When Ruger came out with their new PC takedown carbines in 9mm and .40 there was a clamor for one in .45 AARP. Seems a reasonable dream…after all, there are still plenty of Luddites out there who wish they had a .45 carbine to go with their 1911’s. (There was, naturally, an equally clamorous din calling for a 10mm.)
The problem, it seems, is that the envelope of Ruger’s PC carbine in 9/40 can’t really accommodate the .45. But Ruger did have a platform that could – their LC carbine that was being sold in 5.7×28. By using the LC platform Ruger could do the whole rigamorole of M-lok, folding stock, pic rails, threaded barrels, and every other tacticool feature that was missing from the original Camp Carbine.
Since Ruger bought Marlin you could make an argument that this thing is the Marlin Camp Carbine 2.0. Obviously it isn’t…it’s a completely different style of gun although both are simply just blowback .45 cabines.
One huge evolutionary change was dispensing with 1911 magazine compatibility and going to Glock magazines. No doubt this absolutely enraged the 1911 devotees but if eight rounds of .45 is good then 13 must be gooder. One nice feature of the 9/40 PC Carbines was their interchangeable magazine wells. If Ruger had made this .45 carbine with an option to swap out the magazine well for one that could handle 1911 mags they really would have made a bunch of people happy.
Since Ruger owns Marlin I’m sure someone will ask why they just didn’t reintroduce the Camp Carbine. Well, I’m guessing that after thirty years the tooling and equipment was either long gone or not usable. And the Camp Carbine was not without its flaws…most notably a reputation for beating it’s stocks to death. Additionally, Ruger already had a product in the manufacturing pipeline with the LC carbine. Changing the barrel and a few other parts to make it in .45 was, no doubt, more economically viable.
So..I ordered one up. Mostly because I have several police trade-in glock 21s here and I’ve always liked the pistol/carbine combinations. I also have a .45 suppressor here and it seemed like a fun idea.
I had high hopes for this gun because I actually really liked the camp carbines. This gun is…okay.
The Ruger stock is atrocious. After a few rounds it flexed and wobbled like the folder on an underfolder AK. Don’t even try to make it work…just throw it away. The back of the receiver is pic rail so you have all sorts of folder options. What kind? Glad you asked. Lets look at…stock options:
First up is a JMAC stock I pulled off my other JAKL. A simple no-frills stock, it has a couple QD sockets and is rock solid. All of these stocks, actually, were quite an improvement over the factory stock. This style gives the right hand thumb plenty of access to the safety and slide lock. 
Next up is an AR-180-style stock. These were discontinued but were previously available from Midwest Industries and Brownells. When folded, the contour of the stock matches the contour of the right hand thumb as it grips the pistol grip. Surprisingly ergonomic. This stock is the most comfortable of the three and is still rock solid. 
This is a triangle folder, also from JMAC, that I have come to regard as my ‘universal’ stock. This goes on the back of my JAKL, PC Charger, 10/22 Charger, etc. If youre gonna swap stocks between guns, this one goes with everything. 
Although you can, in theory, fire the gun with the stock folded, it makes getting a grip around the left side of the pistol grip difficult.
The safety flips in the right direction at least…down to fire. I am hoping an extended safety is soon available because the factory one is a bit awkward.
Ruger knockoffs of Magpul BUIS were provided but they seemed crowded and too small for a nice fast sight picture. In fact, while Magpul BUIS usually have a large peep and then a flip smaller peep, these sights just have a tiny peep which seems counter-intuitive considering the close-range nature of a .45 ACP carbine. Most people would, I think, agree that a carbine like this is a short range sort of thing so optics might be overkill. I think a set of peeps with a big aperture and post would be a winner.
How’d it shoot? Very well, actually. Accuracy was good although the sights were a bit coarse. The recoil was a bit harsh… straight blowback doesn’t do shootabilty any favors. No hiccups with 230 FMJ. I didn’t have any lighter bullets or hollowpoints to test on this trip, but that’ll be coming up.
Also, this is not a takedown gun…which was one of the major attractions of the Ruger 9/40. I suppose its possible that Ruger will make a takedown version but only time will tell.
Much like the original Camp Carbines there is the question of What Is This Thing Good For? It’s not really powerful enough for hunting*, it’s not accurate enough for varmint shooting, and the ammo is too expensive for plinking….so what is it for?
For me, it’s greatest utility is for a ‘package’ of guns/ammo for stashing somewhere. If I were stashing a pistol-n-carbine combo somewhere I would want as compact a package as possible. While I could stash a Glock and an M4, I would also have to stash two different types of ammo, two different types of magazines, two different types of mag pouches, etc, etc. I absolutely recognize the superiority of a rifle cartridge over a pistol cartridge, but I also recognize that sometimes space and logistics are at a premium. For example, while the 9mm is way underpowered compared to the .223, a takedown Ruger 9mm carbine and a 9mm Glock, with happysticks, fits into a laptop case.
Aesop had low hopes for Ruger’s .45 Carbine and he’s probably getting about 500 words ready to sum up what could be summed up in three words: Told Ya So.
Ruger’s PC Carbine in 9/40 is, in my opinion, a superior platform. The distinct magazine well with interchangeable inserts, the takedown feature, solid barrel mounted peep sights, etc, all make the 9mm or .40 carbine a better choice than this, in my opinion. However, if you are married to the .45 ACP this gun is an addition to the rather limited offerings that are out there.
TL;DR: if you absolutely have to have a .45 PCC this might scratch your itch but it couuld have been done better. If youre someone who isn’t so caliber dogmatic as the Cooper tribe, get the 9mm or .40 caliber version of the PC carbine instead and enjoy the superior features and ergonomics.
* = Yes, I know you can kill a deer with a .45 ACP. You can also kill a deer with a baseball bat. That doesn’t mean its a good idea.
Ruger will keep stepping on their dick on this, until it finally hurts enough to finally get their attention.
Their PC 9 is awesome. It’s the go-to 3AM pounding on the door gun.
But everything I’ve heard and seen, including this review, and all their internal hoopla, means this .45 attempt is an abortion.
Hard pass.
I’d sooner save the money for a neutered Thompson, or just build one on an AR platform.
If Ruger ever gets serious, and just beefs up and upsizes the PC 9 design to be able to handle .45, with a couple of magwell plug-ins for Glock and 1911 mags, they can give a holler. Until then, their tendency for recto-cranial inversion still has not been bred out of their corporate DNA.
The longer they wait, the more that looks like “never in my lifetime”, and the less the problems there can be blamed on long-dead Bill Ruger.
There already was a ,45 ACP Carbine, The Thompson M1927. Yup, heavy, but same idea,
The take down variable intrigues me. Must have been when I read a Clancy style spy novel where the assassin used a Savage Model 99 take down rifle to off some politico in Day of the Jackal fashion.
The only two take downs we have are the Ruger 10/22 SS and a Savage 99 30-30 that is kind of rough but shoots well and wasn’t expensive compared to what they are going for on Gunbroker now. The old 30-30 caliber has been killing moose and men for a long time.
In actual SHTF reality though it’s going to be an M1A and a GP100, the rest of the bunch will have to find a new home I guess.
Think I’d opt for the 10mm. Around here I can’t find one in the few stores that still sell guns. Wal-Mart doesn’t sell anything but muzzleloader. The new guns laws here put all the responsibility for the paperwork on the seller.
Guess my idea of moving to Indiana makes sense. They don’t even require a permit to purchase. And they have Constitutional Carry.
A .45 caliber version of their overgrown 10/22 version takedown carbine would be cool. This thing not quite so much.
Way back when I bought one of Ruger’s Mini-14s with that black plastic folding stock. That was a horrible stock, as far as folding goes, as well. They just don’t get it.
The Samson A-Team folding stock is a thousand times better.
Matt
I’m surprised that you dislike the Ruger LC so much, I don’t have a PC or LC but a fair number of Ruger rifles and pistols and have found no issues with them. For an alternative carbine in .45acp try the JR Carbine, it has interchangeable mag wells for Glock and 1911 and comes in a takedown configuration, threaded barrel and can use many aftermarket AR parts and is very accurate. I have many hundreds of rounds through both the 9mm and .45acp versions with no problems at all. TTFN
I think the 9/40 PC carbine kind of spoiled me in terms of what to expect.
I wonder if the PC in .40 S&W can be engineered for 10mm or if the pressures are too high? I suspect that the mag well may be too small for the longer 10mm cartridge as well. I know the LC carbine mag well would be long enough. Just a thought. TTFN
THe magwells are interchangebale, so I’d imagine they could accommodate the larger mags. 10mm differs from .40 only really in case length and pressure. I know HiPOint made a 10mm carbine but a simple blowback 10mm must have a heck of a spring in it. The .45 ACP is almost certainly a no-go because of the increased rim and body diameter causing ‘margin of error’ issues in terms of having to remove metal to make room for the larger cartridge…but thats a guess. What they should have done is made the design a one-frame-fits-all sort of thing from the very start.
I have a lot of faith in Ruger products and I would love to see a 10mm carbine from them no matter the receiver used. I, too believe in a common ammo for a carbine and pistol and currently own a few. Carbines used within their functional range(100yds Max) can be formidable when facing dangerous opponents. However a rifle, even an itty bitty 5.56, is better to and out past 100yrds. Such is life! JMHO TTFN Phil
I hear what you are saying but I still feel like PCC are a solution looking for a problem.
There are just too many rifles in similar form function (bullpup, folding stock, short barrel with arm brace, etc.) and sharing ammo with pistols just isn’t a concern. Most soldiers carry only a rifle, if they have a pistol they carry maybe one extra magazine. In the scenarios in which you need to carry a long gun regardless of caliber you’ll prioritize mags and ammo for it.
If you want to buy one, buy one but don’t try to justify it meeting a legitimate use case or need.
Most of the people I knew who were in combat told me the handgun was very seldom required, only in two or three cases (all of them VERY NECESSARY). In all cases was inside 20 feet distance. Otherwise – the handguns got in the way and required maintenance to be sure it would work. Maybe a simple DA revolver and a few Bianchi Speed Strips would be enough. If you can match your rifle ammunition, so much the better.
I had to use a pistol twice in my 36yr military career. Both times I was in a vehicle and long gun wouldn’t work and both times presenting the pistol ended the aggression. Remember in most SHTF scenarios you will not be in combat against fully equipped soldiers, just scared people and some bad gangs. So ranges will be close and while not ideal PCCs will get the job done. TTFN