96/44 shooting very low UPDATE

[mzimmers]

Hi, all -

I posted this to another forum earlier, but I thought I'd see what the experts here had to say.

Today I took a new (to me) rifle to the range. It's a Ruger 96/44 -- for those unfamiliar, it's a lever action carbine for .44 magnum. When I got the gun, the front site had been broken, so I called Ruger and got them to send me a replacement, which I installed yesterday.

I posted a target at 25 yards. I began with six rounds of some soft-shooting target ammo I had left over. First three shots all touched the "X" in the bullseye. Next three weren't quite that good, but close.

Then...I switch to full-house ammo. And, the rounds are hitting about 5-6" low. I move the target to 50 yards, and they're hitting about double that amount (10-12") low.

The rear sight is already in the highest position possible. Just for fun, I moved it to the middle setting, and the shots came out about twice as low. (I aimed for the top of the target, and they barely hit the bottom.)

Comparing the two loads: the target ammo was a much lighter bullet (215 vs. 265), but I checked the estimated velocities, and there is NO WAY that they were moving faster (or even as fast as) the full-house ammo. If anything, the full-house rounds were *considerably* faster. So, this doesn't appear to be a problem of bullet drop.

The sight radius on the gun is 15"; if I did the math right, that means my front sight would have to be 0.20" lower to get the rounds to print in the right area. And again, this is with the rear sight all the way up. There's a small chance that Ruger may have sent me the wrong front sight, but...I don't think they even make one that's enough lower to bring the shots up 12-24".

Can anyone hazard an explanation for this? I'm at a total loss.

Thanks...

 

[hammie]

Well, I'll hazard a guess, and I'm certainly guessing. Maybe the faster "fullhouse" ammunition has a shorter residence time in the barrel, and leaves the barrel sooner, and at a lower point in the recoil arc.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

I just measured the sight on my 96/44. I have the tiny brass bead dovetailed into the front sight barrel band. The top of the sight stands .430" or about 7/16" above the top of the barrel. (that was the easiest way for me to measure it) I have been able to sight-in all 44 magnum loads with it. There is a choice of rear sight blade tops if you flip the blade over. 8) 8)

(edit to clarify the measuring)

...Jimbo

 

[mzimmers]

Hey, guys -

Thanks for the replies. Hammie: I thought about that possibility too, but a very knowledgeable gunsmith told me that generally only applies to handguns. (Don't know why.)

Jimbo: I measured my sight, and tried to take a picture of it. The ruler isn't in the right place for an accurate reading, but I thought I'd include the pic anyway. The center of the gold dot appears to be 17/32" above the barrel.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Wrong sight for sure. 8) 8)

...Jimbo

 

[mzimmers]

Really? Well, that blows. Guess I'll be making another call to Newport on Monday AM. I just hope they make one that's enough shorter to get me into the ballpark.

Maybe I'll take the other sight they sent me (for my autoloader) and put it in. It's a tad lower, but doesn't look enough so to get me zeroed at 50 yards.

 

[mike7mm08]

I did not measure but by looking at your picture that sight appears taller than mine. I am pretty sure you got a sight for the 77/44 which is by appearances taller than the sight on the 96. The part number for the front sight for both the 96/44 and the Deerfield 99/44 is B27501. The sight for the 77/44 is part # J04703.

 

[JFB]

A quick measure mesurement from bottom of base to bead for my 77/44 was about 0.5". For my 99/44 and #3/44 was only 0.4"

 

[mzimmers]

Hmm...mine is just a shade over 1/2". It's starting to look less unlikely that Ruger sent me the wrong one, isn't it?

Even a 1/10" difference is still going to give me no room for adjustment, though. But, I guess it's a start.

 

[mike7mm08]

If the Ruger sight does not give enough adjustment you can use any other sight. All you need to do is measure the dovetail. It is a standard size. Just forget what it is off the top of my head right now. Once you have the dovetail dimension you can order what ever height you want. Williams offers a huge selection of heights and styles of front sights.

http://www.williamsgunsight.com/

 

[mzimmers]

Mike - that's a good point. The factory rear sight is a rather odd choice for this kind of gun, anyway. The dovetail cut for the rear sight appears to be the same size as for the front sight.

I wonder if Ruger makes any alternatives for the rear sight...something else to ask them about tomorrow.

 

[mike7mm08]

If you are looking for nice sight combo check with Williams. I have a couple rifles set up with their peep sights and a fiber optic front bead. Don't know if they offer anything for the 96 though. Another more expensive but extremely nice option is the NECG peep sight. It attaches right to the intergal scope base on the receiver of any Ruger. Easy adjustment and just a very high quality piece of equipment.The peep would be higher than the factory sight it might solve your problem without changing the front sight.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/662895/necg-rear-peep-sight-ruger-style-base-adjustable-steel-blue

 

[mzimmers]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I want a peep sight. I want this for a brush gun. I want to be able to swing it quickly, pick up a target right away and fire.

A red-dot would be a good (though expensive) choice, but I'm hoping to find something in a good iron sight.

 

[Hunter6657]

A peep sight should be quicker on target than a standard open sight. You just look through the peep and put the front bead on the target. You don't have to line up the front sight into the notch of the rear as with the open sights and you don't have to do any alignment with a peep. Your eye automatically centers the bead in the hole.

 

[mzimmers]

Hey, guys...so, Ruger sent me a couple of items: a higher rear sight, and a lower front. I installed the rear this week (managing to ding the otherwise pristine barrel), and tried it this morning. It's perfect at 50 yards.

I do think, though, that I'm going to put a scope on this gun after all. The sights are just too low, especially with my long neck. So: who makes a good base for these things? I'm thinking of putting a red-dot on it, but I'll need to get a rail first.

Also: does anyone know about reassembling the magazines? I took one apart, and can't figure out how much to wind the spring upon reassembly.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

1) The 96/44 receiver comes notched for Ruger rings. They work well. The 1" medium rings will be high enough for most scope applications. They will also hold a red dot. If you want a 30mm scope or dot Ruger has them also.

2) I had a magazine apart once when the little bend at the end of the spring broke. I can't tell you exactly how to wind it but I remember it took me several tries to get the tension just right. You want to end up with enough tension to push the last round up smartly. Duh.

...Jimbo

 

[mike7mm08]

If you go with a red dot you will need a weaver type mount. Nearly all reddots will come with rings that are designed to fit weaver bases. Here is a good one.

http://jackweigand.com/Ruger%20Model%2096.html

My brother used this on his 96/44 very well made mount and it fits perfectly. Unfortunately it has been discontinued. This is similar but I cannot comment on the quality or fit.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/693282/b-square-ruger-to-weaver-style-adapter-weaver-style-scope-base-only-ruger-96-44-77-22-77-44-77-ml-mini-14-ranch-mini-30-matte

As for the magazine never had one a part so I am no help.