Ruger Charger Takedown vs non-Takedown

[TruthTellers]

Tim from Military Arms Channel on Youtube recently came out with an adapter to fit a Sig brace onto a Ruger Charger. I've always eyed the Charger as a future SBR candidate, so the news of a tool that attaches a Sig brace to the Charger put a smile on my face.

That and the Q Erector .22 LR suppressor that you can vary the length with has made me, needless to say, dig the Charger now.

BUT my dilemma now is whether to get the takedown or non-takedown model.

When I was looking at 10/22's, I figured that getting the takedown model made the most sense as the internally suppressed barrel Ruger makes can only be used with the takedown and the 16 inch barrel and stock makes the rifle quite long, thus being able to take the barrel off makes it more compact and easy to store/carry.

The Charger is small, 10 inch barrel and the Sig brace comes off easy, so even if it's not a takedown, it's still pretty small and I don't really see why I'd want an integrally suppressed barrel for the Charger given the Q Erector suppressor I mentioned above is super light weight and variable length and I don't think Ruger will be offering an internally suppressed barrel for the Charger as I figure it would be shorter than 16 inches and would be a legal issue if people put it on their 10/22.

My fellow Americans who own a Ruger Charger, what are your thoughts? Did you buy a Charger and afterwards wished you had gotten the takedown model instead or vice versa?

 

[Kevin_NH]

Charger barrel is interchangeable with the 10/22 TD

BUT my dilemma now is whether to get the takedown or non-takedown model...Did you buy a Charger and afterwards wished you had gotten the takedown model instead or vice versa?

vice-versa; I have the TD, still somewhat want the non-takedown.

If you plan on shooting for accuracy, go with the non-takedown model. Being that the scope isn't mounted to the barrel side of the takedown, so you'd need to re-zero every time you re-assemble the pistol unless you spend $$$ for a Tac-Hammer 9" Charger barrel with integrated optics rail.

I don't think Ruger will be offering an internally suppressed barrel for the Charger as I figure it would be shorter than 16 inches and would be a legal issue if people put it on their 10/22.

If this was a concern for Ruger, they wouldn't have made the Charger barrel interchangeable with the 10/22 takedown rifle. But they did, so if they see a market for integrally suppressed short barrels, I don't see why they wouldn't make that product.

OTOH, the SILENT-SR® ISB has 10.6" of threaded barrel, about the same as the Charger's barrel.

 

[TruthTellers]

OTOH, the SILENT-SR® ISB has 10.6" of threaded barrel, about the same as the Charger's barrel.

And the Q Erector suppressor is variable in length, from 1.75 to 7.6 inches. With the Charger and that suppressor, I could have a barrel that is shorter than the 10/22 with the Silent SR ISB and lighter too.

Well, I'm definitely leaning towards the non-takedown as it's roughly $80 cheaper than the takedown.

 

[Kevin_NH]

And the Q Erector suppressor is variable in length, from 1.75 to 7.6 inches. With the Charger and that suppressor, I could have a barrel that is shorter than the 10/22 with the Silent SR ISB and lighter too..

But not quieter; as the Q Erector website points outs, a shorter barrel needs a longer suppressor to be hearing safe.

 

[Stape]

I have the take down and wish I had the the standard. The whole take down business doesn't really offer any advantage for me in any of my applications for the pistol, I'd rather have the standard so I could pimp it out like any other 10/22. It was just too good a deal to pass up when I came across it.