Ruger Forum banner
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Discussion starter · #21 ·
New Ruger PC carbine owner here. 2nd time out to the range and I'm still having stovepipes 2-3 times per 10 round magazine and ran about 300 rounds total through it. I understand there may be a break in process, but at what point should I start bending ejectors/buying aftermarket extractors or send it back to ruger? I checked my ejector, there is about a 1mm gap between it and the bottom of the bolt. Hopefully I can get out to the range again soon, as I bought different ammo to try.

Also, I am using glock 19 factory mags.
I haven't had time to try the great suggestions I've gotten in here yet. Thanks again for all the tips. My dad passed away so this will have to wait a little while. He was 100 1/2 and was doing well all along, except for his last week, so he had a hell of a good run. I hope we can all be around so long.
 
Oldfart1, condolences on your dad.

JM309......save yourself some aggravation and buy either an MCarbo or Tandemkross extractor. I bought a new PCC9 standard model last week. Upon initial clean and lube, I inspected the extractor. A visual under a magnifying glass and I could barely see a claw on the Ruger extractor. Wouldn't take much for the empty case to pop free.

MCarbo extractor already installed. I haven't gotten it to the range yet but don't expect any issues. A brisk cycle with an AZoom Snap Cap and the rifle chucks them with authority.

Bepe
 
Oldfart1, condolences on your dad.

JM309......save yourself some aggravation and buy either an MCarbo or Tandemkross extractor. I bought a new PCC9 standard model last week. Upon initial clean and lube, I inspected the extractor. A visual under a magnifying glass and I could barely see a claw on the Ruger extractor. Wouldn't take much for the empty case to pop free.

MCarbo extractor already installed. I haven't gotten it to the range yet but don't expect any issues. A brisk cycle with an AZoom Snap Cap and the rifle chucks them with authority.

Bepe
Thanks for the reply Bepe! M Carbo extractor has been ordered. Crossing my fingers that it solves this issue.
 
I adjust the ejector to ride only a few thousandths off the bolt. Also look close at the extractor for defects. Some from the factory extractors have issues. There are a few vids on how to lightly file the extractor to catch more of rim of the case. The first PPC I bought would stove pipe every so often.

I called Ruger and after talking with them they sent me a new extractor, spring and pin. That stopped all my problems. I’ve also noticed on the other PCC I’ve had after several hundred rounds the extractor starts showing some wear. Then even though Ruger would probably send me a new one I just buy a aftermarket tool steel extractor. I’ve had great luck with those.

But if you don’t feel like troubleshooting it you can always send it back to Ruger. Myself I’ll always try to avoid sending back.
 
I adjust the ejector to ride only a few thousandths off the bolt. Also look close at the extractor for defects. Some from the factory extractors have issues. There are a few vids on how to lightly file the extractor to catch more of rim of the case. The first PPC I bought would stove pipe every so often.

I called Ruger and after talking with them they sent me a new extractor, spring and pin. That stopped all my problems. I’ve also noticed on the other PCC I’ve had after several hundred rounds the extractor starts showing some wear. Then even though Ruger would probably send me a new one I just buy a aftermarket tool steel extractor. I’ve had great luck with those.

But if you don’t feel like troubleshooting it you can always send it back to Ruger. Myself I’ll always try to avoid sending back.
I'm the same way. I want to avoid sending it back at all costs. I have the mcarbo extractor on order. for now I filed a deeper hook on stock extractor. Will try at the range soon to see how it goes.
 
As a test... go back to the Ruger magazine well and clip and see if it is still happening. that will remove that as a possible problem.
I am still prone to believe it is ejector.. and since you did that... maybe you want to "shape" the back of the bolt head as in previous post with video.
 
^^^^The standard PCC9 I bought new last week had the bottom back of the bolt already chamfered from the Factory. I tore down for initial clean and lube and was prepared to make the modification on that area. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered it had been done by Ruger. I don't know when the time frame was when this was incorporated.

Bepe
 
^^^^The standard PCC9 I bought new last week had the bottom back of the bolt already chamfered from the Factory. I tore down for initial clean and lube and was prepared to make the modification on that area. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered it had been done by Ruger. I don't know when the time frame was when this was incorporated.

Bepe
I noticed that too, My bolt head doesn't have an aggressive lip like the guys drawing in the video. It has a chamfer and the removeable bolt head sits even with the rest of the bolt.
 
Discussion starter · #30 ·
I’ve had my latest PC Carbine approximately 2 years and it also had the bolt chamfer and bolt head level with the bolt.
When I pulled mine today it looks as you just described. I'm going to try it with the Ruger mags and also take a close look at the position of the ejector. I already have the TK extractor and that looks good. Thanks for all this feedback and help. (y)
 
I know in your OP you listed the ammo that was having problems. I know my first two PCC9's hated 147 grain ammo. I never had any stove pipes with the 147 but report was off. Ejection was off. And recoil changed drastically. I only ran the 147 a couple of times and then stopped.

I never had any issues with the Blazer Brass 115 or any Winchester or Federal in either 124 or 115.

On the initail clean and lube for my new PCC9 I inspected the position of the ejector in relation to the bolt. Very close to it with a sliver of air space.

I'd take a good look at that. Then maybe a swap to the Ruger mag well. If the problem ceases than you can make an assumption that the Glock mag well is the culprit.

Bepe
 
Discussion starter · #32 ·
I know in your OP you listed the ammo that was having problems. I know my first two PCC9's hated 147 grain ammo. I never had any stove pipes with the 147 but report was off. Ejection was off. And recoil changed drastically. I only ran the 147 a couple of times and then stopped.

I never had any issues with the Blazer Brass 115 or any Winchester or Federal in either 124 or 115.

On the initail clean and lube for my new PCC9 I inspected the position of the ejector in relation to the bolt. Very close to it with a sliver of air space.

I'd take a good look at that. Then maybe a swap to the Ruger mag well. If the problem ceases than you can make an assumption that the Glock mag well is the culprit.

Bepe
Hopefully I'll have time to go try it with the Ruger mag today. I was looking closely while it was apart at the ejector clearances. The ejector clearance with the Glock insert is probably 3-4 times larger than what the Ruger insert is.
 
I know in your OP you listed the ammo that was having problems. I know my first two PCC9's hated 147 grain ammo. I never had any stove pipes with the 147 but report was off. Ejection was off. And recoil changed drastically. I only ran the 147 a couple of times and then stopped.
I'll bet the reason 147gr ammo doesn't do well in the PCC 9 is because the charge has to be reduced enough to compensate for the pressure increase a heavier projectile creates on top of the charge normally used for a 115 or 124gr projectile. With the PCC's longer barrel, the reduced charge for a 147gr round probably burns out before the projectile leaves the barrel, resulting in less overall pressure in the barrel. That might account for the odd report and inconsistent functioning.
 
I'll bet the reason 147gr ammo doesn't do well in the PCC 9 is because the charge has to be reduced enough to compensate for the pressure increase a heavier projectile creates on top of the charge normally used for a 115 or 124gr projectile. With the PCC's longer barrel, the reduced charge for a 147gr round probably burns out before the projectile leaves the barrel, resulting in less overall pressure in the barrel. That might account for the odd report and inconsistent functioning.
Yes. It does not produce enough instant recoil to operate the action reliably. At least in mine. Mine IS froglubed only. I do not add any oil except a swap down a clean barrel .
I hate being a broken record, but if a person cleans a new pcc thoroughly, and relubes with some product per instructions, I think it makes a world of difference.
 
Yes. It does not produce enough instant recoil to operate the action reliably. At keast in mine. Mine IS froglubed only. I do not add any oil except a swap down a clean barrel .
I hate being a broken record, but if a person cleans a new pcc thoroughly, and relubes with some product per instructions, I think it makes a world of difference.
Frog Lube is what I use. It's very effective if used according to the instructions. I even use it for my black powder weapons.

Keeping a new weapon slick is the key to better functioning during the break-in process.
 
The amount of crud in a new Ruger firearm is major. No gripe against Ruger, just the way it is. I cleaned the American Ranch and then the PCC9 recently. I intended to save a photograph the fouled patches, paper towels and rags that were absolutely rotten. I always get carried away on cleanup and forget.

All new firearms should be given an initial clean and lube. If not addressed, one should not be surprised if issues appear.

And FYI.....the PCC "hating the heavy bullets" is not exclusive to the Ruger PCC. I tried some in the AR9 and it hated them also. I think I fired 5 and tossed in the towel.

Bepe
 
Update:
I'm happy to report I made it out to the range this morning to test out my adjustments: bending ejector up so it hits more of the case and filing a deeper hook in the extractor. Casings were being ejected pretty consistently and with authority. I did about 100 rounds with no stovepiping. Was shooting Blazer 115 and S&B 124. First time with this ruger that I didn't leave the range frustrated with all the malfunctions. I don't want to jinx myself and say I'm out of the woods yet, but at least I got to enjoy my new ruger for the first time :D

Thanks for all the advice, guys!
 
I ask buyers of the magwells to lock the bolt back before they join action and the chassis. Ruger's manual does not require that, and for a good reason: once the bolt is locked back, it's very easy to lose a pin. However, I found that users sometimes manage to catch the tip of ejector on the stripper rail area of the bolt, and then they crush the ejector down, using the chassis and the action like a vise. Having the bolt back prevents this.

The annoying part is, shells can continue ejecting upon the "spine" of the busted ejector, it's just not reliable and leads to stovepipes. So it can lead down the rabbit hole of changing extractors and springs.
 
Discussion starter · #39 ·
I got to test my gun today with the Ruger mags. It ran perfect to about 130 rounds. I was all excited and thinking finally, what an easy solution this was! In the last 20 rounds I got 2 of the exact same stovepipe malfunctions, like I posted the pic of in my first post. Obviously, something is heat related with the issue. I'm guessing this is how it got a clean bill of health from Ruger when I sent it back. They probably ran a dozen rounds through it and decided it functioned perfectly. :( I'll have to call Ruger tomorrow and see what they say.
 
I got to test my gun today with the Ruger mags. It ran perfect to about 130 rounds. I was all excited and thinking finally, what an easy solution this was! In the last 20 rounds I got 2 of the exact same stovepipe malfunctions, like I posted the pic of in my first post. Obviously, something is heat related with the issue. I'm guessing this is how it got a clean bill of health from Ruger when I sent it back. They probably ran a dozen rounds through it and decided it functioned perfectly. :( I'll have to call Ruger tomorrow and see what they say.
I am not trying to argue, challenge, or defend anything...
But couldn't it also be carbon? Blowbacks are dirty by nature. Using oil, or grease holds the carbon. Depending on what is causing the stove pipes, it is just as possible carbon is gumming it up as heat is.
Mine I use froglube on. This junk really lets you just wipe fresh carbon off. Or it falls off. With traditional oils, the carbon rides around on the action and gathers where the oil pools. Just food for thought. Hope you get it solved!
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top