close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Ruger XGI

Discussion in 'Ruger' started by Klaus, Apr 5, 2002.

  1. Klaus

    Klaus G&G Newbie

    Does anyone here know the details of the XGI? I know it was an attempt to scale up the Mini-14 to handle the .308. I also know there were major fatigue problems and it was not put into production in .308. I read once that it was rechambered in 7.62x39 and marketed as the Mini Thirty. In another forum, there were posts indicating that the Mini Thirty was NOT the XGI and that the XGI is still under development. Anyone know the facts?
     
  2. Jesse

    Jesse G&G Newbie Forum Contributor

    2,036
    3
    Klaus,
    I spoke to Ruger R&D about a month ago concerning the prototype PC/45 (.45ACP carbine). In the course of conversation the XGI was brought up: "oh yeah, we've got plenty of those..." the R&D tech. told me. Seems that they have several hundred that weren't ever released to the public and are R&D test rifles only. The problem with the XGI... I was told, was the failure to hold a zero. Until they work out all the bugs they will not release it. Only a few ever got out of the factory, (Mr. Ruger's gifts, publication tests, ect.) From what I gather the rifle is akin to the Mini- Thirty but the XGI is more robust, built to handle .308 and .243. I have the 1985 Ruger catolog which shows the XGI and mentions these calibers as options. (1985 was the last catolog which had the Security Six by the way...).
    For your info.: don't expect to see the PC/45 anytime soon. It is in the prototype stages. I personally think it would outsell the PC/9 and the PC/40... in the civilian market.



    Jesse
     

  3. hipowr

    hipowr G&G Newbie

    76
    0
    NE PA
    The version I heard was very close to Jessee's, but with one more detail. Apparently the zero problem was due to Bill Ruger's refusal to use a flash suppressor. The claim was made that for some reason the M14 design is adversely effected by the lack of the suppressor and since a suppressor is non-PC Ruger wouldn't allow it. Just a net-story I head. Can't comment on the truth of it.

    later,
    AJ
     
  4. Klaus, now wait a minute. Here I find you wanting to know things about the XGI, and I thought by the reply to my post that you were a expert on the matter. You said that you were suprized that I knew about the XGI, but did'nt know that it was a Mini-30. Well Klaus, I knew your answer was wrong when you posted it, and I seen you for what you are. You sound good, but you like all of us are not right all the time. Like your reply to my post about Baharain. No it has not been a independent country for 30 years as you claim. Don't want to sound mean or petty 'ol chap but when you're wrong you're wrong. In the words of Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all the time, and all of them some of the time, but you can never fool all the people all the time.
     
  5. I don't know alot about it but I have read that the main problem of the XGI was that the 5th shot was ALWAYS a flier and the retooloing cost would have been to great for our political pirate Bill Ruger to go forward with it. I too hope they come out with a .45 acp version of the PC series rifle but seriously doubt that old man Ruger who refuses to make LEGAL 10 round factory mags for the mini 14/30 really cares if we ever get either the XGI or The PC in .45. Come on with those mags Bill you might accidently make some of us happy for once!:assult:
     
  6. polarisgod

    polarisgod G&G Newbie

    You know, I've always wondered what possesed Ruger to build the XGI. The mini-14 is a scaled down version of an excellent rifle (m-14),which derived its action from the m1 garand. So basically, why build the XGI when you already have the m-14?!!