With both the Deerfield and 44 Carbine being discontinued, I hav written a little comparison to perhaps help buyers select the specific model they want.
This is a comparison of the Ruger Model 99/44 (called Deerfield) with the Ruger 44 Carbine (the original Ruger 44 hunting carbine offered from the 1960s through the mod 1980s). It focuses on the areas of significant differences.
Action:
The Deerfield has an M1 style open bolt system versus the 44 Carbine enclosed bolt/bolt carrier system. Both have a mechanical gas impingement system of operation utilizing a fixed moving piston that imparts motion on an operating rod which cycles the bolt.
Magazine:
The Deerfield has a rotary box type that is removable and limited to 4 cartridges.
The 44 Carbine has an internal tubular style type that is limited to 4 cartridges.
Sights:
A factory aperture on the Deerfield and open sights on 44 Carbine (standard version).
Stock:
The original 44 Carbine had walnut a stock, the Deerfield has the new wonder wood.
My consideration of whether the changes outlined between the 44 Carbine and the Deerfield are improvements or not follows.
Action:
I believe the 44 Carbine kept dirt and snow out of the mechanism more efficiently. However, any sludge or dirt in this action brings it to a quick halt. The Deerfield has an open bolt that is easily cleared of external dirt and sludge. A quick magazine removal and a few action cyclings remove almost all functional impediments. I give the nod to the Deerfield here.
Magazine:
Both styles limit the overall cartridge length; the 44 Carbine by the feed mechanism and the Deerfield by the dimension of the magazine. The Deerfield magazine is virtually trouble free and easy to remove and clear. The 44 Carbine magazine could be quite problematical (mine was, especially in the feed mechanism) and very difficult to clear in the event of a jam.
Sights:
The Deerfield flip up peep wins over the short sight radius open sights of the standard 44 Carbine. The factory peep installed on the 44 Carbine was a winner (I had this on my second 44 Carbine), but this was an option available at significant extra cost.
Stock:
I like real walnut and a decent sealant. The original 44 Carbine wins this hands down. The Deerfield stock is serviceable, but certainly not an area which could not be improved (especially the factory sealant, mine soaked in water like a sponge until I sealed it) upon. Also, the barrel band on the Deerfield leaves a lot to be desired. Mine needs to be tightened so that the swivel does not function if it is to stay on the firearm.
A note on performance:
I had two 44 Carbines. The first was inaccurate but had no functioning problems. The second was as accurate as the Deerfield (2-3 MOA at 100 yards with aperture sights) but never had a properly working magazine feed system (even after a visit to Ruger for repair). It was very sensitive to dirt and required cleaning every 100 rounds or so. The Deerfield has been accurate and flawless in performance.
