.17 HMR, .22 LR, .22 WMR, .44 Mag Ruger 96's:



Quieter than a rubber-band gun, and deadly-accurate:



The last one is the .22 LR one after installing an integrally-suppressed 'Operative' replacement barrel from Thompson Machine (took about 15 minutes, including cutting/filing the extra extractor groove), and putting a blasphemous open holograph sight on it. It's so quiet that literally all you hear is the quiet hit of the internal-hammer on the firing pin, then the bullet's impact downrange. I found that 'open' sights are too hard to use for newbies, and scopes require such precise cheek-weld and placement that they are frustrating for newbies. Peeps have potential if they are ghost-ringed, but of all the sight types, if you want a kid/adult who's never even shot a bb-gun to reliably HIT their target the first time they start shooting, the holographic red-dots are just the ticket. One nice thing about 'newbies' is that they don't wet themselves if they are shown a gun that isn't sufficiently 'traditional', because they don't really know what 'traditional' is. They just shoot the gun, and if they find they can reliably HIT their target, they are far more likely to become future levergunners, than if they are trying to learn on a beautifully-crafted, but hard-to-shoot gun.

Here's the Williams aperture sight on a 96:



More compact than a 77/22:



Love the 96/44, too - can carry several magazines if anticipating a stampede of wild hogs:



The 96/44 is really 'handier' than either my Marlin or my Rossi, too, even with the 10/22 extended buttplate I put on it...

[3leggedturtle]

if its under $300 and in decent shape i'd buy it. barrels are easily changed like the 10/22 and you can even get a 17MACH2 barrel for it. 10/22 mags fit if you want a jungle clip on it. plus its eaily put into action with the clip or unloaded quickly too. BTW where is it at? I hvent seen one under $400 in about 4 years now.

[hfcable]

bought one this year, and really do like it. it points well, and is very accurate. they are hard to find at a reasonable price.

[Streetstar]

"...obscure...???????"

]

obscure might have been a somewhat poor choice of words --- (hey, i like the ruger PC-9 , thats obscure too ) -- the Marlin Express leverguns will be obscure in a few years -- most others are technically obsolete --- (on and on)

But if i must profess my positive feelings about them, -- the action is shorter than a Winchester -- they have clean lines , and , as has already been mentioned , taking 10/22 spec magazines is a big bonus

--- a 96/22 is one of those firearms that, if i ever saw one at a decent price (around $400 ) i'd be strongly tempted to buy it too --- problem is, most i see selling sell for $600 - So for me -- $400 = heck yes, $600 = mmmmm, i'd rather put that cash in an IRA

[oregon73]

Wow, thank you for the input, guys. AJMD429, I am especially appreciative of your treatise on the 96/22. (I never thought of it as 'obscure' so much as 'uncommon' or 'unique'.) I'm very tempted to get the 96/22. I'll let you all know what happens, if anything does....

Rob

[hfcable]

AJMD429, you have an amazing collection of levers there! you have done some neat stuff with your gear! lots of good ideas. i am looking forward to using the 96/22 even more now.

[BenT]

I like my 96/22 also, it's just handy. If its a reasonable price I'd pick it up. I've picked up a 96 /44 lately and haven't really rung it out yet.

[AJMD429]

I sure wish they'd have made some 96's in .480 Ruger...

...or .45 Colt, or .357 Mag, or .32-20, or .44-40, or .22 Hornet, or .218 Bee, or . . .